Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have their beginnings in the early 1900s when European plant scientists first started to cross plants using Mendel's genetic theory to produce plants with desirable characteristics. Breakthroughs in understanding the structure of DNA and the creation of the first recombinant DNA organism led to a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that genetically altered life forms can be patented, opening the door and increasing incentives for research into the field. By 1986 the first genetically modified plants were being tested in Belgium, and in 1987 testing began in the United States. The FDA rules in 1992 that GMOs were not "inherently dangerous" to human health, leading to their widespread introduction.
Today the United States leads in production of crops from genetically modified seeds. Our European counterparts, however, are wary of the potentially negative health effects from GMOs, and only until recently were their cultivation allowed in the EU. As of yet the only crop widely grown is an alteration of maize.
Many argue that GMOs are a danger to our health and to the environment. Because many crops are modified to be herbicide resistant or to produce their own pesticides, there is a possibility of "superweeds" emerging, garnering the use of more concentrated and dangerous pesticides. The same concern exists for the emergence of antibiotic resistant "superpests". Anti-GMO groups also argue that "bio-invasion" will occur when these genetically superior species are let loose into the environment. There is no stopping the cross-pollination or pollution of natural species by GMOs.
While there are many groups that argue both ways on the health dangers of GMOs, the World Health Organization states that they will take an active role in promoting the use of GMOs worldwide because of their potential benefits to human health- increased food supplies to the poor especially. Also, there have been no major negative impacts shown in countries where GMOs are prevalent.
India is facing the decision to introduce GMOs in their country, at the same time the government is recognizing the high stress they are under to feed their more than one billion citizens. While there are many naysayers in the country, the cultivated land in India has dropped 13% from the mid-20th century. The pressure is on to find a solution while pacifying the naysayers.
I personally agree with the WHO. While it is prudent to have concerns about any new technology, I don't think we should limit our usage of GMOs, especially as they have already undergone scientific study, and there have been no major outbreaks of increased food allergies in humans, or superweeds in plants. I think that we should continue to monitor their use and develop GMOs that are more precise for our purposes, but the truth is that in today's world we need GMOs. As our population increases, there is growing pressure to increase the yield of our crops in less and less space. GMOs give farmers the technology to do that. As the impacts of global warming intensify, we will be able to use this technology to develop crops that can be sustained in the changing conditions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Annah, do you believe that the 1980 court decision started the 'slippery slope' of GMO usage? I would say yes, without this decision and the FDA ruling no inherent danger the US would not be producing them. Why do you think that the EU and US have such different standards when it comes to GMOs? I feel like produce being herbicide resistant can have good and bad consequences. We could grow a very large amount of produce if they are resistant to the effects of pesticides. However, these superpests as you say could potentially kill off all of the crops resistant to these pesticides. Though I agree with the WHO I cannot help, but wondering if these countries like India will have different effects. Do you think the compromised immune systems of some of the consumers of these GMOs in poor countries could possibly have a negative effect on their health?
ReplyDeleteI have a few reservations about GMOs. First of all, we learned in ES that there is no such thing as a food shortage in the world, its just a food distribution and efficiency problem. Do you agree with this? People joke that America's food waste alone could feed the starving in a whole country.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, GMOs seem very anthropocentric. What benefits do they have outside of the human realm? We know they have very serious potential environmental consequences as Annah listed. We're talking genetic consequences that cannot be reverse overnight if ever.
3rd, GMOs seem escalatory, as in once you solve one problem by tampering with the genes of a plant, a 'super problem' like the ones Annah mentioned might arise, then you have to make a plan that addresses that issue until you are trying to solve too many problems.
4th, your tampering with nature. Would you think it was a good idea to change the weather to fit our needs better? No, there are too many potential side-effects that we could not predic. Thats one element of nature we leave alone because its beyond our grasp of understanding. Logically, it does not seem like a good idea to change the way an organism was meant to be. Also,human nature we will push this as far as we can until something pushes back, i dont want to wait to see what that is i would just prefer to not mess with it in the first place.
5th, my most vehement point, Instead of turning towards technology to solve India's problem of a 13% loss of cultivated land, why not examine the cause of that loss and solve that problem first.
In conclusion, there will always be a certain percentage of crops lost, I think that is something to accept and not try to fight too hard, if our population can't survive off of the amount of food nature offers us, maybe we should take its hint.
Sorry that was so long!
