Genetically Modified Organisms (or GMOs) have been met with a large amount of controversy and resistance in recent years. The term itself has caused an image of evil frankenfoods in a battle with delicate mother nature. This black and white model of biotechnology is a direct result of inadequate scientific research, as well as a lack of scientific literacy of the general public. While there is little conclusive research on the ecological and health effects of GMOs, much of these negative opinions can be traced to the company Monsanto, whose business practices have resulted in numerous protests around the country. Presently, our global agricultural systems prove to in inefficient in their use of resources, causing harm to ourselves and global ecosystems. With a growing uncertainty of weather patterns caused by global climate change, many scientists are looking towards GMOs as a means of future food security. Given the much needed shift towards sustainable agricultural practices, genetic modification offers one solution in decreasing the amount of agricultural inputs currently in use, and even in increasing yields and nutritional quality of some crops. Furthermore, genetic engineering should not be seen as the only road towards sustainability. Efficient design techniques combined with technological innovation together can propel us towards sustainable agriculture.
Countless individuals have expressed a dislike for GMOs by saying they simply are not natural. However, as soon at Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953, we have been on the road towards genetic modification. Many people get a sense that scientists are inserting foreign genes into our food, therefore making them less rich in nutrients and even harmful. In reality, genetic modification is no different than the way we breed dogs for specific traits, except that it allows for the isolation of one desired trait, which is usually the resistance to a detrimental pest. Breeding plants for traits of resistance would not give as precise results as would genetic engineering. The term “genetically modified” can be applied to any living organism, be it modified through artificial selection like with dogs, or natural selection.
Genetic modification has been successful around the world in preventing large amounts of their crops from being lost to pests and diseases, increasing nutritional value of crops, and decreasing the amount of land needed to produce the same yield. The genetically engineered University of Hawaii Rainbow Papaya was developed to resist papaya ringspot virus, a problem that once threatened to greatly reduce papaya production throughout the entire state (Manshardt, 1999). Genetically modified crops are often seen as less healthy than their conventional counterparts, but many are being engineered to be more nutrient rich. In the Philippines, a GM variety of rice, known as Golden Rice, is being developed to contain more vitamin A, a vital nutrient which many Filipinos are deficient (Charles, 2013). Other perceived benefits of genetically engineered crops have been an increase in yields, and a decrease in the usage of pesticides and herbicide, many of which are toxic to people and animals (Ronald, 2011). Genetic modification has the potential to aid in solving some of our current health and ecological problems, and currently there is no accessible data to support its harmful claims.
But there must be some reason GMOs are of such great concern. Part of why the public has responded negatively to the idea of GMOs is because the association with the company Monsanto, who currently produces the majority of GMO crops in the United States including corn, soybeans, canola, and cotton. Monsanto maintains patents on all of their crops, making it difficult to conduct research on their effects because it cannot be done without their permission. They have also been known to sue small farmers whose crop becomes contaminated with GM seeds blown onto their property (Rosenberg, 2014). Monsanto began as a producer of chemicals such as Agent Orange and the weed-killer Roundup, and later began developing crops with a resistance to it. It is also interesting to note that many past employees of Monsanto now work for the FDA and in other government positions (Organicconsumers.org, 2014). It is ties like this, between government and big business that take away from the ability to maintain a system of checks and balances that would otherwise require more thorough testing for food safety. It appears that Monsanto is overshadowing potential benefits of GMOs by placing profit above the desire to improve our agricultural systems. There is still much scientific research needed to understand gene transfer, but also in the potential of implementing organic technologies to achieve many of the same goals as genetic modification.
Every year, 80 million tons of fertilizer is used on our crops globally. Less than one third of this fertilizer actually is absorbed by plants roots, leaving the rest to wash into surrounding waterways causing algal blooms and decreasing aquatic oxygen content (Bartlett, 2007). The addition of mycorrhizal root fungus has been shown not only to decrease the need for fertilizer and water, but to improve soil quality and increase flowering and fruiting. Mycorrhiza increases the nutrient uptake of crops and helps protect roots from disease (Aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu, 2014). This is just one example of ways we can redesign our agricultural systems to be more efficient by taking advantage of relationships proven successful by nature.
Many discussions about the future of agriculture point out our increasing global population with a tone of urgency questioning how we are to feed this growing number of people. It is quite unsettling to learn that we currently grow enough food for 10 billion people, but still have millions who are starving in some parts of the world because so much goes to waste in other parts (Gimenez, 2014). This is the problem we need to be addressing, which highlights our real inefficiency not only in agriculture, but in our society. The answer to the “food crisis” is a combination of increased efficiency of resources and in scientific research. We should not rule out any potential solutions in biotechnology or permaculture because they threaten our ethics or profits. Research and development need not mean developing a variety of crop which is most appealing and profitable, but improving our understanding of effects genetic modification may on the environment and living organisms, and how they may fit into the future of an agricultural system which is sustainable and productive for the entire planet.
References
Bartlett, M. (2007). Field of Dreams or...Frankenfoods? Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Agriculture. Harvard Science Review, pp.16-19.
Charles, D. (2013). In A Grain Of Golden Rice, A World Of Controversy Over GMO Foods. NPR.org. Retrieved 1 May 2014, from http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/07/173611461/in-a-grain-of-golden-rice-a-world-of-controversy-over-gmo-foods
D'Agnolo, G. (2005). GMO: Human health risk assessment. Veterinary research communications, 29, 7-11.
EFSA, G. (2008). Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials. Food and chemical toxicology: an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 46, S2.
Gimenez, E. (2014). We Already Grow Enough Food For 10 Billion People -- and Still Can't End Hunger. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html
Manshardt, R. (1999). ‘UH Rainbow' Papaya-A High-quality Hybrid with Genetically Engineered Disease Resistance. University of Hawaii
Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2002). The precautionary principle: scientific uncertainty and omitted research in the context of GMO use and release. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 15(1), 73-86
Ronald, P. (2014). Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security. Genetics, 188(1), pp.11-20. Retrieved from http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.full#ref-list-1
Rosenberg, Z. (2014). Pugwash: Monsanto gives a bad name to genetically modified products. The Tartan. Retrieved from http://thetartan.org/2014/4/7/scitech/pugwash
Aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu, (2014). Dr. Davies Research Page. Retrieved from: http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/faculty/davies/research/mycorrhizae.html.
Organicconsumers.org,. (2014). Organic Consumers Association: News and Background Info on Monsanto. Retrieved 1 May 2014, from http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/news.cfm
