Larios 1

Abilene Larios Professor Dozier English 1a 23 November 2013 Genetically Modified Food and Crops: What are the Consequences? Most consumers dont think twice about which products they are buying when they go grocery shopping. If they intend to purchase corn for example, their first instinct isnt to wonder what its composed of, since corn is just corn right? Not anymore. Scientists are implementing a new technology which is referred to as Genetic Engineering. This new technology allows scientists to manually add one or more traits that are not alre ady found in that organism (What is Genetic Engineering). Some of the organisms which are being modified are certain foods and crops. These foods and crops are modified to be more resistant to herbicides and pests as well as to increase their yield and nutritional value. Humans have been altering genes through selective breeding to attain desirable traits in plants and crops for ages. What has changed is that scientists are now able to insert completely foreign DNA into an organism to attain traits that would not occur in nature naturally. Presently, up to 60 percent of all processed foods on U.S. supermarket shelves contain ingredients from engineered soybeans, corn or canola (Akerman). As with any new technological advance, there are those who believe that this innovation can solve many of the worlds greatest problems. Those who believe genetically modified foods and crops are beneficial to the world state that transgenic crops and foods pose no significant threat to the environment or to consumers health, and provide many socio-economic benefits, especially to third-world countries. Such optimistic

Larios 2

claims neglect the fact that there are just as many possible negative outcomes from this technology, and that said outcomes can have very negative implications in the future. Consumers are constantly being assured that genetically modified foods and crops are safe for consumption. Those in favor of these foods point out that many of us consume some kind of genetically modified food on a daily basis and that no health risks have been directly linked to these foods. In some instances, they argue that the altering of a plant gene structure can actually be beneficial, such as with the introduction of bacteria into crops that can reduce their level of fungus by up to 80 percent (Miller). However, the modification of organisms has already proven to be dangerous in the past. In 1989, a genetically modified dietary supplement known as L-tryptophankilled 37 Americans. More than 5,000 others were permanently disabled or afflicted with a potentially fatal and painful blood disorder known as eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (Cummins). The modification of the bacteria proved to be deadly in this case, and it took researches a while to figure out that the cause was the insertion of foreign genes. There have been other instances in which a genetically modified crop has been deemed unsafe; such was the case with Snowdrop Potatoes. In Ronnie Cummins article Genetically Engineered Foods are Dangerous", he mentions a study conducted by Dr. Arpad Pusztai in which the researcher found that genetically altered potatoes were harmful, if not poisonous to mammals. When rats were fed the transgenic potatoes, which were known as Snowdrop Potatoes, the result was damages to the rats organs and immune system. The potatoes had the viral promoter Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMv) spliced into its genetic sequence, which according to the study is spliced into nearly every genetically modified food. The concerning conclusion from this study is that if the CaMv promoter had anything to do with the health

Larios 3

damages found in the rats, then what are the long term effects on humans? With many possible threats to consumers health and the fact that this technology is relatively new, one would expect rigorous regulation of these foods and crops. The United States, however, has some of the most lenient regulations when it comes to genetically modified foods. According to Walden Bello, 26 countries worldwide ban genetically modified organisms, including Mexico, the European Union, and Switzerland among others. Around 60 other countries around the world have strong regulations against transgenic foods and crops. Notably absent from the list is the United States, which has a policy of substantial equivalence, or the idea that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food (Dean). However similar a transgenic crop may be, there is still the fact that foreign genes were inserted into its DNA sequence making them unnatural and possibly unsafe. Although many scientist state that genetically modified foods and crops are safe, there have already been incidents in the past which prove that there is some reason for concern. Many proponents of Genetically Modified Crops argue that these crops do not pose a threat to the environment, but that the modification of these crops can actually be beneficial by eliminating the need for strong pesticides and herbicides. Through the insertion of foreign genes, a plant can be made to be more resilient to different external threats such as pests, herbicides, and climate changes. If fewer chemicals are needed to grow and sustain these crops, then the impact of the agricultural sector on the environment can be significantly lower. However, recent studies have found that genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide and herbicide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they were

Larios 4

introduced in 1996 to 2011 (Gillam). According to Charles Benbrook, a professor at Washington State University, the modification of crops to make them resistant to herbicides and pests will only create the need for a continuous increase in the amount of chemicals needed, as weeds and insects become immune to the plants newfound defenses (Gillam). Basically, plants that have been modified to tolerate weed killers, such as Monsantos Roundup, will increase the need for that weed killer or stronger chemicals due to gene transfers and the development of immunity. Another environmental threat posed by the engineering of our food supply will be the increase in biodiversity loss. According to Fahim Nawaz, author of the article the Spread of High-Yield Crops is Depleting Agricultural Biodiversity, the introduction of engineered crops will decrease the diversity of our food supply. As he states in h is article the well adapted old [crops] have been replaced by a few genetically modified varieties and breeds. New species are ranked secondin threatening the biodiversity as they exclude native species by competing for resources (Nawaz). The loss of agricultural diversity has very negative implications for the future. If the diversity of our food supply dwindles, humanity will be dependent on a very few types of food for sustainability. This could lead to many socioeconomic problems in the future. Also, adding to the topic of biodiversity loss is the disruption of the food chain. Plants have naturally developed resistance to pests, but sometimes natural defenses have not been enough. This led biotech companies to alter a plants genetic sequence so that the plant could produce toxins that would prove deadly to most pests. One example is the splicing of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into different crops, making them toxic to several types of insects. As Ricarda Steinbrecher stated, The constant exposure to Bt toxin either kills all the insects off or leads irreversibly to resistance. Many animals are dependent on insects as their

