Interesting opinion piece written by Jayson Lusk and Henry Miller published in the New York Times on Monday. The headline: “We Need G.M.O. Wheat.” Yep. The argument is for the use of more genetically modified organisms to help create crops
Interesting opinion piece written by Jayson Lusk and Henry Miller published in the New York Times on Monday. The headline: “We Need G.M.O. Wheat.”
Yep. The argument is for the use of more genetically modified organisms to help create crops more resistance to insects and herbicides. Perhaps you didn’t know this, but this article notes that there isn’t a single acre of genetically engineered wheat being grown commercially in the United States. Now, some folks might think that’s a good thing. But not surprisingly, there are others with a different point of view. More than 90 percent of the nation’s corn and soybean acres are planted with genetically engineered seed and they want wheat grown that way, too.
Why is that? In a nutshell, here are a few of their main points:
n Without the benefits of the newer molecular techniques of genetic engineering, the nation’s wheat industry will continue to struggle against other commodities that have adopted biotechnology, and against the drought conditions out West. All of this is happening as the planet’s population increases and global wheat demand expands in response.
n Monsanto recently said that it had made significant progress in the development of herbicide-tolerant wheat. It will enable farmers to use more environmentally benign herbicides and could be ready for commercial use in the next few years. But the federal government must first approve it, a process that has become mired in excessive, expensive and unscientific regulation that discriminates against this kind of genetic engineering.
n The scientific consensus is that existing genetically engineered crops are as safe as the non-genetically engineered hybrid plants that are a mainstay of our diet. The government should be encouraging and promoting these technologies.
n New crop varieties that grow under conditions of low moisture or temporary drought could increase yields and lengthen the time farmland is productive. Varieties that grow with lower-quality water have also been developed.
“Given the importance of wheat and the confluence of tightening water supplies, drought, a growing world population and competition from other crops, we need to regain the lost momentum. To do that, we need to acquire more technological ingenuity and to end unscientific, excessive and discriminatory government regulation,” the article concludes.
That last line could be directed at the county of Kauai.
In case you’re wondering about the backgrounds of Lusk and Miller, we note that Lusk is a professor of agricultural economics at Oklahoma State University and the author of “Food Police: A Well-Fed Manifesto About the Politics of Your Plate,” while Miller is a physician and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, is co-author of “The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution.”
If you get a chance, let us know what you think of their case for more GMO wheat. They primarily dismiss concerns regarding health affects of genetically modified organisms. They note that with a growing planet population, genetic engineering is necessary to make crops grow not just strong and safe, but in more challenging conditions, too.
More GMO wheat in the U.S? What do you say?
