QHow do you remain unbiased when your funding comes from companies directly involved with the production of GMO products?

How do you remain unbiased when your funding comes from companies directly involved with the production of GMO products?

AExpert Answer

GMO Answers provides the facts that answer questions related to biotechnology, GM crops and agriculture. We work to ensure that the content and answers provided by experts and companies are accurate and therefore do not present opinions about GMOs, simply facts. GMO Answers is a community focused on constructive discussion about GMOs in order to have open conversations about agriculture and GMOs.

This website is funded by the Council for Biotechnology Information. The Council for Biotechnology Information is comprised of five different companies, who are committed to the responsible development and application of plant biotechnology. These companies include: BASF, Bayer, Corteva Agriscience (TM); Agriculture Division of DowDuPont(TM), Monsanto Company and Syngenta.

GMO Answers expert and Consultant, Savage & Associates, Steve Savage, provides background on public/private partnerships in this article, originally posted on Forbes. He addresses why land grant universities work with private sector to bring new innovations to the market. A snippet is included below.

“The implication is that any connection, particularly any financial connection, between academics and for-profit businesses is inappropriate.  Not only are the tactics of this effort reprehensible, the entire premise is wrong…

There is a network of “Land Grant” colleges and Universities throughout the US that was first set up in the late 1800s through the Morrill Acts. Their purpose was to focus on agriculture, science, military science and engineering. They became important centers of applied research which has been of great benefit for the global food supply. These institutions have traditionally been part of a synergistic, public/private partnership for the discovery, testing and commercialization of innovations of value to the farming community. They also educate future farmers, the specialized scientists and engineers who become the employees of ag-related businesses, and the future faculty.”

 Read the full article here.

We hope this answers your question, if you have any other questions about GMOs or biotechnology, please ask.

 

Posted on May 4, 2018
There would be more public seed development if genome editing technologies like CRISPR are not regulated as GMOs. Single point mutations are an extension of the undirected mutation breeding that is commonly used now. Having genome editing regulated like conventional plant breeding would allow university plant breeders to use the technology to develop new varieties without the stigmatism of them being GMOs. As for would it allow for more start-up seed companies, this is more doubtful. It is... Read More
Posted on May 4, 2018
There would be more public seed development if genome editing technologies like CRISPR are not regulated as GMOs. Single point mutations are an extension of the undirected mutation breeding that is commonly used now. Having genome editing regulated like conventional plant breeding would allow university plant breeders to use the technology to develop new varieties without the stigmatism of them being GMOs. As for would it allow for more start-up seed companies, this is more doubtful. It is... Read More
Posted on April 20, 2018
When glyphosate is applied to plants (e.g., crops or weeds) a certain percentage is absorbed and transported throughout the plant. The amount absorbed is variable depending on the application rate and the type of plant. Very little of the absorbed glyphosate is degraded by the plant and cannot be removed. Its persistence in plants is also variable. Federal regulatory agencies have established allowable limits for glyphosate residues in many different crops to protect human and animal health.... Read More
Answer: