GMO Danger
by Patric "The Real Chosen 1" Arnold
Advancements in biotechnology have generated genetically engineered crops to improve crop resistance against disease, weeds, and insects. Genetically modified (GM) seeds have profoundly affected agriculture. These seeds have been heralded by some as a miracle cure to world hunger and rebuked by others as sowing the means for destroying the environment and impairing the wellbeing of humans (World Health Organization, 2012). The long term effects of GM plantings are unknown (Mafaria-Gomez & Barca, 2009, p.14). It is feared GM crops could bring about a global disaster of epic proportions. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have the potential to threaten food security and mar the safety of the environment and human health; for these reasons, corporations must be transparent in following internationally set guidelines including the assessment of unintended consequences by independent sources before GM crops become a more substantial source of world food supplies.
First, GMOs could jeopardize the supply of food for the following reasons: farmers may be forced to grow GM crops to remain competitive; pesticide resistance crops could cause an alteration in pest patterns with unknown consequences; and corporations will control the supply of seeds. Farmers have planted GM seeds at an unprecedented rate in order to increase crop yield even though it will likely result in the development of resistant pests and weeds (Nayak & Pandey & Ammayappan, 2011). In 2008, 13.3 million farmers in 25 countries planted GM crops covering an area of over 2 billion acres (Marshall, 2009). In the United States, transgenic planting accounts for 95 percent of soybeans and 75 percent of the corn (United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2011). Enhanced yield puts pressure on farmers to use the GM seeds in order to improve profit by increasing harvest. Reducing insects and weeds through GM planting means a better harvest, but this can result in insects and weeds adapting to the new conditions posed by GMOs. There is already one such example. A resistant annual broadleaf weed has been detected in the soybean systems. The scientific understanding of the impact is limited because there are an inadequate number of generations of plantings to determine long term effects (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2004). Pests are expected to develop that will be resistant to the pesticides and herbicides implanted in GM plants which means that stronger and more toxic chemicals will be needed so that farmers are not left defenseless against new altered organisms (Nayak & Pandey & Ammayappan, 2011).
Research is hampered because intellectual property rights give biotechnology companies the right to deny access to any information or studies they have conducted on GM seeds and plants. Patent laws protect the intellectual property rights of biotechnology companies with a broad scope granted to each patent requiring limited detailed description concerning gene technology to minimize the number of patents filed and encourage innovative patents (Greenbaum, 2007). Biotechnology companies continue to increase spending on research which totaled $25 billion in 2008 (Huggett & Hodgson & Lahteenmaki, 2009). This type of investment indicates they are looking for large returns on investment. GM seeds brought to market are priced and controlled by the corporations. They have protected themselves by requiring farmers to buy seeds from them each year instead of taking seed from the last year’s harvest, and a sterile seed has already been developed to ensure purchase from the company holding the patent (Nayak & Pandey & Ammayappan, 2011). Laws protect the intellectual property rights of profit oriented biotech companies giving a few corporations the ability to make extensive decisions over the future of agriculture (Strauss, 2009). These laws give corporations control of the distribution of seeds and their development. The economic and political consequences of allowing a few corporations control over a broad scope of the word’s food supply looms as a likely prospect.
Secondly, GMOs endanger the wellbeing of the planet by posing environmental risks as the diversity of plants and animals are decreased, and GM foods risk human health when the long term health impact is unknown. Past experience is the introduction of a new biological factor takes decades before its influence is understood. Investments in GMO research are focused on pest resistance and developing monocultures which are destructive to biodiversity (Fresco, 2001). The mixture of plants protects ecosystems by ensuring a healthy environment able to recover from a variety of disasters. Greater variety of species assures sustainability of all life forms. GMOs are living things that did not arise through natural selection, and they will have an impact on the environment (Knight, 2001). GM crops are not naturally developing organisms slowly entering the ecosystems allowing for adjustments in the ecosystem; they are injected. Evidence is mounting that GM plants harm constructive insects and soil microorganisms, and perhaps birds (Nayak & Pandey & Ammayappan, 2011, p. 115). Human health is also in jeopardy. Major concerns include the introduction of new genes into a plant may create a new allergen, and untested gene mixing may have a negative impact on individuals (Pandey et al., 2010, p. 449). The development of GMOs has been rapid and changing quickly which has given little time to evaluate the consequences of human consumption. The lack of peer reviewed studies evaluating the effect of GM foods on human health is indicative of the lack of conclusive knowledge about what the impact will be (Mafaria-Gomez & Barca, 2009, p.14). Risk assessment regarding human health and the environment should err on the side of caution.
