GMOs lack genetic diversity

The importance of preventing crop catastrophe in a genetically modified market

Angela Straccia

Abstract
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as applied in agriculture, offer impressive solutions to current
pest and climate related issues, and they comprise the majority of crop species in American today.
However, because of their lack of genetic diversity and the nature of the engineering design process in
contrast with the evolutionary design process, they are especially vulnerable to unexpected phenomena
like climactic catastrophes and tangible threats like pest-resistance. A potential solution to this
diversification dilemma is to plant GMOs and non-GMOs in almost equal proportion, avoiding large scale
crop wipe out that could drive up food prices and disadvantage millions of people around the world.

Say ‘Hello’ to GMOs

Humans are the ultimate engineers. Our ancient civilizations were built on the optimization of
agricultural processes. By setting aside land and selectively farming the most bountiful crops, historic
peoples could grow and harvest in quantities beyond what hunting and gathering could produce. They
could consume enough food to satisfy their hunger and store the excess in preparation of a low-yield
season or natural disaster, allowing people to not only survive but thrive and create civil societies.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the next step in this logical progression of optimizing the
output of our harvest and anticipating unseasonable weather. The main difference now is where the
responsibility of the designer lies.

Originally, natural evolutionary processes optimized the crops by introducing genetic variation into the
population and allowing weather, predators and, in the case of agriculture, humans to select for the
strongest species. Well-adapted species proliferate, passing on the strong genes to their offspring which,
in turn, can survive tough environmental conditions. The offspring still have some degree of genetic
diversity. Therefore, if a completely different pressure is introduced to the species’ environment, for
example, a new predator, there is portion of the total population that is able to survive in spite of the
new predator. If there were no genetic variation, there would be no genes or behaviors for which to
select, and thus, no adaptation.

Presently, human engineers splice together the best genetic sequences from a set of species, food-
related or otherwise, into seemingly indestructible crops. They anticipate these harsh natural
circumstances, from insects to cold weather, and design the food product to self-protect. GMOs are
revolutionary in their ability to increase useful agricultural output as well as tackle seemingly
insurmountable challenges like global climate change. By designing crops that can survive low-water
availability, higher and lower temperatures and other weather-related phenomena, humans are one
step closer to winning the fight against global climate change.
However, GMOs are less genetically diverse than their previous wild counterparts, with the Food and
Agriculture Organization citing a 75 percent reduction in crop diversity since 1900 (1). The seeds
distributed by Monsanto, a major GMO-producing corporation, self-destruct after one season of use.
Between this lack of diversity in the GMO population and the life-limited nature of the seeds, the crops
are not equipped to adapt to new pressures.

In the United States, the majority of crops are genetically modified, with 85 percent of corn, 91 percent
of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton altered to resist certain pests, pesticides or other conditions (2). If
a serious seasonal change occurred or a new species of pest invaded which the GMOs were not
prepared to handle, a large portion of the harvest that year could be wiped out. In the case of corn, in
particular, this lower yield could drastically impact food availability and prices to significant portions of
the human population, making lack of diversity in GMOs a legitimate ethical concern.

Who is the better engineer?

By limiting the genetic diversity of crops, they are more susceptible to both predictable pressures – such
as resistant pests- as well as unpredictable pressures – such as climate change - that could lead to the
annihilation of an entire harvest. This fundamental ethical issue stems from the difference in design
process between the engineer and natural evolution.

An engineer can only create a design given a limited set of knowledge and constraints. When a company
like Monsanto hires scientists to develop a seed for corn, they work with the knowledge of what the
weather was like for the last decade and the conception of certain predators that tend to afflict corn.
GMO corporations do their best to integrate as many genetic mechanisms as possible to combat real-
world threats into the design of the seed, but they cannot anticipate every possible pressure to which
the corn will be exposed.

Natural evolution has no such design limitations. By having a genetically varied population of corn, no
anticipation for what could kill the corn is required; the strongest corn survives, and the weakest corn
perishes. This type of design process is well-suited for the randomness of natural phenomena. For
example, weather varies not only seasonally but can shift dramatically during longer periods of climate
change – a challenge our civilization faces today.

