by Drew Lindenberger, Political Science major

In the midst of a heated debate amongst the American public about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), a shocking trend came to light as part of Pew Center Study about the disparity between the beliefs of the public and the scientific community: while 88 percent of scientists call GMOs and their products safe for consumption, a mere 37 percent of survey respondents from the general population said they felt the same way.

At the heart of the issue, there are numerous disagreements between factions of Americans that disagree on about GM crops. Some issues at the core of disagreement include the safety of GM foods, the ethical business of the companies entrenched in the biotechnology industry, and whether or not products that contain GM materials should be labelled as such for the human consumer. As evidenced by the wide margins of disagreement between the American public and the most informed communities, it appears that on the whole, the U.S. is facing a perception problem; or deeper, a failure of education.

Throughout modern history, the government has made it their business to protect public health through education. Government funded public service announcements have educated the public about drugs and alcohol, tobacco, healthcare and other government services, and more. The fact is, it is the public market’s job to make sure that major issues in the country are at the bare minimum, understood by the public. GM science and biotechnology are no different. The government, including the FDA, the USDA and Congressional appropriations committees have already authorized support for certain GM crop projects. If this is going to be the case going forward, education has to be a priority for public spending, or no debate on the key issues will be efficaciously held.

The lack of education isn’t just on one side or the other, either. Both pro­-GMO populations and anti­GMO populations exhibit a relative misunderstanding of key issues like who benefits from the industries, and potential dangers to both the public and the ecosystem.   abroad, it is imperative the government action cover the knowledge gap.

Pew Study: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public­and­scientists­views­on­science­and­society/

Want to learn more? http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the­gmo­debate­5­things­to­stop­arguing/2014/10/27/e82bbc10­5a3e­11e4­b812­38518ae74c67_story.html

*******
This blog post was an assignment for Societal Issues: Pesticides, Alternatives and the Environment (PLNTPTH 4597). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the class, Department of Plant Pathology or the instructor.

by Darrin Grove, Professional Golf Management major

This semester I have learned a lot about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and also about whether or not they are harmful for humans.  Firstly, a GMO is a genetically modified organism is any organism whose genetic material that has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.

If you Google GMO’s, you can find tons and tons of article claiming that they have the truth about GMO’s.  Many of these are just slander that are backed up by baseless facts that have no credibility.  I happened to find one of these articles (www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs).  The very first point this article tries to make is that GMO’s are unhealthy. In fact, an overwhelming amount of scientists have came out and said that GMO’s are healthy for human use and that there has never been an incident that has been negative to humans involving GMO’s .  The organization that is cited in this article is a non-profit of environmentalists that are trying to change the world.

The truth about GMO’s is that they are very helpful towards humans and since it is new and advanced technology many people are scared of it.  If you do credible research on GMO’s you will find out that articles such as this are just spewing hatred and not telling the truth.

*******
This blog post was an assignment for Societal Issues: Pesticides, Alternatives and the Environment (PLNTPTH 4597). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the class, Department of Plant Pathology or the instructor.

by Ryan Costello, Sustainable Plant Systems major

Did you know that 28% of the world’s agricultural land grows crops that are wasted?

2015 is the Food and Agricultural Organization’s International Year of Soils in which awareness is being raised for the importance of soil health and fertility. One act that you can do to raise awareness today is to start composting! Compost is great source of organic matter and a substance vital for air moisture and nutrient retention. Composting leftover crops or vegetables and adding that compost to the soil can start to make up for the nutrients used to grow the crops or vegetables there in the first place.

Compost improves both physical and chemical, as well as biological, parts of the soil. Physically, the addition of compost can increase moisture retention capacity, reduce risk of erosion, regulate soil temperature, and reduce water evaporation. Chemically, the addition of compost provides macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Compost also adds micronutrients and improves the soil’s cation exchange capacity, allowing for more chemical reactions. Biologically, compost provides a plethora of bacteria and fungi that can transform insoluble materials into nutrient and they can degrade harmful substances in the soil. The main reason compost is important to soil fertility is because it adds carbon to the soil, maintaining biodiversity and micro/macrofauna.

Go out today and give nutrients and fertility back to the soil that has supported you all along!

Source
“Composting: Let’s Give the Soil Something Back.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2015 International Year of Soils, 20 Mar. 2015. Web. 24 Apr. 2015.

*******
This blog post was an assignment for Societal Issues: Pesticides, Alternatives and the Environment (PLNTPTH 4597). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the class, Department of Plant Pathology or the instructor.

by Michael Goard, Sustainable Plant Systems – Landscape Design and Management major

While reading this article about the struggle raisin farmers are having during their extensive trial against an agriculture regulation that is far out of date, I found myself wondering if there would have been a better way for these farmers to change the program that they are against. There is a program that requires that the government be given a percentage of the nation’s raisin crop as part of a plan to stabilize higher prices. When this program was put in place raisins were a chief crop in the nation’s market, but since they have fallen by the wayside, farmers feel that having some of their crop taken without compensation if an unfair government action. While I agree that farmers should be allowed to keep their entire crop for their own market benefit, I also feel the farmers should have talked to someone about changing the program of old, to better suit the raisin farmers of today.

In the past these regulations were necessary for price regulation and the better price was the compensation the government offered, but since the raisin market is much lower, the government should offer either to compensate the farmers with currency or allow them to keep the crop to sell on their own. This could offer a better compromise between government and farmer, where both sides are happy with the outcome.

Read more
> Washington Post

Updated news story (06/2015)
Modern Farmer: Raisin Grower Wins Supreme Court Battle

******
This blog post was an assignment for Societal Issues: Pesticides, Alternatives and the Environment (PLNTPTH 4597). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the class, Department of Plant Pathology or the instructor.