From PURDUE UNIVERSITY and the “better living through genetics” department comes this press release that is sure to setup an impossible quandary in the minds of some anti-GMO zealots who also happen to be climate proponents…
Planting GMO crops is an effective way for agriculture to lower its carbon footprint.
Model predicts elimination of GMO crops would cause hike in greenhouse gas emissions
Using a model to assess the economic and environmental value of GMO crops, agricultural economists found that replacing GMO corn, soybeans and cotton with conventionally bred varieties worldwide would cause a 0.27 to 2.2 percent increase in food costs, depending on the region, with poorer countries hit hardest. According to the study, published Oct. 27 in the Journal of Environmental Protection, a ban on GMOs would also trigger negative environmental consequences: The conversion of pastures and forests to cropland – to compensate for conventional crops’ lower productivity – would release substantial amounts of stored carbon to the atmosphere.
Conversely, if countries that already plant GMOs expanded their use of genetically modified crops to match the rate of GMO planting in the United States, global greenhouse gas emissions would fall by the equivalent of 0.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide and would allow 0.8 million hectares of cropland (about 2 million acres) to return to forests and pastures.
“Some of the same groups that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also want to ban GMOs. But you can’t have it both ways,” said Wally Tyner, the James and Lois Ackerman Professor of Agricultural Economics. “Planting GMO crops is an effective way for agriculture to lower its carbon footprint.”
GMOs have been a source of contention in the United States and abroad, as some believe genetically modified crops pose potential risks to human health and the environment. Three U.S. regulatory agencies – the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency – have deemed GMO foods safe to eat, and the United States is the global leader in planting GMO crops and developing agricultural biotechnology.
But in many European and Asian countries, consumer and economic concerns have led to strict regulations on GMO crops, with partial or full bans on their cultivation.
Tyner and fellow researchers Farzad Taheripour, research associate professor of agricultural economics, and then-master’s student Harry Mahaffey used an extension of the Purdue-developed Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP-BIO) model to investigate two hypothetical scenarios: “What economic and environmental effects would a global ban on GMO corn, soybeans and cotton have?” and “What would be the additional impact if global GMO adoption caught up to the U.S. and then a ban were implemented?”
The model is set to 2011 crop prices, yields and growing conditions and encompasses the ripple effects of how a change in one sector impacts other sectors.
GTAP-BIO predicted a modest and region-specific rise in overall food costs under a global GMO ban, a result of the lower productivity of non-GMO crops. Tyner said people in poorer regions would be most burdened by the price increase, as they spend about 70 percent of their income on food, compared with about 10 percent in the U.S.
Countries that export crops would gain economically by the increase in food prices, while countries that import crops would suffer. As a result, the U.S., despite being the biggest planter of GMO crops, would profit under a GMO ban because of its strength as a crop producer and exporter. China, a major crop importer, would suffer a welfare loss – a measure of economic wellbeing – of $3.63 billion.
“The U.S. is the largest agricultural exporter, so if the price of agricultural products goes up, we benefit,” Tyner said.
Banning GMO crops would also lead to an increase in global cropland of 3.1 million hectares (about 7.7 million acres), as land would be cleared to compensate for the lower yields of conventional crops. Converting forests and pastures into farmland is an environmentally-costly process that releases carbon stored in plants and soil, and this expansion of cropland would add the equivalent of 0.92 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Tyner said the economic consequences of a GMO ban came as no surprise to him and his co-authors, but the toll such a ban would have on the environment was an eye-opener – and a component that is notably missing from global discussion of GMOs.
“It’s quite fine for people to be concerned about GMOs – there’s no scientific basis to those concerns, but that’s their right,” he said. “But the adverse impact on greenhouse gases without GMOs is something that is not widely known. It is important that this element enter into the public conversation.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“They are taking down your kids too with the forced vaccinations. Already here in CA.”
This moron does not seem to understand how kids are taken down by polio or whopping cough.
While at Purdue, one of the kids had an adverse reaction and was therefore at risk to getting whopping cough. Later we lived in California as the anti-vaccine crowd was growing more shrill. Fortunately at the time, there was not enough children not being vaccinated to cause an epidemic.
Having lived in both Indiana and California, there is a certain population of anti-science nut cases. In California, they want to give your children pot because getting high is not a side affect.
My goodness I can barely follow what you are saying your text is so meandering and confused. I can tell you were sadly brain damaged by the poison vaccine hoax. My favorite part had to be “Fortunately at the time, there was not enough children not being vaccinated to cause an epidemic.” Classic.
