Catherine Price, sociologist, and Nicola Patron, synthetic plant biologist, discuss the promises, dangers and concerns around gene edited and GM crops.
A new biotech regulation allows companies to self-police and decide which crops should be regulated. The new rule is likely to amplify greater distrust of GM crops.
According to current regulations, animals that have been genetically edited, like pigs or cows, are considered drugs. What are the consequences of such rules on American livestock and agriculture?
Predictions suggest that Africa will suffer dramatic losses of crops and productive land as the climate warms. Perhaps adopting GM crops designed to tolerate stress can save the continent from famine.
Synthetic biology is highly promising – but if we don’t get the regulation and engagement right, we risk alienating members of the public, and may even close doors for potentially fruitful research.
Over half the calories humans eat today come from corn, wheat and rice. Raising a greater diversity of types of crops and animals (agrobiodiversity) makes diets healthier and farming more resilient.
Modern agriculture is synonymous with monoculture. That lack of diversity is bad news for plants’ natural immune defenses. Researchers are figuring out how to help plants fend off microbes – without pesticides.
The solutions presented by GM crops are rarely tested against the other options. Take a look at our philosophy of farming and it all starts to make sense.
Since the heyday of retail bans on products containing genetically modified ingredients 15 years ago, the tide has been heading in the other direction.
The GM debate in the developing world encompasses countries with very different priorities. Through the shrill battle of interests, the real agents for change tend to be overlooked.
Over 20 years since GM crops reached the public consciousness, the industry has struggled to get off the ground. Had it played a better hand, it could all have been very different.