Study: GMOs are needed to feed the planet in 2050

[Chris F]

So how long will the U.K. hold out? 5, 10 or 20 years?

• A World Resources Institute reportpublished July 17 said urgent changes in the global food system are needed to make sure there is enough food for an estimated 10 billion people by 2050. To reach this goal, the 564-page report said a number of adjustments have to be made, including ramping up the use of genetic modified crops.

Study: GMOs are needed to feed the planet in 2050

A World Resources Institute report said more use of genetic modification will help ensure there is enough food for the estimated population of 10 billion people, but the technology is still controversial with consumers.

www.fooddive.com

 

[kiwi pom]

I suppose it depends. Can the UK concentrate on just feeding its own population or does it want to help feed the rest of the planet? Would it need GMO's just to feed its own people, or should they import food?
Going organic, non GMO or only providing food for local markets certainly looks good (if you can produce enough) but on a global scale its not much good if we have to bulldoze the rain forest to grow enough food for those who live in poorer countries that cant afford to buy a clean green image.

 

[Exfarmer]

The UK is rich enough, not to need to worry about using GMO’s. We will always be able to buy enough food for the forseeable future. It may mean that peple in Sub Saharan Africa will starve, but hey ho who cares about them.
The biggest driver for GMO’s will be the realisation that using them will reduce both chemical usage and side casualties such as beneficial insects

 

[SilliamWhale]

The UK is rich enough, not to need to worry about using GMO’s. We will always be able to buy enough food for the forseeable future. It may mean that peple in Sub Saharan Africa will starve, but hey ho who cares about them.
The biggest driver for GMO’s will be the realisation that using them will reduce both chemical usage and side casualties such as beneficial insects

Are these the same countries growing green beans and flowers for Europe? How much has GM pushed along in the USA beyond RR and Corn Borer resistance? Not that much yet. I'm not against the technology per se but I few other things could help them first rather than locking into pricey GM seeds

 

[Jackov Altraids]

We've been poisoned by DDT and OP's.
We've suffered due to growth promoters, BSE, antibiotic and antihelminthics resistance.
As always, I'm sure many will reap benefits from GMO's, but not farmers.
There will be unintended consequences and it will be the farmers that suffer.

Food production has moved from everybody to the few. Big business is looking to own the genetics and control it all.

 

[Cowabunga]

We've been poisoned by DDT and OP's.
We've suffered due to growth promoters, BSE, antibiotic and antihelminthics resistance.
As always, I'm sure many will reap benefits from GMO's, but not farmers.
There will be unintended consequences and it will be the farmers that suffer.

Food production has moved from everybody to the few. Big business is looking to own the genetics and control it all.

Its not meant to benefit farmers. Increasing production never has been. The benefit is cheaper and more available food for a country's population, without which there would be poverty and hunger and, dare I say it, social unrest if not rebellion.

Increased production is needed primarily for Asia and Africa, where the population is forecast to mainly grow. The question is, how are they going to pay us for their food? They can't. They need to grow their own food and to grow it far cheaper than we in the UK can. So all this nonsense about increasing production to feed the world only creates surpluses that depress western prices, not to the point that it becomes affordable to Africa, but certainly to the point that western farmers are squeezed 'till the pips squeak.

That's if farmers are daft enough to listen to those that say we should produce more. Those that need it can't pay and if we subsidise it for them, their own farmers are ruined.

As to your first few points, people are living longer than ever before and antibiotic resistance and anthelmintic resistance was never a problem in the 19thC because they never existed. People and animals died like flies at a young age instead.

 

[Scribus]

Having read the relevant section of the report I fail to see quite where the authors claim that GMO's are needed to feed the planet. They certainly take the view that research into plant genetics holds great promise and that there is the potential for more rapidly bringing pathogen resistant varieties to market, but they are obviously wary of recommending a blanket policy of GM with everything. They are also very mindful of the risks of GMO's noting that 24 weed species have become resistant to glyphosphate.

 

[Exfarmer]

Having read the relevant section of the report I fail to see quite where the authors claim that GMO's are needed to feed the planet. They certainly take the view that research into plant genetics holds great promise but are obviously wary of recommending a blanket policy of GM with everything. They are also very mindful of the risks of GMO's noting that 24 weed species have become resistant to glyphosphate.

GMO’s will be needed as the general public demand food free of chemicals.
When GM technology first appeared in the 1980’s the organic movement welcomed it with open arms, as the answer to the chemical giants,. however they realised that this would kill their own market, backed up by liberal funds supplied by those companies who did nt have the GM technologies.

 

[Scribus]

GMO’s will be needed as the general public demand food free of chemicals.
When GM technology first appeared in the 1980’s the organic movement welcomed it with open arms, as the answer to the chemical giants,. however they realised that this would kill their own market, backed up by liberal funds supplied by those companies who did nt have the GM technologies.

This report was brought to our notice under the assertion that it claimed -

"GMOs are needed to feed the planet in 2050"

That is patently not the case. The authors take a far less sensationalist view which they sum up thus -

Genetic techniques do not displace conventional breeding but allow for more varied and faster responses to diseases in some cases. (page 191)

If you are unfortunate enough to be one of the starving billions in a less favoured part of the world then I doubt you'll be too fussed over the debate about chemical residues in food stuffs.

 

[Exfarmer]

This report was brought to our notice under the assertion that it claimed -

"GMOs are needed to feed the planet in 2050"

That is patently not the case. The authors take a far less sensationalist view which they sum up thus -

Genetic techniques do not displace conventional breeding but allow for more varied and faster responses to diseases in some cases. (page 191)

If you are unfortunate enough to be one of the starving billions in a less favoured part of the world then I doubt you'll be too fussed over the debate about chemical residues in food stuffs.

