In the early 1990’s advancements in
biotechnology led to genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) making their way
into grocery stores. The GMO’s we encounter on our day to day lives include
fruits and vegetables, but what does it really mean for a crop to be
genetically modified? Crops are often modified by isolating and genetically
altering traits which may be detrimental to their overall survival. This may
include changing a single gene, which will allow the plant to thrive in all
temperatures, resist harm done by pests, and even resist implications of
droughts and flooding. Essentially, genetically modifying crops ensures a
steady growth of produce. However, GMO’s have been labeled as a threat to the
health of Americans. They are perceived as scientifically altered products,
which may cause unhealthy consequences to those who consume them. The public
has ignored the message that scientists all over the world are trying to
convey— GMO’s are safe. Supporting the movement towards the end of GMO’s is
just another common fallacy internalized in the minds of those who make an appeal
for nature, prioritizing personal beliefs above those which are logical and
scientifically proven.
Since the day humans started cultivating
plants, crops have been manually selected to increase the overall yield of
products. In the old days this consisted of individually selecting crops, (which
were larger and better tasting) and selecting those specific plants as the
parent generation. This meant that other crop counterparts that did not look up
to par were eliminated and lost. By selecting the healthiest plants and
breeding farmers were modifying their original strain of crops.
This brings up another question—why would
one crop produce such a wide array of offspring ranging from small to big or
healthy and unhealthy? Why aren’t all original plant offspring’s similar to
each other? The simple reason is random genetic mutations. Biological species
undergo mutations randomly all the time during replication, and sometimes those
mutations lead to positive outcomes. Contrary to popular belief, not all
mutations are detrimental. Many times mutations lead to positive outcomes. Such
as a plant losing its poisonous characteristics, or even mutations causing a
plant to taste better. Random mutations are a natural phenomena that take place
in all species.
We
now understand that mutations are naturally occurring in crops. In other words,
change is already embedded in the life of a crop by nature. Scientists utilized
this information. First they mapped out the genome of a crop. This means they
had every piece of the crops DNA mapped out. They then found all the genes in
the DNA, that are responsible for factors such as resistance to pests and harsh
climate conditions. Next they manually inserted or removed genes they believed
would be beneficial for the seed to thrive. They knew that this would produce a
crop that was genuinely perfect.
Crops do not need to be modified at all.
Nature would soon impose random mutations on seeds anyways, and the best would
survive inevitably. However, by genetically modifying plants we are skipping
the years and years it might take for a plant to form all the necessary
positive mutations we need. Without modifying the seeds, it could take anywhere
from 1000-10,000 years for us to see a positive change caused by random
mutations and natural selection. Scientist have merely pressed the fast forward
button on nature.
To further understand how GMO’s function,
consider this analogy. Imagine you are on your way to write a New York times
best seller novel. You work day after day, typing out page after page. After a
long year of writing you finally get your hands on 1000 pages of what you had
thought was pure gold. You decide to read over the pages and realize hundreds
of pages, which you put your work into—are trash. After disposing most of your
novel you realize you have a much better story, and you wish you did not waste
so much of your time writing pages you later would realize where unnecessary.
Now imagine there was a FDA approved drug, which claims it turns the worst of
writers into the best. One single pill and you’ll write like a god. The drug
doesn’t cause any direct side effects to you, it only promises a more efficient
style of writing. It does not press any new ideas into your brain, it only
eliminates your tendency to produce work that is below average. In this analogy
every page you typed in the book is a year of a crops generation, the drugs are
the GMO’s, and all the pages you wrote, which were trash are the countless
amount of years we would have to waste to produce one perfect crop seed.
Considering how beneficial GMO’s are to agriculture,
one has to consider why some people hate them. Diving deeper into the history
of GMO’s will allow one to truly understand why GMO’s have such a bad
reputation. The major company most people think of when they hear about GMO’s
is Monsanto. Monsanto first stepped into the picture when farmers complained about
having pesticides interfering with the growth rate of their crops. They wanted
to kill the pests destroying their crops, yet keep the crops healthy. Others
even said there were unwanted weeds growing from the ground, which were
difficult to remove in such large areas of land. Monsanto used to this
information and created Round Up—the pesticide that would prove to increase
crop yields. Along with round up Monsanto also developed genetically modified
seeds, which produced a certain protein that made it resistant to the pesticide.
Famers were able to spray entire crop fields without having to worry about
killing their crops. This is a huge advancement for agriculture because it allows
for famers to produce crops in the most efficient way possible.