Even though corporations have the intellectual property rights to the procedures involved in the making of GMOs, they must be willing to: test the long term effect of GM foods on human health; submit to testing procedures outlined by an international organization; and allow the results to be verified and corroborated by independent testing. Debate over transgenic foods is global which makes the issues more complex because of different laws, standards, and cultural considerations. Some countries have banned the growing of GM crops while others allow it. With no effective testing methods established, an estimated 60 to 70 percent of processed foods in North America include GM contents although most consumers are unaware and uniformed about the contents of these foods (Premanandh, 2011). In contrast, Zimbabwe refused to accept a shipment of foods for its starving people because it was genetically modified (Rose, 2002). The European Union is divided about the safety of growing GM crops, and only an industrial potato (not intended for food) has been approved although some nations want other crops to be approved (Chipman, 2010). The GM debate will not end, and transnational trade in these crops is stymied until there is an international standard concerning the safety of altered foods. The United States Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture have not instituted any additional testing standards for GM crops; the EU has yet to come up with a testing plan to satisfy member nations; and the UN has not yet enacted a procedure to ensure the safety issues of GM crops. Multinational corporations sell their products in various countries, so an international agency is the obvious choice to institute regulations and safety testing of GM foods. Each country would have a right to make additional laws concerning these foods; however, to join in international food marketing, each should have to abide by some minimal standards. Corporations will need to share information with independent scientists without compromising the nuances of their patented methods. The World Health Organization (WHO) is responsible for guiding and organizing global health issues for the United Nations (UN). As the agency already conducting tests for the UN, the WHO is a logical choice for an agency to coordinate valid scientific testing, set norms and standards, and disseminate health information to member countries.
Another area ignored by the rush to plant GM crops is that of unintended consequences to the environment which can be addressed by: testing crop plantings in various environments; allowing opportunity to study what effect GM crops have on land, water, and animals; and gathering and organizing data for scientific study. Environmental influences take years to affect the ecosystem and new data about the impact will take time to understand. When experts met at a FAO consultation to present papers and discuss the environmental effects of GM crops, the following ideas were among those presented: A study of the benefits and harm from GM crops should not be inferred from small plots of land; A single variety of a crop is perilous because it leads to resistance; There must be long term studies of environmental impacts of land cultivated with GM crops; There are concerns about biodiversity where herbicide resistant crops are planted; The effects of GM crops on ecosystems are unknown until more scientific data has been gathered (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2001).
Ecosystems adjust when new species are introduced and GM seeds may have unintended impacts on other species, but no long term environmental impact studies have assured scientists that they have a place in a vigorous healthy ecosystem. Although each nation has its own governing agencies and laws concerning GM crops, all nations would gain from working together to determine the potential and perils of GM crops. Risk assessment is a global concern because crops are a commodity traded worldwide. With over 2 billion acres already planted in GM crops, there are sites prime for testing and evaluation. Nations need to agree to allow access to ecosystems for scientific studies which will ultimately provide a benefit to the geographic area being analyzed. Again, the UN is the most obvious choice for overseeing studies over such a broad geographical scope. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is an international agency of the UN interested in world food supplies staffed with experts which would enable it to establish a scientific investigation in varied environments throughout the world. The FAO is already working with member nations to coordinate agricultural information sharing. As Director-General of the FAO, Professor Jose Graziano Da Silva recognizes the need to oversee food security, global food management, and agricultural diseases that cross national boundaries (DaSilva, 2011). The FAO should develop an orderly integrated database of all monitored GM fields and the surrounding environments in the ecosystem. This database would provide scientists and environmentalists with ongoing information, and through the FAO, they could extend investigations and experiments if more data is needed. The FAO should coordinate and publish results, make recommendations, and convene meetings where nations can share concerns and solutions and establish international trade standards concerning GM crops.
