Feeding the World - Without GMOs
EWG released a new analysis on Tuesday debunking the myth that genetically engineered crops (often called GMOs) will be crucial to "feeding the world" as the population soars. My report takes a hard look at recent research and concludes that so far, GE crops have done nothing to improve global food security - and there's little reason to think that they will any time soon.
EWG released a new analysis on Tuesday debunking the myth that genetically engineered crops (often called GMOs) will be crucial to "feeding the world" as the population soars. My report takes a hard look at recent research and concludes that so far, GE crops have done nothing to improve global food security - and there's little reason to think that they will any time soon.
The chief causes of global hunger today are poverty and small farmers' lack of access to basic resources such as fertilizers and roads to market. So why do Big Ag and biotech companies keep insisting that the solution to meeting the demand for food is investment in their genetically engineered seeds?
The fact is, there are strategies that take advantage of what we already know about using resources more efficiently that have the proven potential to double food supplies while at the same time reducing agriculture's burden on the environment.
For example, in Africa and other poor regions, farmers often can only afford one-tenth of the fertilizer recommended for their crops. Instead of applying excessive fertilizer on farms in developed countries, as often happens now, it would do far more good to use it on farms in the developing world that need it the most. Better use of fertilizers could increase the production of major cereals by 30 percent, improve the incomes of poorer farmers and reduce the contamination water supplies by nutrient-loaded runoff.
Investing in infrastructure in developing countries would significantly reduce food waste. About a third of the food grown in developing countries is lost due to lack of storage or inability to get it to market. Improving roads, transportation and storage facilities is crucial to reducing waste and increasing the incomes of poor, small farmers.
Given that creating just one genetically engineered crop variety can cost upwards of $130 million, you'd think Big Ag companies would invest in strategies that have been proven to work and less on GMOs that may not even increase crop yields. But what corporations really care about is increasing their profits, not feeding a hungry world.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
EWG released a new analysis on Tuesday debunking the myth that genetically engineered crops (often called GMOs) will be crucial to "feeding the world" as the population soars. My report takes a hard look at recent research and concludes that so far, GE crops have done nothing to improve global food security - and there's little reason to think that they will any time soon.
The chief causes of global hunger today are poverty and small farmers' lack of access to basic resources such as fertilizers and roads to market. So why do Big Ag and biotech companies keep insisting that the solution to meeting the demand for food is investment in their genetically engineered seeds?
The fact is, there are strategies that take advantage of what we already know about using resources more efficiently that have the proven potential to double food supplies while at the same time reducing agriculture's burden on the environment.
For example, in Africa and other poor regions, farmers often can only afford one-tenth of the fertilizer recommended for their crops. Instead of applying excessive fertilizer on farms in developed countries, as often happens now, it would do far more good to use it on farms in the developing world that need it the most. Better use of fertilizers could increase the production of major cereals by 30 percent, improve the incomes of poorer farmers and reduce the contamination water supplies by nutrient-loaded runoff.
Investing in infrastructure in developing countries would significantly reduce food waste. About a third of the food grown in developing countries is lost due to lack of storage or inability to get it to market. Improving roads, transportation and storage facilities is crucial to reducing waste and increasing the incomes of poor, small farmers.
Given that creating just one genetically engineered crop variety can cost upwards of $130 million, you'd think Big Ag companies would invest in strategies that have been proven to work and less on GMOs that may not even increase crop yields. But what corporations really care about is increasing their profits, not feeding a hungry world.
EWG released a new analysis on Tuesday debunking the myth that genetically engineered crops (often called GMOs) will be crucial to "feeding the world" as the population soars. My report takes a hard look at recent research and concludes that so far, GE crops have done nothing to improve global food security - and there's little reason to think that they will any time soon.
The chief causes of global hunger today are poverty and small farmers' lack of access to basic resources such as fertilizers and roads to market. So why do Big Ag and biotech companies keep insisting that the solution to meeting the demand for food is investment in their genetically engineered seeds?
The fact is, there are strategies that take advantage of what we already know about using resources more efficiently that have the proven potential to double food supplies while at the same time reducing agriculture's burden on the environment.
For example, in Africa and other poor regions, farmers often can only afford one-tenth of the fertilizer recommended for their crops. Instead of applying excessive fertilizer on farms in developed countries, as often happens now, it would do far more good to use it on farms in the developing world that need it the most. Better use of fertilizers could increase the production of major cereals by 30 percent, improve the incomes of poorer farmers and reduce the contamination water supplies by nutrient-loaded runoff.
Investing in infrastructure in developing countries would significantly reduce food waste. About a third of the food grown in developing countries is lost due to lack of storage or inability to get it to market. Improving roads, transportation and storage facilities is crucial to reducing waste and increasing the incomes of poor, small farmers.
Given that creating just one genetically engineered crop variety can cost upwards of $130 million, you'd think Big Ag companies would invest in strategies that have been proven to work and less on GMOs that may not even increase crop yields. But what corporations really care about is increasing their profits, not feeding a hungry world.