Around ten thousand years ago, a nomadic chieftain placed a fig in the ground. Historians and scholars note this period as the Agricultural Revolution. By humans being able to settle in one place, it allowed for a division of labor, simple trade and culture to form. Neolithic Age farming brought the age of civilizations. Since the first domestic crops, agricultural technology has slowly evolved, until now. Today, multinational corporations such as Monsanto have genetically modified crops such as corn, cotton and soybeans. Biological engineers, not farmers, have thrown society into what is the last great agricultural revolution.
Genetically modified crops, known simply either GM or GE, are a creation of biotechnology. Scientists have spliced DNA strains from animals, fungi and prokaryotes and placed these desired traits into particular crops, such as corn. Nayak, author of Genetically Modified Crops-A Review, argues that GM foods are the “super foods of the 21st century”.1 What makes this technology so important? The process can develop drought resisting, vaccine implanted tomatoes that can be yielded by the metric ton. More food can be harvested on a single acre of land than ever before. However, playing God does come with its downfalls. In this essay, the advantages, hazards of genetically modified crops and governmental responses will be explained in detail.
There is two generations of genetically engineered foods. The first “sought to increase farmer profitability through reductions and higher yields” and the second “is focusing also on breeding for attributes of interest”.2 This is why GM crop production has grown exponentially since their creation in the late 1980s. Studies show as of 2009, there is over 134 million hectares worldwide, that’s an increase of 7 percent from the previous year.3 Nayak notes that within 20 years, gene technology “will touch every type of agricultural crop in the world”.4
Though GM foods are ever expanding, they are concentrated in a handful of nations. 96% of genetic engineered cultivation is in five nations and “more than half is in the United States”.5 These crops are mainly used to make refined products, rather than being used for direct consumption. For example, GM foods represent “an estimated 60% of all American processed foods”.6 Scientists have been able to transplant genetically modified crops in more than just in food. Not only do genetic engineered produce most of the world’s beer and cheese, but also are in “hundreds of medications”7. With GM foods facing such substantial growth, it is obvious that it has a vast amount of advantages.
One of the most important benefits of genetically modified crops is its resistance capabilities. Nayak notes that “herbicide resistant crops can decrease overall herbicide use and lead to the use of more environmentally acceptable herbicides”.8 Scientists have taken particular resistance genes from animals and have placed them into crops. For example, corporations such as Monsanto have taken an “anti-freeze gene that helps flounder survive frigid waters [and] spliced [it] into tomato cells to enhance the plant’s resistance to cold”.9
MNCs have also developed salt, thermo and drought tolerance from abotic organisms; these crops can now survive through any harvest.10 If crops can inherit insect and temperature tolerances, farmers can grow massive amount of crops. It would be impossible for these crops to evolve such tolerances without gene splicing. With more corn and soybean on the market, the prices will go down, which benefits the consumer, but at the expense of the farmer.
Another case of resistance is the ‘stacked tolerance’ system. Biologists can take multiple traits and literally ‘stack’ them into the plant’s DNA. The main stacked produce appears to be corn. The maize stacked products have three traits; featuring two traits from Bt genes for insect control and one trait for herbicide tolerance.11 The production of stacked corn has caught on in the United States. Currently there is over 17 million hectares of stacked corn in America’s heartland.12 Development of the stacked crop has essentially given farmers perfected crops that Darwin could not perceive or evolution could form.
MNCs have given genetically modified crops added nutrition. Nayak points out that a “soybean gene [has] been developed and is claimed to contain 20% more protein” than a traditional soybean crop.13 Another nutrition example is golden rice; the GM rice has added vitamin A, essential vitamin for many malnourish people on the planet. Scientists are doing even more than placing more protein or vitamins in GM produce. Pandey, a member of the Central Institute of Subtropical Horticulture, states “researchers are working to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes”.14 Numerous scientist have came out with reports similar to Pandey’s claim. Dr. Martínez-Larrañaga, author of Risk Analysis and GM Foods and research scientist at the University of Madrid, notes “one company engineered corn to produce experimental vaccine for HIV and Hepatitis B virus.”15
In addition to vaccine implanted crops, scientists have created altered ripening capabilities. Fruit can be modified to allow it to ripen without softening.16 Nayak reports on the modified ripening by stating “97% [of crops faced] significant reduction in over ripening and shriveling”.17 Crops, for the first time in human history, are tolerant, have added nutrition and ripen less often. Today’s produce is the ‘food of the future’. However, these God-like features have come with enormous and onerous consequences.