One in seven people in the world will go to bed hungry tonight (World Food Programme, 2012). The promise of GM crops increasing yields and reducing costs cannot be ignored. Endangering human health and jeopardizing the environment are not reasonable solutions to feeding the hungry. Corporations are heavily invested in GM seeds and control the intellectual property rights to these products which have been sold and planted in 25 countries. If corporations are not held accountable now, they will make us and our planet the subject of the largest and riskiest experiment to date. International cooperation for the study of health issues involving transgenic crops and examination of the environmental impact of GM farming is critical to the well being of all people. The United Nations through its agencies, WHO and FAO, needs to set scientific standards for testing, monitoring, data collection for review by scientists and environmentalists, and set international trade standards for GM crops. The effects of GM innovations in biotechnology must become transparent before corporations lead us into a future of unintended catastrophe.
References
Chipman. (2010, July 29). Fears over Europe's GM crop plan: A proposal to let nations opt out of growing European-approved GM varieties is under fire from all sides. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from Galegroup database. (GALE/A233502815)
DaSilva, J. G. (2011, June 24). Speech delivered by prof. Jose Graziano da Silva to 37th session of the FAO [speech]. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from United Nations website: http://fao.org/ fileadmin/user_upload/newroom/docs/DaSilva-June25-2011_1.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2001). Report of the FAO expert consultation on environmental effects of genetically modified crops 16-18 June, Rome, Italy [report]. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from United Nations website: http://ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/field/006/ad690e/ad690e00.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2004, April 23). Report of the FAO expert consultation o environmental effects of genetically modified crops. Retrieved January 18, 2012, from United Nations website: http://fao.org/ddocrep/fao/field/006/ad690e/ad690e00.pdf
Fresco, F. O. (2001, September). Genetically modified organisms in food and agriculture: Where are we? Where are we going? [keynote address conference on "Crop and Forest Biotechnology for the Future]. Retrieved February 3, 2012, from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations website: http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/GMOs.pdf
Greenbaum, D. (2007, June). An analysis of the evolution of the written description requirement
vis-avis DNA and biotechnological inventions [Journal Article]. Retrieved February 18, 2012, from Academic Search Complete database. (63987580)
Huggett, B., Hodgson, J., & Lahteenmaki, R. (2009, August). Public biotech 2008- the numbers
[Journal Article]. Retrieved February 18, 2012, from Academic Search Complete database. (43579381) Kariyawasam, K. (2010, July). Legal liability, intellectual property and genetically modified crops: Their impact on world agriculture. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from Galegroup database. (GALE/A232467935)
Knight, D. (2001, June 4). Environment: New report fuels debate on GMOs. Retrieved February 2, 2012, from Galegroup database. (GALE/A75443653)
Magana-Gomez, J. A., & Calderson de la Barca, A. M. (2009, January). Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health. Retrieved January 28, 2012, from Academic Search Complete database. (35798775)
Marshall, A. (2009, March). 13.3 million farmers cultivate GM crops. Retrieved January 15, 2012, from Galegroup database. (GALE/A199539118)
Nayak, L., Pandey, H., Ammayappan, L., & Ray, D. P. (2011, July 6). Genetically modified crops - a review. Retrieved January 17, 2012, from Academic Search Complete database. (63030689) Office of Director-General Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2012, February 6). GMOs and the food supply chain. Retrieved January 15, 2012, from http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X9602E/x9602e05.htm
Pandey, A., Kamle, N., Muthukumar, K. P., Kumar, O., Gupta, V., Ashfaque, M., & Pandey, B. K. (2010). Genetically modified food: Its uses, future prospects and safety assessments [journal article]. Retrieved January 16, 2012, from Academic Search Complete database. (56576125)
Premanandh, J. (2011, February). Global consensus--need of the hour for genetically modified
organisms. Retrieved January 25, 2012, from Galegroup database. (GALE/A247740219)
Rose, R. (2002, July/August). GM foods for Africa: Solution or hazard? Retrieved January 15, 2012, from Galegroup database. (GALE/A89235788)
Strauss, D. M. (2009, Summer). The application of TRIPS to GMOs: International intellectual property rights and biotechnology [Academic One File]. Retrieved January 29, 2012, from Galegroup database. (GALE/A216486735)
United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2011, July 1). Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. overview. Retrieved January 18, 2012, from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/
World Food Programme. (2012, February 7). Hunger: Hunger stats. Retrieved February 7, 2012, from United Nations website: http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
World Health Organization. (2012, January 18). Tweny questions on gnetically modified foods.
Retrieved January 18, 2012, from United Nations website: http://who.int/foodsafety/publications/ biotech/20questions/en/