“On average, GM technology adoption has
reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and
increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are
larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and
profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries (Klümper).”
After the development of Round Up
resistant seeds, Monsanto went ahead and patented their product, something any
profitable company would do. Many however, saw this as a controversial move. Monsanto
rivals believe that nature should not be patented, ignoring the fact that
biotechnology companies put in a huge amount of effort to make a sustainable
product. Monsanto claimed that once a seed was modified by them, it no longer
truly was a piece of nature. Monsanto was given the privilege to patent their
seeds in 2001 in the J.E.M.
Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc. supreme court case. Since then, they
have gone to great efforts in tracking down farmers who are redistributing
their seeds for profit. Monsanto found that farmers would buy one batch,
harvest the crops, and sell their seeds to other neighboring famers. In other words,
farmers were robbing Monsanto of their hard work. The same farmers would deny
selling seeds, and state that other fields were just being cross pollinated.
In 2008 the documentary “Food Inc.” gained
a massive amount of attention from the public. The film attacked Monsanto for
patenting its seeds and going after “innocent” farmers. Many mindless viewers
were captivated by the images of farmers losing their land thanks to Monsanto.
Details of why the land was truly lost were never fully discussed, and no one
asked any questions. It is truly amazing what some great film editing can do.
The film also painted Monsanto out to be some hazardous company by mentioning
their past work in bioweapon development. It is true, Monsanto used to create
biological gases used in warfare, but they clearly changed their motives to do
bigger and better things. They realized using their money to create GMO’s would
lead to more profit, so they made a switch. Monsanto still does what they do
best—science.
Monsanto
is not wrong for patenting their seeds. How are genetically modified seeds,
which Monsanto has put millions of dollars into producing, any different than
other technology companies enforcing their patents? The claim that
biotechnology companies should not have the right to enforce a patent on a
product they have created is unjustified. The film Food Inc. even attacks
Monsanto for suing farmers, stating they are ruining the lives of people trying
to make a living growing crops, however the film neglects to inform the viewers
that Monsanto only targets farmers who are actually guilty of stealing their
product. Monsanto does not go after farmers who have small traces of their
product due to natural cross pollination, instead they seek farmers who are
actively stealing their product for profits. To top it all off, Monsanto even
does their best to keep the farmers business alive.
“Baucum (Monsanto trait stewardship lead )
said it makes more financial sense for growers to simply settle the matter
out-of-court, instead of paying costly lawyer and trial fees. As shown by the
statistics, Monsanto also prefers to settle out-of-court, and usually sends
representatives to work things out with the grower in person.”
Monsanto is not out trying to raid
farmers; they just want to protect their product. To further emphasize how much
Monsanto cares, any proceeds made in trial are donated to youth leadership
initiative programs in the area (link).
In fact, since 1997,
Monsanto has gone to trial over seed patents only nine times.
“This number is emphasized even more if
you add the fact that only 147 lawsuits have been filed in 18 years of patent
enforcement, and almost 1,000 matters have been settled out-of-court. “Most of
the cases are never filed,” Scott Baucum, Monsanto trait stewardship lead,
said. “Most of the time we find that we’ll go knock on the farmer’s door and
he’ll say, ‘Yeah, you caught me. Let’s get it behind us.’ And we just settle it
with them (Freeman).’
“
“Food Inc.” was a big step forward for organic
activist. It made viewers believe Monsanto was a big corporation that wanted to
take control of the crop market, and force out natural farmers. It embedded a perpetual
level of distrust in viewers by omitting details about how GMO’s truly
function. It led to a movement of organic activist doing their best to spread
false information about a company that just wanted to do some good.
Organic activist Critic: “So your opposed to GMO’s on the basis that it
is marketed by a big corporation, are you also opposed to the wheel because it
is marketed by the big auto companies “
Organic activists wake up everyday, and
do their best to spread lies about the detrimental effects of GMO’s. Why would
they do this? Well, the organic food market is worth just about 63
billion dollars. If they fail to make the public believe GMO’s are
poison—people will stop shopping at stores like Whole Foods, and the organic
produce empire will crash. Whole Foods and other grocery stores pushing organic
products, are just taking advantage of those who do not fully understand the
concept of GMO’s. Their whole foundation relies on their ability to misinform
the public. This includes publishing fake scientific papers, such as one
suggesting the transfer of GMO crop
genes into animals (link).
