Danelle Zellmer (“GMOs will be the future of agriculture,” Wednesday) presents a scattered and incoherent definition and defense of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The issue of genetically modified organisms, like many agricultural issues, is extremely complex and difficult to approach within the space given to Zellmer.

However, her columns consistently fail to inform the uniformed or persuade dissenters. She presents pat arguments that only scratch the surface of the issue. It is unfortunate that as an institution with a strong focus on agriculture, the Daily cannot find someone who can clearly present the important agricultural issues and form a logical argument.

Zellmer states that GMO crops are larger in size, making them desirable to producers. While certain GMOs may be larger in size, many other traits are being developed.

These include herbicide resistance (Roundup Ready beans), insect resistance (Bt corn, avidin) nutrient content (golden rice) and pharmaceutical proteins (avidin, beta-glucuronidase). Using her narrow definition, Zellmer implies that this increase in size is beneficial as it “means that more of the world’s grain needs are being met.”

An inventory of GMO crops conducted by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) found that 75% of GMO crop production occurs in industrialized nations (www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0111sp.htm). Much of this probably occurs in the United States. It is important to realize that despite agribusiness claims, U.S. grain farmers do NOT “feed the world”.

The 25 most undernourished nations (FAO category 5) received about one-tenth of one percent of U.S. corn exports and none of our soybean exports (Richard Levins, 2000, www.iatp.org/foodsec/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Feeding_the_World_The_Upper_Mississippi_River_.htm). It is even more important to realize that the yield/profit increase for farmers touted by developers of GMO crops has yet to materialize (Mike Duffy, 2001, www.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/duffy/Pages/powerpoint/Who%20benefits%20from%20Biotechnology_files/frame.htm) Dr. Duffy concludes that seed and chemical companies are the beneficiaries of current GMO crops.

Zellmer’s closing argument is even more illogical. “GMOs might be the only thing that will keep some of the larger farmers here in the United States.” She later argues that “if the larger farmer leaves, the crops they produce will compete with the smaller farmer’s crops.” This competition already occurs between farmers of similar commodities, location of the farms are irrelevant.

Zellmer then argues that GMOs, through yield increases, will help the smaller farm compete with the larger farm.

If the smaller farmer can access GMO technology won’t larger farms do the same? Any advantage bestowed by GMO crops can be gained by any farmer (irrespective of location or size of operation) as long as they can pay for it; smaller farmers being less able to gain access.

Zellmer’s column serves as a poor example of the weak arguments agribusiness utilizes to defend technology that will increase their profits while eroding the agricultural landscape.

Garth Kelly

Graduate student

Sustainable agriculture