Toxins are a major concern, when it comes to creating genetically modified products. Nayak notes that a genetically engineered dietary supplement “killed 37 Americans and permanently disabled or afflicted more than 5,000 with a potentially fatal and painful blood disorder”.18 American law is fairly loose when it comes to GM toxicology. For instance, Risk Analysis explains toxicological assessments on test animals “are not required for food approval”.19 To make matters worse, there is no way to detect contamination once genetically engineered crops are put in processed meals. Nayak states protein and DNA detection, the only ways to find toxins, “cannot predict the containment in highly processed foods”.20 In addition to the threat of toxins, GM foods might affect people with allergies and food quality.
Pandey points out the chance of a potential outbreak from GM produce. There is a possibility that “introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals”.21 The best way to avoid from this situation is to not use products that are the most allergenic. Most of these can be summed up to tree nuts, milk, shellfish and soybeans. In addition to allergies, Nayak explains that compounds thought to protect against heart disease and cancer were “lower in genetically modified soybeans” than in traditional strains.22 Researchers have done numerous tests on GM food, most reveal potential risks of genetically engineered crops.
Most of the GM testing was on either rats, mice or cows. In the area of rats, Nayak’s studies show GM potatoes “significantly affected [their] immune systems”.23 Conrad Miller, author of Today’s Synthetic Foods, concurs with this experiment by stating another rat trial. Miller notes in another GM potato study rats “developed smaller brains, testicles and livers compared to rats fed the parent line of the very same potatoes”.24 Studies on mice also show the dangerous consequences of genetically modified produce.
Nayak explains in one trial, mice that were fed “Roundup Ready soy had profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes” in their pancreatic cells”.25 Melissa Smith, author of Say No to GMOs, argues an experiment showing a connection between infant mortality of mice and GM foods. In this test, mice that were feed GM soy had “50 percent of their offspring die within three weeks of birth compared with only 10 percent of those whose mothers ate non-GM soy”.26 The last study was based on a genetically modified bovine growth hormone.
Conrad Miller points out cows with bovine growth hormone “have up to ten times the amounts of insulin growth factor-1, which studies have linked to increased incidence of breast, prostate and colon cancer”.27 Animal testing has shown that scientists and MNCs should have put further study in these genetically engineered foods, before putting them in processed foods. Researchers argued for the past decade that these genetically engineered crops would even reduce pesticides, yet that case seems to be incorrect.
Nayak reveals an example of increased pesticide use in America. US farmers growing GM crops are “using just as many toxic pesticide and herbicides as conventional farmers, and in some cases are using more”.28 Pesticide production is not only increasing in America, but in every GM cultivating nation. Scientists estimate that herbicide resistant crops planted “around the globe will triple the amount of toxic broad spectrum herbicides used in agriculture”.29 The amount of pesticide produced after the implementation of genetically engineered foods has been recorded. Nayak states that genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton have led “to a 122 million pound increase in pesticide use since 1996”.30 Genetically modified foods are not only a threat to particular bugs, but also it is hurting beneficial insects as well.
Pandey argues that use of genetic engineering in agriculture could lead “to uncontrolled biological pollution threatening numerous microbial plant and animal species with extinction”.31 Genetically Modified Crops points out the dangers of the Bt produce. Nayak states pollen from genetically engineered Bt corn “was poisonous to Monarch butterflies”.32 Monarch butterflies are an important asset for cross-pollination and the ecosystem. Harming these butterflies could affect farmers who do not use genetically engineered crops. Monarchs are not the only insects affected, GM crops are also hurting a number of beneficial insects, “including ladybugs and lacewings as well as beneficial soil microorganisms, bees and possibly birds”.33 These crops can fundamentally dismantle entire ecosystems; research must be done to limit GM crops from killing beneficial animals. While genetically engineered plants are hurting insects like ladybugs, it is helping the pests and weeds it is developed to destroy.