The truth is that it is just not possible for humans to intake genetic
information from food. Scientist still struggle to find ways to edit the human
genome for medical purposes-- if it was as easy as eating a modified fruit, we
would have already cured cancer, HIV, and all other tragic diseases. As soon as
the food you eat enters your stomach, it is broken down into small constituent
pieces. DNA would not even be able to survive the human digestive process, let
alone incorporate itself into the human genome.
Organic grocery stores do not stop
there. They also try to sell consumers ridiculously priced meat from animals
that have been raised on an all GMO free diet. Individuals actually believe
that GMO crops transfer a mutant gene into animals ingesting them. They also
believe that cooking this meat at high temperatures, will not degrade all
remains of DNA completely. Luckily, studies have shown that all meat is equal,
no matter which diet the animals were given. “A new review study finds there is
no evidence in earlier scientific studies indicating that genetically
engineered feed crops harmed the health or productivity of livestock and
poultry, and that food products from animals consuming such feeds were
nutritionally the same as products from animals that ate non-GMO feeds (UC Davis).”
Organic or not, the nutrition is the same.
Organic activist have no true
scientific data to back their claims, yet millions of Americans still believe
Non-GMO is the way to go. This is because they make an appeal to nature. They
make consumers believe that nature should not be tampered with in any way, and
that all things that are natural must be good. The truth is that all natural is
not always the best option. Modifying nature can have many benefits. One
example is the development of GM rice which could boost the yield of growth by 50%.
(Bailey). Advancements like these would not be possible if we only depended on
nature.
GMO’s have also led to many health
related scientific discoveries. If we did not tamper with nature, we would have
never been able to produce insulin to treat Diabetes. As humans we must take
what nature has provided to us, and safely modify it with the technology we
have. GMO’s and the modification of natural processes are steps on the path to
building a better future.
“GMOS are found, for example, in life-enhancing
and life-saving medicines. Take diabetes. Not long ago, the insulin product
that diabetics took to regulate diabetes came entirely from the pancreas organs
of slaughtered pigs, cows or sheep. Sometimes this insulin caused allergic
reactions. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, scientists developed a new form
of insulin made by bacteria that had been given the human insulin gene with GMO
methods. The approach raised various concerns not unlike those that have been
raised with respect to GMO food. But in 1982, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approved it, making human insulin the first GMO medical product. (Fraley)“
GMO’s are making the world a better
place. Many innovative techniques such as adding essential vitamins to foods,
can help those who are suffering from nutritional abnormalities. Just recently
Bangladesh developed rice, which was genetically enhanced with vitamin A. The World Health Organization (WHO) global database
on vitamin A deficiency states one in every five pre-school children in
Bangladesh is vitamin A-deficient. Among pregnant women, 23.7 percent suffer
the deficiency (Ahamad).
The development of the golden rice is an aid for the population of Bangladesh.
Although the rice is not all natural, it still manages to makes a huge impact.
Falsifying information to persuade the
public is a propaganda tactic that prevails in a society that fails to research
the information they choose to believe.
The world needs to take in information not only on a personal level, but
a logical level as well. One can not assume everything they hear online is
true. This statement is even more true when it comes to anti-GMO propaganda on YouTube,
where anyone can say anything without mention of any sources. Every piece of
data which I encountered that pointed to detrimental effects of GMO’s was in
one way or another falsified. The truth is that some individuals will never
make the effort to do their own research because they believe large companies
like Monsanto are out to get them. This distrust is a product of all the
propaganda that has been spewed out in the past couple of years. People
actually believe that Monsanto and other companies have paid scientist to
produce data which states GMO’s are safe, yet this train of thought is paranoia
at its worst. We can only hope that the public keep an open mind as more and
more scientists make the move to support GMO’s.
The worlds distrust in GMO’s can easily
be corrected. Scientists must take a stand, and develop tools to educate the public
on what GMO's really are. They have been mislabeled by the media and our only
hope is for people to take on biotechnological innovations with an open mind. Natural
is not always good. There are many things created by nature that have negative
effects (natural disasters, poisonous plants, and naturally occurring diseases).
I was once too persuaded by films like Food Inc. I believed that by spending
more money on a snack, I was making the right choice for my body. After studying
genetics, I realized all the stories I had heard were a lie. Organic activists
have created an ideology that persuades people into spending more money on
foods claiming to be the better option. They preach that the natural way is the
best way, yet by understanding the advancements in todays world one can derive that
this is false. GMO’s are equivalent to produce marketed as natural, and the more
people understand that, the more advanced we become as humans.
