{"id":1082,"date":"2018-01-18T17:06:54","date_gmt":"2018-01-18T09:06:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.agrinoon.com\/agriculture\/?p=1082"},"modified":"2018-01-18T17:06:54","modified_gmt":"2018-01-18T09:06:54","slug":"produce-enough-food-planet-feed-everyone-need-gmos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.agrinoon.com\/agriculture\/2018\/01\/18\/produce-enough-food-planet-feed-everyone-need-gmos\/","title":{"rendered":"We produce enough food on this planet to feed everyone: So why do we need GMOs?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Keywords: food, GMOs<\/p>\n

Critics and supporters of biotechnology are at odds over whether the world faces a genuine food shortage, and the role that genetically engineered crops could play in addressing future challenges.<\/span>

Many genetic engineering advocates note that the world population is on course to exceed 9 billion by 2050. Most people agree that the rise in the sheer number of people along with the increased caloric demands of the developing world that is becoming more prosperous and more desirous of meat in their diet will stress the global food system. While not a silver bullet, GM foods are a key tool, argue most scientists and many science journalists, in helping to addressing this inevitable crisis.<\/span>

Here is what the Washington Post <\/a><\/em>has editorialized on this issue:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
If GM food becomes an economic nonstarter for growers and food companies, the world\u2019s poorest will pay the highest price. GM crops that flourish in challenging environments without the aid of expensive pesticides or equipment can play an important role in alleviating hunger and food stress in the developing world \u2014 if researchers in developed countries are allowed to continue advancing the field.<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n


Anti-GMO activists vigorously dispute this scenario. They argue, correctly, that there are currently enough calories created to go around: the issue they say, is waste. Distribute food more fairly and efficiently, and the problem goes away. GE crops will help already bloated agri-businesses but not the neediest, they say. Here is what an Environmental Working Group argues in a press release<\/a> entitled “GMOs Won’t Help the World’s Hungry.”<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
The narrative that GMOs will help feed the world … ignores the fact that hunger is mostly the result of poverty. It\u2019s true that about 70 percent of the world\u2019s poor are farmers. And that increasing their crop yields could help improve their lot. But what truly limits their productivity is the lack of basic resources such as fertilizer<\/a> , water and the infrastructure to transport crops to market. …

When it comes to meeting the world\u2019s future demands for food, GMOs are a red herring. They haven\u2019t been shown to improve food security, and they distract from real solutions that can both lift people out of poverty and minimize the environmental impact of food production.<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n


Biotech opponents are factually accurate in their claim that the world produces enough food to feed everyone. According to the United Nations<\/a> and others, hunger that exists today\u2014particularly in industrialized countries\u2014isn\u2019t due to an outright shortage of crops and animals, but distribution, storage, economic and political issues. So the problem could theoretically be solved\u2014if we had a perfect distribution system, which we don’t and may be impossible to achieve.<\/span>

<\/p>\n

So the real issue becomes: How do we produce more food in an environmentally sustainable way?<\/span>

<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Knowing the limitations of farming<\/strong><\/span>

<\/h4>\n

Is there a limit to how much we can farm? Are there lines in the loam beyond which the planet suffers, perhaps permanently? Backers of the idea of \u201cplanetary boundaries\u201d say \u201cyes,\u201d but it\u2019s not like falling off a cliff\u2014not yet.<\/span>

<\/p>\n

Johan Rockstrom is a Swedish environmental scientist who first introduced the idea of planetary boundaries. He\u00a0published <\/a>a paper which argues that agricultural production must be intensified to produce more food. That intensification must also \u201cdeliver climate stabilization, food control, biodiversity enhancement, and so on,\u201d said environmental activist, author, and former GMO opponent Mark Lynas in a review<\/a> of Rockstrom\u2019s paper:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
Sustainable intensification\u2026would put agriculture at the center of a positive transformation rather than simply trying to limit its negative impact while still production sufficient crops to feed humanity.<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n


But what are these limits? Are they scientifically based? And what about the economic, logistical and political issues we see now that probably won\u2019t go away in two decades?<\/span>

Rockstrom introduced the idea of \u201cplanetary boundaries\u201d in 2009. Much of the attention of \u201cplanetary boundary\u201d devotees has focused on climate change. In that case, some real numbers appear (whether their goals will do what they\u2019re supposed to is another topic): Carbon dioxide concentrations should be limited to 350 ppm to curb global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above temperatures 150 years ago.<\/span>

<\/p>\n

Search for sustainability numbers
<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
\"\"<\/span>
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n

Rockstrom, Lynas and others say that agriculture can play a large role in controlling climate change. But other trends, such as those focused on biodiversity, land use, and chemicals, raise questions about the feasibility of planetary boundary goals:<\/span>

<\/p>\n