Nayak states pests and weeds will “inevitably emerge that are pesticide or herbicide-resistant, which means that stronger, more toxic chemicals will be needed to get rid of pests”.34 Darwin addressed this issue well over a century ago, that evolution is based by the means of natural selection or the survival of the fittest. Nayak provides two pesticide tests using crops with the Bt gene. The first laboratory and field tests show cotton bollworms “would soon evolve into super pests completely immune to Bt sprays and other environmentally sustainable bio pesticides.”35 In the second, laboratory tests on bacco budworm “evolved resistance [within 20 generations] to not only this Bt toxin but also other forms of Bt”.36 The only way to stop these insects is to use even stronger pesticides, which brings two unintended consequences. First, it puts farmers into a vicious cycle of pesticide and herbicide production. Second, when companies start using more poisonous sprays, will it ultimately affect humans and other animals?
The last disadvantage of genetically engineered crops is the creation of the Terminator seed. Genetically Modified Crops explains that GM produce,
“renders seeds infertile and forces hundreds of millions of farmers who now save and share their seeds to purchase ever more-expensive GE seeds and chemical inputs from a handful of global biotech/seed monopolies”.37
Since these seeds have to be bought every season, farmers are losing their profits. This system is called ‘Bio Serfdom’. Bio Serfdom is defined as farmers leasing “their plants and animals from biotech conglomerates such as Monsanto and [paying] royalties on seeds and offspring”.38 Monsanto has brought farmers to courthouses across the nation. They have sued farmers for “saving seed from their GM varieties and planting them without payment for intellectual property”.39 In America, multinational corporations can patent even crops like corn. The disadvantages of these crops have been explained; countries know of these consequences, but how have they reacted? The United States response to genetically modified crops will be shown, as well as African nations’ response toward GM crops during the 2002 famine.
Even though nongovernmental organizations like the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, who has
“advised physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning their health risks”40,
the United States has taken an exact opposite approach. Sarah Lieberman, author of GMOs and the Developing World, cites that the USDA is responsible “for the deregulation of GM products a process that involves the submission of information… proving the plant is not a pest”.41 The US government’s stance is genetically engineered produce is the same as non-GM crops. The USDA is the not the only governmental organization that has deregulated genetically modified crops. For example, GM traits “are evaluated by voluntary consultations with the Food and Drug Administration”.42 Although federal departments have loosen rules on GM regulation, federal judges have struck down such cases. One court case involved federal judges upholding a ban on GM alfalfa, “because its pollen could similarly contaminate the alfalfa in other non-GMO fields”43. It is certain that these crops are not the same as non-GM produce, but that does not stop the USAID from being “at the forefront of a US marketing campaign designed to introduce GM food into the developing world”.44
The 2002 African famine is considered one of the worst in recent African history. Western nations sent tons of food to alleviate potential starvation. US sent “500,000 tons of whole kernel corn… which it is estimated that 75 percent contained GMOs”.45 When the US government delivered the food, they did not label or separate the GM and non-GM crops.46 This is more than enough proof that the federal government is trying to entice developing nations to grow genetically modified crops. African nations saw this motive and “six Southern African countries refused GM food aid” only one recanted.47 These five countries would rather starve, then to accept these genetically engineered crops.
Monsanto, along with other MNCs, argued one of the biggest benefits of GM crops is it would end world hunger. World hunger is not a result of lack of food. Coleman, author of Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger, states that “distribution, not production, is the key to solving hunger”.48 When it comes to GM regulation, European Union “proactively regulates uncertain risks” whereas the US “waits for evidence of harm before regulating”.49 This regulatory system is not only flawed, but highly dangerous. Americans cannot be the test subjects for Monsanto. But the new laws should not be repressive, but rather encourage MNCs to create healthier GM crops. Nayak concurs that genetically engineered crops “need to be regulated, but the purpose of regulation must be to maximize potential benefits and decrease the risks”.50 Researchers have developed one of most important creations in human history, but governmental organizations must regulate these genetically modified crops for the safety and benefit of its citizens.
Evaluation
The benefits that come from genetically modified foods look as if they came from a deity. Heat/pesticide tolerant, vaccine implanted corn can be processed in our daily foods and thus helping all Americans. These advantages have come with far more consequences than multinational corporations originally stated back in the early 90s. Of course, that does not mean GM food should not be processed. Monsanto must develop healthier foods and commit to more rigorous testing, something they did not do with either the first or second generations of GM crops. Americans should not be the test rats for their products.
