Exploiting Nature to Survive

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.