Watch as your fake world starts tumbling down around you soon as the rest of the public awakens to this giant fraud.
To try to keep this on topic, glyphosate causes cancer – I don’t know where you live but where I am the system is installing new chemo centers everywhere.
One such study, published in 2008 by Swedish researchers, found that exposure to glyphosate tripled the risk of a subtype of non-Hodgkin called small lymphocytic lymphoma.
http://www.ecowatch.com/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer-1891129191.html
Big M,
You should probably put your tin foil hat on and retreat to your bunker’s command center.
Big M really has no idea what diseases vaccines prevent and how said disease kill and damage children. The only cure is a trip to a third world country where vaccines are nonexistent. It should be a 10 year stay so he gets the full impact, assuming one of the disease there don’t kill him.
“Tripled the risk” is statistical talk for “get my study published”. Risk factors are just that—risk factors. People get cancer with NO risk factors. Organic vegans die of breast cancer. Triple the risk only means that in that particular study, there were three times the number of cases of small lymphocytic lymphoma in those exposed to glyphosate as those not (where did they get people not exposed? I thought this stuff was everywhere and killing us all). Results do not extrapolate beyond that population. Other factors are obviously involved but none identified. That’s the failing of these studies. Why did some who were exposed NOT get the lymphoma? Where there other factors common in those who did that could also account for this? If the study were repeated, would the results be close? Are there many other studies?
Living is a risk factor for cancer. Think about it.
Small lymphatic lymphoma data from 1987-2004 reveals a common age & gender related mutagenic pattern. It seems hard to blame glyphosate or it’s metabolite aminophosphonic acid for this sexist pattern
USA cases diagnosed in that period were 5,046 for adults over 55 years old & 798 cases diagnosed for those under 55. Men were 1.67 times greater represented in the statistic than women & whites were more likely to be diagnosed with small lymphatic lymphoma than blacks, with asian/ pacific islanders even less likely than blacks to be diagnosed with it.
Data of cases by agd as per Fig .3 from (2007) “Chronic lymphocyte leukemis & small lymphocytic lymphoma: overview of the descriptive epidemiology”, originally published in British Journal of Haemotology, Vol. 139(5); free full text is available on-line.
Then there’s the GMO rice that slashes the amount of methane chugged out by the zillions of tiny chiminies. It won’t get any traction until, and if, they can breed out any vestige of its barley parentage.
They’re perfectly happy to throw out the babies with the bathwater.
This is but one of the ways that these folks have boxed themselves in. Eventually they will eat themselves because they can’t possibly agree on everything.
GMO vs non GMO
Nuclear, Yes vs No
Fracking, Yes vs No
Renewables, Intermittent: Yes vs No
Data Manipulation: Yes vs No
Divergence: Yes vs no
Observations: Yes vs No
Economic Policy Impact: Good vs Bad
Each of these topics, and likely more, cut at the core issue of AGW and each one will cause a small number of people to split from the herd. These folks do not like people that split from the herd and as soon as you do, people pounce. They are a bit like fanatics. If you are not a strong enough believer, you are in big trouble. Eventually they will eat themselves. The question is will that happen before or after too many damaging policies have been implemented.
I heard someone’s podcast, he said that there will never be a day in all of humanity when the nannies of the nanny state will stop, look around and say, “There, we’re done. We fixed everything.”
No matter what.
When Progressive issues collide. Ironically, neither one is worth spending even another second on. We’ve got competing Emperor’s walking a$$ naked down the street.
You wonder why ANY crowd would follow either one of them.
I wonder how many of the critics of GE crops have read the European Academies Science Advisory Council 2013 report “Planting the Future”
“There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding. There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.”
Why would they have to convert forest land to crop land. We grow too much corn today. Stop growing corn and whatever other useless crops out there and use that land for ” less productive crops” As a person who has experienced cancer in my family I welcome GMO bans
Green heads to explode, Trump is going to win the presidency!!!
America has spoken. Suck it global warming, common core, pro GMO dirtbags. We are coming for you in a big way. Jail time fraudsters. This includes you NWO shills populating all these forums. Jail time.
They seem to assume that we would not plant non gmo crops instead. Heck I could plant a tree and do more than most greens will do their entire lives for the removal of co2 from our atmosphere:P Meanwhile they are paving the world for their bird slaughtering feel good power. I wonder will they rehabilitate the areas they destroy?