Natural evolution also facilitates progress against less-random challenges – an option not available for
GMOs. For instance, the European corn-borer can adapt to become resistant to the Bt protein in
genetically modified corn (or Bt corn), which is responsible for the plant’s insecticide properties (3).
Since the Bt corn cannot adapt to create a new mechanism of protecting itself from the European corn-
borer, the only option is to prevent widespread resistance that could ultimately harm the Bt corn
species. Farmers are required by law to plant a perimeter of non-GMO corn in hopes that the resistant
pests in the middle of the field mate with non-resistant pests on the perimeter, thus suppressing the
recessive trait of Bt resistance. However, this strategy is limited by farmers’ readiness to adopt it; in
2008, twenty-five percent of corn farmers were incompliant with planting policies (4). Essentially, GMOs
only adapt to other species’ adaptations inasmuch as farmers were willing to follow regulations.
This lack of adaptability poses a serious threat in light of recent findings with bacterial resistance. Recent
findings show that bacteria can pass on their resistance not only genetically to their offspring, but also
to their non-resistant comrades (Lee). Fighting bacterial resistance could be even more challenging than
pest resistance, an already salient threat.

With every indication that the new climate and predator-related challenges are mounting, farmers
should increase the diversity of corn fields. This could prevent mass destruction of the crop due to an
unforeseeable climate effect as well as to avoid creating resistant pests that could ultimately be
responsible for wipeout of GMOs.

What is at stake?
Before launching into the diversification solution, it is essential to remember what is at stake with
genetically modified organisms and their application in agriculture. The United States is a major global
player, with 60 percent of corn export industry for the past decade (6). If genetically modified corn were
targeted by a resistant pest or unforeseen climate catastrophe, demand for corn would likely stay the
same or even increase while the supply would drastically decrease, given the current figure of 85
percent GM corn. This could increase global food prices dramatically, making food less affordable for
lower income households domestically and internationally. While some might argue a corn-related
disaster has not occurred and is unlikely to occur in future, the outcome of such an event is well worth
avoiding.

Let’s go 50-50
One potential solution to the lack of diversification in agriculture is to regulate how much planted crop is
genetically modified. In the case of corn, a reasonable figure would be 50% GMO and 50% non-GMO.
This figure is based on the final uses for the corn. The lion share of corn, 58 percent, is used for animal
feed, with the remaining share going to exports, food and industrial applications (5). If there were
catastrophic weather conditions or pest resistance that targeted the non-adaptable GMO, and only 50%
of the crop was genetically modified, the remaining 50% could still satisfy most of the domestic food
demand.

Overall, this solution would aim to:

 Limit the ability of a single event to wipe out a crop, especially corn, due to its lack of diversity as
a GMO, thus preventing limited availability of sustenance and gross inflation of food prices
 Prevent prevalent pest resistance
 Give non-genetically modified organisms the opportunity to adapt to new challenges like
bacterial resistance and climate change in a way that could be challenging with genetically
modified organisms

Going 50-50 allows us to leverage the improved quality and quantity of GMOs without the concern of
wiping out 85 percent of the corn crop in one fell swoop.
Conclusion
From a scientific and engineering standpoint, there is something logically incorrect in our presumption
to understand the biological world well enough to anticipate all the potential vulnerabilities in GMOs.
More significantly, from an ethical and socio-economic standpoint, the possible cost of this presumption
is too high in the case of GMOs. The outcome of our struggles with climate change will largely rest on
the ability to develop GMOs, and in this way, they are an essential component to the survival of
civilization. However, we must recognize the limitations of GMOs in terms of their lack of adaptability
and their tendency to produce widespread pest resistance.

GMOs can save our civilization from downfall, but if used improperly, they can also assure it. Let us be
responsible, acknowledge the limitations of engineering and, to some degree, submit to the elegance
and robustness of the natural evolutionary process.

References
Lee, H. et al. 2010. Bacterial charity work leads to population-wide resistance. Nature. 467.

(1) http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2011/06/17/loss-of-biodiversity-and-genetically-modified-
crops/
(2) http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/genetically-engineered-food/crops/
(3) http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc7055.html#ch11
(4) http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/complacencyonthefarm.pdf
(5) http://www.soyatech.com/corn_facts.htm
(6) http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/trade.aspx