@Scribus I dont disagree with you for one minute,see my first post in this thread. However I do believe it has huge advantages and I think it will become essential as wealthy first world consumers, with no knowledge of practicalities of food production , demand the exclusion of pesticides from the food supply chain.

 

[yellow belly]

The uk already uses gm crops and livestock fed gym crops to feed it population but it is all imported

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Its not meant to benefit farmers. Increasing production never has been. The benefit is cheaper and more available food for a country's population, without which there would be poverty and hunger and, dare I say it, social unrest if not rebellion.

Increased production is needed primarily for Asia and Africa, where the population is forecast to mainly grow. The question is, how are they going to pay us for their food? They can't. They need to grow their own food and to grow it far cheaper than we in the UK can. So all this nonsense about increasing production to feed the world only creates surpluses that depress western prices, not to the point that it becomes affordable to Africa, but certainly to the point that western farmers are squeezed 'till the pips squeak.

That's if farmers are daft enough to listen to those that say we should produce more. Those that need it can't pay and if we subsidise it for them, their own farmers are ruined.

As to your first few points, people are living longer than ever before and antibiotic resistance and anthelmintic resistance was never a problem in the 19thC because they never existed. People and animals died like flies at a young age instead.

I agree until your last paragraph.
Look at how professionals advised how farmers should use antibiotics and wormers when they were introduced and then look at the advice today.
Resistance was greatly enhanced, if not created by farmers doing what they were told.
The use of GM just kickstarts the whole merry-go-round again with the huge bio-tec and chemical companies set to make a killing in every sense.

 

[yellow belly]

I agree until your last paragraph.
Look at how professionals advised how farmers should use antibiotics and wormers when they were introduced and then look at the advice today.
Resistance was greatly enhanced, if not created by farmers doing what they were told.
The use of GM just kickstarts the whole merry-go-round again with the huge bio-tec and chemical companies set to make a killing in every sense.

The merry go round has been around since the beginning of time and Charles Darwin called it evolution by natural selection
Resistance to any system of control is the inevitable consequence of that control method
Be it pesticide antibiotic cultivation or ant other weeds and pests develop because they are favoured by the conditions
Wild oats black grass and charlock developed in an organic system many years

Glyphosate resistant weeds are given space to develop some were always in the fields but could not cope with cultivations
Just because resistance will develop it does not mean we should ditch the system
Gm or antibiotics
Most antibiotic resistance develops in hospitals . Improving basic hygiene and hand washing reduces it

 

[Roger Perry]

I think something like 80 countries are already using GM tech, so you guys are somewhat late to the party.

 

[Chris F]

I think something like 80 countries are already using GM tech, so you guys are somewhat late to the party.

Being a island, its something we can take a decision on, much harder on continental Europe. Its the extra couple of billion people in the world by 2050 that are causing the issue in terms of weather you have to have GM. I don;t think we should in the UK, but the loss of actives is going to make them more attractive all the time as yields are lower the more organic you get.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

They seem sure that the population is going to keep on a-rising.... life expectancy, health are going to keep improving in an environment that continues to get more polluted, more toxic, and less diverse?

I want whatever they're on, because all anyone seems to care about is how much rubbish "food" they can grow.

By 2100 there won't be a need, hopefully the planet can shrug off the human race and regenerate with less invasive and arrogant species.

 

[deleted user 837354]

I believe the widespread, near universal, use of genetically modified crop plants will be inevitable; old-fashioned chemical agriculture is both crude and very slow to develop and relies on using large volumes of active ingredients over vast areas of the planet. GM, by contrast, is using genetic traits already present in the plant/animal kingdoms. Look at the positive impact on the environment septoria and BYDV resistant wheat would have- virtually no insecticide or fungicide use needed. And if the bulk of the world is using this kind of technology, then big ag/biotech companies just won't bother to develop new chemicals because the potential sales from them will never recoup the initial investment required.

Best of all, unlike chemicals, GM traits will never persist in the environment- if a trait does not confer any advantage then all it does is hinder the plant itself, meaning they will eventually die out.

 

[Roger Perry]

You are using products now that are produced by GM tech...........cotton for instance, various medical drugs.
Imported corn/soybeans and such, you can make a decision not to allow the growing of crops using GM but you cannot get around the importation of such, its kind of makes a mockery of the whole thing.

 

[deleted user 837354]

You are using products now that are produced by GM tech...........cotton for instance, various medical drugs.
Imported corn/soybeans and such, you can make a decision not to allow the growing of crops using GM but you cannot get around the importation of such, its kind of makes a mockery of the whole thing.

The EU would rather ban the importation of all GM product- again this would protect their European ducks who are afraid of swimming in the big bad world. Trouble is, there likely isn't enough GM free soya or maize in the world to fulfil demand the necessary demand, meaning- at least in the short term- near bedlam in the pork and chicken industries as supplies become scarce or very expensive.

It is all aimed at protectionism, which is all the more ironic because Asia is knocking on the door demanding their kick of the ball and they are giving a lot of European business a big hiding.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Best of all, unlike chemicals, GM traits will never persist in the environment- if a trait does not confer any advantage then all it does is hinder the plant itself, meaning they will eventually die out.

That is wrong and exceptionally naive.
GM traits have been shown to have spread and persist.
To be fair, there should be different 'grades' of GM.
Some simple modifications are the same as would be done in a breeding program but much quicker and efficient. The introduction of genomes etc, from entirely different species or editing of genes is playing god with no real comprehension of possible future implications.
Mental health, obesity and cancer are three of the main issues affecting peoples well-being and are inextricably linked to what we eat. It has only recently been proven that our mental health is directly affected by the bacteria in our gut. We have no real understanding of the processes involved let alone how molecular changes in our food may interact differently.