I agree with Emma that the issue of starvation is due to poor food distribution. I also agree that GMOs should not be used. Although they allow plants to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides. It makes farmers dependent on these chemicals and having to use more and more. This increase in chemicals leads to a co-evolution with the pests that could potentially become far more resistant than any pesticide or herbicide that we have. If these very resistant pests end up in countries that do not use GMOs it could potentially cause major implications to the food and agriculture of those nations. Also all the excess pesticides and herbicides will end up in our water systems. Furthermore, I personally don't believe that GMOs should be used because it is tampering with nature. It is similar to the idea of Jurassic park and that many scientists are constantly preoccupied with the thought of whether or not they can do something but they never take a step back to think about whether or not they should actually take that action.
ReplyDeleteCommercial agriculture uses pesticides and herbicides whether it is a GMO or not. So, I do not get how GMO's effect whether super pest and weeds could evolve. If GMO's were restricted in the U.S. than the efficiency in commercial agriculture would be greatly reduced. I say continue with GMOs to provide the U.S. with a continued efficient way of food production.
ReplyDeleteI have always been on the fence about GMOs. While the idea that my foods are not "natural" and have been genetically altered, and "franken fruits" doesn't give me the best feeling, I still love seedless watermelons and big red shiny tomatoes. Transgenic plants have many benefits including their ability to possess several desirable traits, including resistance to pests, herbicides or harsh environmental conditions, improved product shelf life, and increased nutritional value. Additionally, GMO's offer great benefits to third world countries. Certain GMOs reduce the need for precious resources, such as water, fertilizer, or pesticides that many third world countries do not have access too.
ReplyDelete--- Kirsten Dobson
There are so many uncertainties surrounding GMOs that make it a risky endeavour. Why should humans utilize technology that has such a large number of gray areas and potential risks? I feel that it is naaive to use GMOs before fully understanding the effects for several reasons.
ReplyDeleteOne major issue to consider is "pests". As some people have already mentioned, there is a threat of so called superpests evolving in response to genetically altered, pest-resistant crops. Another less considered view on this is what will happen to insects if and when the majority of crops are pest-resistant? Although we call them pests, insects are a vital and major part of ecological systems. What will happen when their numbers dwindle due to the loss of their food source? This is just one impact that needs to be considered.
We have all heard the saying "you are what you eat". Humans have been relying on certain foods for hundreds of thousands of years. Our flesh literally comes from these foods. We have evolved and grown by relying on these foods and assimilating them into our own body mass. What happens when you change the most basic structure of these plants? If our bodies are accustomed to get the most out of these crops, will altering their DNA have affects on human nutrition and processing efficiency? This is a question that I do not know the answer to, but just some food for thought.
Lastly, I would like to address the idea that GMOs will cure world hunger. In my opinion, this is the biggest myth of all. Observing any species in a community shows that increasing the food source increases the population of that species. Decreasing the amount of food decreases the population. This is a basic ecological rule. To think that humans are an exception is to deny a law of species growth. Looking at human history proves this. As the human population has increased, we have increased the crop yeild, which has just produced more humans. Increasing the crop yeild has not ever solved the problem of starvation in third world countries, it has just allowed our world population to boom. Using GMOs to increase crop yields will not feed the hungry, it will just increase the human population even more.
Because of all these reasons and more, I think using GMOs is an extremely short-sighted and risky endeavor. I think it would be a huge mistake to tamper with something we still know so little about.
In your post you state that “GMO’s have already undergone scientific study”, but I’d like to point out that these scientific studies were done by the companies themselves, which means they are biased and cannot be fully trusted. Additionally, Big Ag has infiltrated the government in order to secure GMO food as safe and needed. You say “the truth is that in today's world we need GMOs”, however I have also heard that there is enough food to feed everyone in the world, it’s just the distribution and ever growing gap between the rich and poor that prevents this. What do these two differing studies mean? While I believe it is important to explore the option of Genetically modified foods, it will ultimately become a venue for agri-bussines monopoly and corruption. A current Big Ag corporation that grows GMO crops has destroyed livelihoods of many farmers when they refused to become part of the Monsanto Corporation system. When watching the movie Food Inc, one can see how genetically modified crops have taken the local out of farmer. Monsanto and other GMO using corporations have also formed partnerships with pesticide companies, and have made government policies to require farmers to use pesticides so the crops are safe, but in reality it is a measure to ensure powerful control of the crop industry. Perhaps in the future GMO’s will be “needed” to feed the world, however having a techno-optimist perspective about growing and harvesting more food when our lands are in constant nutrient depletion and our soils eroded and poor, is not a real solution. GMO food encourages growth and an increase in human population is a giant step in the wrong direction as we continue to surpass the carrying capacity of the planet and push our resources to the limit.
ReplyDelete