>
Meet The Heroes That Gave Their Own Lives To Save Others During The Texas Flood
Scientists Reverse Parkinson's Symptoms in Mice: 'We were astonished by the success'
America Is A Great Nation And A Work-In-Progress | Something To Stand For #60 | The Way I Heard It
Centuries of hidden evidence: Vaccines' neurological toll revealed
Insulator Becomes Conducting Semiconductor And Could Make Superelastic Silicone Solar Panels
Slate Truck's Under $20,000 Price Tag Just Became A Political Casualty
Wisdom Teeth Contain Unique Stem Cell That Can Form Cartilage, Neurons, and Heart Tissue
Hay fever breakthrough: 'Molecular shield' blocks allergy trigger at the site
AI Getting Better at Medical Diagnosis
Tesla Starting Integration of XAI Grok With Cars in Week or So
Bifacial Solar Panels: Everything You NEED to Know Before You Buy
INVASION of the TOXIC FOOD DYES:
Let's Test a Mr Robot Attack on the New Thunderbird for Mobile
Facial Recognition - Another Expanding Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Technology
Whatever happened to genetically modified (GM) Golden Rice? And wasn't GM salmon supposed to revolutionise aquaculture?
Three decades after the first genetically modified organism or GMO crops were planted, Save Our Seeds, in collaboration with GMWatch, with contributions from Beyond GM, explores the fate of eight GMO promises once presented as game-changers. The conclusion: bold claims, dismal delivery.
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the first Bt maize and glyphosate-tolerant soybean, opening the way for large-scale cultivation of GM crops.
The promises came thick and fast: GMOs would feed the world, reduce chemical use and save children from malnutrition. Thirty years on, GM crops occupy just 13% of global arable land and are largely concentrated in a handful of countries. Most of the promises remain unmet.
Bigger yields, fewer chemicals?
The biotech industry pledged to "grow more with less" — less pesticide, less fertilizer, less environmental harm. GM crops were billed as a way to "reverse the Silent Spring scenario" described by Rachel Carson in her 1962 classic.
They were said to boost yields, feed the hungry — especially in Africa — and save millions of children from malnutrition.
Instead, GM crops have led to more chemical-dependent monocultures, more environmental damage and tighter corporate control over seeds and inputs. Rather than liberating farmers, GMOs have locked them into a cycle of patented products and costly chemicals.
Countries that adopted GM crops have seen an immense concentration of the agricultural seed market in the hands of a few corporations — those invested in GM crops.
Marketing shift — from farmers to consumers and others
Facing public skepticism and unmet promises, GMO backers shifted focus. New projects targeted consumers directly, such as soybeans with a "health-conscious" genetic tweak.
Others, such as GM Golden Rice and GM American chestnuts, were wrapped in moral imperatives: fighting malnutrition, saving endangered species.
But again, hype outpaced reality.