Larios 5

food supply; an increase in the loss of insects due to the modification of crops can have devastating effects on the food chain. These are just some of the negative implications the modification of our food supply has on the environment, so to say that the process is beneficial or neutral to the environment is neglecting the implications this process can produce in the long run. One of the main arguments in favor of the production of engineered crops is the possibility of lessening current socio-economic problems such as world hunger and malnutrition. It is also stated that genetically modified crops can help poor farmers since these crops are more resistant and produce greater yields. One problem with the idea that the genetic engineering of food will help farmers is that if fails to take into account that the market for genetically modified seeds is being dominated by a handful of companies-Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta who control 47 percent of the seed market (Cook). These companies take out patents on their engineered seeds, and make farmers who purchase these seeds sign contracts stating that they will not reuse the seeds, as that would be patent infringement. The company Monsanto is known for suing farmers who reuse their seeds. Just a couple months ago the company won a case against a farmer in the Supreme Court, which ruled that in order to reuse Monsantos soybeans you must pay them a fee (Liptak). Few companies holding control of our food supply is a concerning thought, for both consumers and farmers. With an oligarchy market structure, these few companies will be able to determine the prices and quality of their products. Prices of some engineered seeds have already increased significantly. One example is that as GM soybeans started to take over the market, from 2000 to 2010, the price for seed increased 230 percent. The cost for Monsantos Roundup Ready2 soybeans in

Larios 6

2010 was 70 dollars per bag, a 143 percent increase in the price of GM seed since 2001 (The Monsanto Monopoly). Farmers who use these seeds are constantly feeling the pressure of price hikes, and farmers in developing countries are usually affected the most by the debt acquired by using genetically engineered seeds. Not only do they have to pay high prices for the seeds, but must constantly purchase the herbicides required to sustain those crops. Not to mention that if Monsanto and the other biotech companies believe farmers are infringing upon their intellectual property, the farmer will have to pay the companies fees. In the Philippines for example, farmers were lured with the promise of higher yields and stronger crops. However, rising prices in seeds and herbicides made them turn to financers, which have led many farmers into debt or to lose their land (GM Corn Farmers). Genetically modified crops are also promoted as the solution to world hunger and malnutrition, but the problem with hunger is not a lack of food, but a lack of access to it. According to Peter Rosette and Charles Margulis, world hunger stems from social and economic inequality, and to alleviate world hunger these issues must be addressed first. Genetically Engineered Crops and foods can possibly have many positive outcomes, but just as many, if not more negative effects. Both sides argue many different points but the long term effects of consuming and growing transgenic crops have yet to be fully determined. This is why its important to be cautious with these crops since some tests have already determined they are not as safe as some scientists and the biotech companies would like consumers to believe. Not only are these crops potentially dangerous to the publics health, but can have devastating effects on the environment. The social and economic impacts are also of importance, as a monopolistic market is emerging in the agro biotech industry. Its a scary

Larios 7

thought that the worlds food supply could possibly be in the hands of a very few number of people. There might be many potential benefits from Genetic Engineering, but the hazards involved with the consumption and farming of transgenic crops might prove to be greater than those benefits. The question society has to answer now is, are the risks worth it?

Larios 8

Works Cited Akerman, Jennifer. Food: How Altered. National Geographic. National Geographic Society , n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013 Bello, Walden. Twenty-Six Countries Ban GMOs- Why Wont the US. The Nation. The Nation, 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Cook, Christopher D. "Monsanto and Other Biotech Corporations Threaten World Food Production." Genetically Engineered Foods. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Control Over Your Food: Why Monsanto's GM Seeds Are Undemocratic." Christian Science Monitor. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Nov. 2013. Cummins, Ronnie. "Genetically Engineered Foods Are Hazardous." Genetically Engineered Foods. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need A Global Moratorium." Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Dean, Amy and Jennifer Armstrong. Genetically Modified Foods. American Academy of Environmental Sciences. AAEM, 8 May 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2013 Gillam, Carey. Pesticide Use Ramping Up as GMO Crop Technology Backfires: Study. Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 21 Nov. 2013 GM Corn Farmers Lose Lands, Increase Debts says New Research. Masipag. Masipag.org, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2013 Liptak, Adam. Supreme Court Supports Monsanto In Seed Replication Case. New York Times. New York Times, 13 May 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013

Larios 9

Miller, Henry I. "Genetically Modified Foods Have Numerous Benefits and No Known Risks." Genetic Engineering. Ed. Nol Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "When Technophobia Becomes Toxic." 2012.Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Nov. 2013. Nawaz, Fahim. "The Spread of High-Yield Crops Is Depleting Agricultural Biodiversity." Biodiversity. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Depleting Agro-Biodiversity a Risk to Food Security." Dawn.com. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Rosset, Peter and, Charles M. "GENETICALLY ALTERED CROPS UNNECESSARY." Wisconsin State Journal: 0. Oct 09 1999.ProQuest. Web. 23 Nov. 2013 . Steinbrecher, Ricarda. "Genetically Engineered Crops May Harm the Environment. Genetic Engineering. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "What Is Wrong with Nature?" Resurgence (1998): 1619. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. The Monsanto Monopoly. GM Education. N.p, 26 May 2013. Web. 22 Nov.2013. What is Genetic Engineering. Ag Biosafety. University of Nebraska Lincoln, n.d. Web. 21 Nov, 2013.