What foods are considered unnecessary for any form of GMO?

Expert response from Kevin Folta

Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida

Friday, 10/04/2015 10:53

Interesting question. I'll give you two interpretations. 

 

Some crops do just fine from genetic improvements obtained through traditional breeding. Those don't need any GMO assistance. The GMO process just adds a gene or two that add a missing (and important) trait. If you have a good foundation, you don't need the extra support. That's important because the testing and deregulation process is long and expensive. 

 

Therefore, most plants are not amenable to GMO technology, purely for economic reasons. The rigorous regulation, the high cost of R&D, the massive cost of testing and commercialization — these factors strongly deem most plant products unfit for transgenic (GMO) alterations. 

 

A trait added has to provide a significant savings for farmers or a huge advantage to consumers in order to be worth pursuing. It takes a long time to make back the R&D/deregulation costs. It would probably take a company 100 years to make back an investment in making GMO mint.

 

University laboratories worldwide have seed storage facilities full of GMO plants that can survive harsh conditions, provide more nutrition, produce better-tasting products/higher yields or be grown with less water or fertilizer. These are all exciting breakthroughs. However, they are not used commercially because getting them to market is next to impossible.

 

In conclusion, the only plants in which GMO is applicable for commercialization at this time are those that benefit from a trait that can't be produced through traditional breeding, and those with a significant possibility of economic return and long-term relevance of the added trait.