Transgenic crops are the need of the hour to feed the rapidly growing population of the world, however, all doubts pertaining to their safety concerns must be cleared before their use. Moreover, there should be a scientific consensus over the use of transgenic plants.

Transgenic crops are the need of the hour to feed the rapidly growing population of the world, however, all doubts pertaining to their safety concerns must be cleared before their use. Moreover, there should be a scientific consensus over the use of transgenic plants.

Of course not. I'm not against it.

First of all it is a new technology which is undergoing a definite developmental process. With all pros and cons it is moving forward. Our job is to accept it first....then to fine tune it ....try to remove the negative points and finally review and validate the things periodically with a view to the overall benefits to humankind.

Our major challenge is to remove the world hunger and arrange food for all. To reach the target we should go with this transgenic technology ...harness the promises.....be close to the destined dreams.....for setting yet another dream target complying to the need of the moment.....with a dynamic momentum all the way.

I sincerely hope that other alternatives, sustainable, can be found. I don’t like transgenic plants.

We are standing in a generation where people are most concern about their health issues..so naturally concerns generally focus on how these transgenics may affect the environment & simultaneously to the consumers. Negative aspects in human health may result from differences in nutritional content, allergic response, or undesired side effects such as toxicity, organ damage, or gene transfer. So, I believe that there must be an alternative to transgenics to feed the increasing population....

If transgenic plants/crops have the potential to feed the ever increasing global population and end world hunger it must be pursued. However, one must conduct long term studies on the health aspects first. Europe has resisted embracing GMOs probably for good reasons. If with enough experimentation and testing it is shown that the adverse effects on health are minimal then one should go for it.

Dear Dr Singh, Dr Solanski Bal, Dr Sharanghi and Dr Vasan thank you for your constructive comments. True we need transgenic plants to cover the food needs of a growing population. True we also have to be concerned about their possible adverse effects on our health, Europe resisted embracing GMOs for one major reason: plants resistant to herbicides had a vast (negative) press coverage...

Behind negligence of GMOs, there are several reasons pertaining to the environment and their effect on human as well as on other organisms. But one thing of big concern is related to GM varieties of different crops having insect(s), disease(s), and/or any other biotic stress.Undoubtedly such varieties might offer immune response against such stresses but at the same time the danger of emergence of super species of pests arises and that too shall be recognizable after decades of use of these varieties. Except this since the thing is related to DNA, no one can judge actual effect of GMOs in a short time, say in few years, since it will take time to be encrypted on DNA of the consumer and change into it accordingly. I thing the issue will not be solved untill and unless people will say that yes we are consuming GMOs since 50-60 years and nothing has been happened. This is the reality.

This is an unnatural way of creation. Other alternatives to be looked into.

Personally I am not in favour of this.

Of course you are right sir. Breeders are already facing problem of lack of genetic variability which may increase by using GM varieties.

Its possible by sustainable methods

In all the areas such as Medical, Engineering, Agriculture etc. that you can name how many new technologies are being used when compared to past. All these new technologies have pros and cons. Science is growing and you should make it for your benefit. Why not make use of GMOs for the benefit of human being and continue to do research to further improve the subject area.

Dear Dr Satyendra, Regardless what we do (use of pesticides, transgenic plants or classical selection of plants) soon or later we will be facing the appearance of new mutants of insects and diseases that are going to eat or infect plants. Facing this reality we will be forced to adopt a combination of different strategies of plant protection and invent new one. That's the "raison d'être" of basic and applied research in this field (and other field as well).

With or without transgenic plants some of the world will always be malnourished while some of the world kill themselves through over consumption- diabetes, obesity, heart disease etc.

We need a change in mindset not technology.

Technology is neither good nor bad but its application can be.

How many of the research dollars going into transgenics are addressing malnourishment and how many aim to increase commodity yields and profitability?

Transgenic plants are just a new portion of the arms race between food plants and those things that reduce their growth (herbivorous pests, moisture shortages, pathogens, etc.) One thing nature has taught us consistently is that a hungry creature tends to find ways to adapt to changes in its environment that reduce its ability to feed. This is not an argument completely for, or against this scientific exploration; it is both for and against their spread.

To say that we cannot feed ourselves without this technology is quite disingenuous. There are many ways we can combat weeds, pests & pathology without transgenic plants. Leaping ahead in an arms race only works until the other side catches up. Then the problem is the same as before, but the expense of weaponry is greater.

To answer the question most directly, I submit a favorite set of topics: agroforestry (food plants in this case, inefficient in terms of sunlight directly upon a few plants, but more efficient in many ways), vermiponics & aquaponics (vast amounts of food efficiently produced in a relatively small physical space with very limited resource waste), silviculture, strip/alley cropping (reducing herbivory & weed stress partly by reducing apparency), outright companion planting & permaculture food forest design (reduced pathology & herbivory at the expense of labor, exceptional options for feeding the poor & for feeding families with minimal ecological impact), oceanic food production in semi-controlled areas (often fenced beneath ocean surface), soil regeneration in preference to artificial soil depletion compensation (petro-fertilizers), better crop/animal selection for land regeneration/sustainment ...

Seaweed production is potentially far more efficient than terrestrial plant production in terms of energy transference since aquatic plants have less need for structural support. Another area of vast improvement is the use of various insect nutrients for human & livestock feeding (mealworms, black soldier fly larva, grasshoppers, ants, termites).

There are many ways in which we can increase food production without resorting to possibly dangerous transgenic plants and their certainly dangerous associated herbicides.

Dear Dr Fisher, It’s true that transgenic plants are just a new portion of the arm race between food plants and their enemies. I should point out: not all plants are associated with the use of dangerous herbicides, moreover the new generation of transgenic plants resistant to insects and diseases are for more sophisticated than their first generation and provide also more safety regarding the “spreading” of transgenes to other plants in nature. As you already mention, in some countries agroforestry is also a very important way to solve the problem of food production and at the same time it provides an efficient soil protection. However have some reserve about seaweeds because some of them are notorious for accumulating pollutants such as heavy metals. Therefore, I think that we should be careful and make a correct choice of the seaweed. Thank you again Dr Fisher for you constructive contribution. Regards

Dear Dr Sole You are not very optimistic. You say that “we need to change in mind set not technology” But how ?

Talking about profitability of transgenics, may be the solution is to develop transgenic plants in non-profit institution such as Universities and State supported Research Stations or some private non-profit Institutions….

I AM optimistic, I think it is easier to change your mindset than to create a transgenic plant that will feed the world.

The problem is, we are ignoring the causes of malnutrition and poverty and looking for quick-fix, band-aid solutions to a complex social problem.

There is a robust answer to your question. The US National Academy did a very thorough report in 2016 on the efficacy of genetic engineering of crops.

https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/17/report/

The answer from that report is Yes. We can indeed nourish an increasing world population without transgenic crops. specifically, the report looked at the rate of increase in yield of the major crops that have been genetically engineered (maize, soy and cotton). They compared the rate of increase in the US before and after introduction of transgenic technology, as well as the rate of increase in the US (with transgenic) and Europe (without transgenic). They found no difference.

That result means that breeding improvements in yield are the same whether one uses transgenic technology or other technologies for crop improvement.

Thank you for your contribution. The PNAS publication may be correct considering the production of crops in the USA and Europe. But how does it look like in Africa and Asia where the kinetics of population is different than in the USA or Europe??

If breeding improvements for yield are the same whether one uses transgenic technology or other technologies for crop improvement, how would the difference in human-population kinetics result in a different conclusion?

Nice question. We should appreciate transgenics for the burgeoning population especially for the developed world. Otherwise, unethical use of pesticides also be there again it is raising health issues. To ensure food and nutritional securities we should adopt transgenics.

Yes we can nourish an increasing world population without them.