It is the job of the United States government to properly regulate these foods far differently than they do organic crops. With adequate rules set into place, genetically engineered foods could healthier and have fewer risks. In addition, multinational corporations should not be able to have patents on these crops or develop terminator seeds. Patents and terminator seeds only benefit MNCs; farmers are exploited at the Monsanto’s expense and are forced into the bio-serf process. Also, governmental organizations, such as USAID, need to be held accountable for deliberately trying to sneak genetically engineered crops into developing nations. The creation of genetically modified foods can either be the greatest scientific development in our era or the most disastrous; it is up to us to decide which option.
Endnotes
- Nayak, Laxmikanta et al. "GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS-A REVIEW." Agricultural Review 32.2 (2011): 112. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=63030689>.
- Pandey, A. et al. "Genetically Modified Food: Its Uses, Future Prospects and Safety Assessments." Biotechnology 9.4 (2010): 444. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=56576125>.
- Nayak, page 112
- Ibid
- Schmidt, Charles W. "Genetically Modified Foods Breeding Uncertainty." Environmental Health Perspectives 113.8 (2005): 527. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=16&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=17903360>.
- Coleman, Gerald D. "Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger?" America 192.6 (2005): 16-17. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=18&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=16071126>.
- Ibid
- Nayak, page 113
- Schmidt, page 530
10. Nayak, page 114
11. Ibid
12. Ibid
13. Nayak, page 113
14. Pandey, page 449
15. Martínez-Larrañaga, María Rosa et al. "Risk Analysis And GM Foods: Scientific Risk Assessment." European Food & Feed Law Review 4.4 (2009): 237. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=26&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=44505762>.
16. Nayak, page 114
17. Ibid
18. Ibid
19. Martínez-Larrañaga, page 224
20. Nayak, page 116
21. Pandey, page 450
22. Nayak, page 115
23. Ibid
24. Miller, Conrad. "Today's Synthetic Foods: Shrinking Our Brains, Testicles, And Livers?" Tikkun 24.5 (2004): 27-83. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=28&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=44373187>.
25. Nayak, page 116
26. Smith, Melissa Diane. "SAY NO TO GMOS." Better Nutrition 73.3 (2011): 46-50. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=35&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=58460741>.
27. Miller, Conrad.
28. Nayak, page 115
29. Ibid
30. Ibid
31. Pandey, page 452
32. Nayak, page 115
33. Ibid
34. Ibid
35. Nayak, page 116
36. Ibid
37. Ibid
38. Ibid
39. Pandey, page 533
40. Miller, Conrad.
41. Lieberman, Sarah, and Tim Gray. "GMOs and the Developing World: A Precautionary Interpretation of Biotechnology." British Journal Of Politics & International Relations 10.3 (2008): 397. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=38&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=34546142>.
42. Schmidt , page 532
43. Miller, Conrad.
44. Lieberman, page 401
45. Lieberman, page 403
46. Ibid
47. Ibid
48. Coleman, pages 16-17
49. Lieberman, page 398
50. Nayak, page117
Bibliography
Coleman, Gerald D. "Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger?" America 192.6 (2005): 16-17. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=18&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=16071126>.
Lieberman, Sarah, and Tim Gray. "GMOs and the Developing World: A Precautionary Interpretation of Biotechnology." British Journal Of Politics & International Relations 10.3 (2008): 395-411. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=38&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=34546142>.
Martínez-Larrañaga, María Rosa. "Risk Analysis And GM Foods: Scientific Risk Assessment." European Food & Feed Law Review 4.4 (2009): 235-50. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=26&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=44505762>.
Miller, Conrad. "Today's Synthetic Foods: Shrinking Our Brains, Testicles, And Livers?" Tikkun 24.5 (2004): 27-83. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=28&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=44373187>.
Nayak, Laxmikanta, Hridyesg Pandey, Lakshamanan Ammayappan, and Deb Ray. "GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS-A REVIEW." Argicultural Review 32.2 (2011): 112-19. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=63030689>.
Pandey, A., M. Kamle, L. Yadava, and M. Muthukumar. "Genetically Modified Food: Its Uses, Future Prospects and Safety Assessments." Biotechlongy 9.4 (2010): 444-58. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=56576125>.
Schmidt, Charles W. "Genetically Modified Foods Breeding Uncertainty." Environmental Health Perspectives 113.8 (2005): 526-33. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=16&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=17903360>.
Smith, Melissa Diane. "SAY NO TO GMOS." Better Nutrition 73.3 (2011): 46-50. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=35&hid=6&sid=3cdabdeb-6dcf-462c-acb2-5b45b2b27d3d%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=58460741>.