Are GM Crops the State of the Art of Intensive Agriculture - Essay Example

ARE GM CROPS THE OF THE ART OF INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE OR A STEP TOO FAR? DISCUSS THIS WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE of institution: Name of student: Name of tutor: Date due: According to Freedman (2009), genetically modified plants and animals often called Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are those whose characteristics have been changed by using modern scientific techniques to add or remove genes (p. 8). This is what is referred to as “genetically modified." Freedman goes on to say that the desire to produce better plants and animals has existed for as long as people have practiced farming. Since ancient times, farmers have practiced a basic type of genetic engineering. Freedman gives an example that if you look at wild species of plants such as corn or blueberries, then you will notice that their fruit is much smaller than that of varieties sold in the local grocery store (p.9). The reason for this difference in size he explains is that for centuries, farmers have sought to improve the size –and other characteristics- of the crops they grow. This allows them to produce a greater volume of food per acre of land, and it produced more food to feed people. GM foods have been around for much longer than most people know, in fact in the U.S, and 30% of Americans have been eating food made from GM crops since the year 1998 when the first Flar-Savr Tomato was introduced into the U.S supermarkets. Still, even with hundreds of millions of people around the world eating GM foods for more than a decade, controversy over the use of this technology remains very high all over the world (Diehl Paul 2014:1). This controversy is mostly fired up by the fact that GM foods were released into the market without the public knowledge. The Real Truth Magazine (2014), states that several reasons as to why the GM food issue has remained a huge topic for discussion and controversy around the world (p. 1-2). Biotech corporations market their products by selling the idea that they are ideal solutions to nutrition, world hunger and the environment yet all these foods have managed to do to attract speculations and fear about their possible side effects to the human race. To further explain this, The Real Truth Magazine lists these areas of controversy;  Nutrition Producers of GM crops claim that their genetically altered crops are more nutritious than natural crops. The promoters of ‘Golden Rice’ said that this rice was more superior to natural rich in vitamin A among other nutrients. After several tests, this rice was discovered to be inferior to natural rice. This lie was uncovered by Ticciati and Ticciati (1998), the authors of “Genetically Engineered Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide." They present adequate proof that GM foods lack some fundamental nutrients. Ticciati and Ticciati expose some biotech claims that these innovations are safe and not different from traditional hybridization and crossbreeding that have been around for a long time. Traditional methods of growing crops and breeding animals did not however violate the natural boundaries of different species (p. 35-40).  World hunger Producers of Genetically Engineered foods claim that these foods are the answer to world hunger. One of the largest biotech companies has even developed what they call “terminator seed," in which the seed produced sterile according to Earth Open Source (2011:2). When used, farmers will only have to buy this seed once a year as opposed to the natural seed that can only produce once. If this seed is to be accepted universally, 1.4 billion families that depend on farming -most being in developing countries and producing up to 20% of the world’s food supply- would be left with no source of income (Anderson & Jackson 2004:65). This does not seek to solve world hunger but to frustrate the poorest in the world while gaining more profit. The claim by biotech engineers that GE seeds can yield more produce than natural seeds thus end world hunger has been proven to be false. GE seeds do not produce more as proven by research done by the Board of Agriculture of the National Academy of Scientists. As evidenced, more than 8,200 field trials where GE soybeans produced fewer bushels of soybeans than natural soybean.  Environmental safety There have been claims by biotech companies the GM crops require fewer pesticides, but this has not yet been proven practically. These GM crops have been proven to withstand larger amounts of pesticides. It is, therefore, ironic that these biotech companies claims the GE seeds will help preserve the environment yet these are the same companies that produce DDT and Agent Orange. It is not very convincing, therefore, that their latest invention the GE seeds are environmentally safe. It was also discovered in 1999 by scientists at the Cornell University that pollen grains from GE corn fell on the leaves of milkweed plants-which the Monarch butterfly larvae feeds- and these larvae died in just four days. Because of this about half the Monarch butterfly population has died off. GE crops that have been mutated to resist pesticide cross pollinate with weeds, causing the rise of pesticide resistant weeds. Food and Drink Federation (2000) gives another devastating example of the implications of GMOs to the environment would be if a Mutated Atlantic salmon –developed in a biotech lab, modified to mature four times faster than normal- were to find its way into the ocean and breed with other natural species (p. 45). This would be devastating because the food supply available in the ocean cannot support such a population of fish. The use of GM crops has been accepted in the U.S in comparison to any other part of the world although GM crops are currently been grown in all continents of the world. Labeling of genetically modified products in the market place is required in many countries; it is not required in the U.S. The U.S and Canada have no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO food recognized by the U.S Food and Drug administration. The use of GM crops is more acceptable in the U.S although it was introduced to the market without the public knowledge. The U.K however is adamant on accept the commercialization of GM products in its market. The U.K has a strict law on GM foods compared to other countries. Any GM product has to be carefully evaluated for health and safety before it is marketed in the U.K market. It also has to be authorized in accordance with the regulation 1829/2003. Every application received for sale of GM foods has to be reviewed according to UK laws and rules. Any likelihood of toxicity or effects concerning nutrition or allergies must be considered before the product can be approved (Murnaghan 2012:1-2). The import market has also been very strict to farmers in third-world countries who farm for export to the U.K. these farmers are required to grow their crops naturally without the use of chemicals and fertilizers if they are to export to the U.K. Reports by Hickman (2013) show that there is less hostility in the use of GM crops in the U.K, but their use is still been rejected in the region (paragraph 1). There has been an increasing push of GM foods on developing countries by developed countries that claim that they want these developing countries to make genuine decisions about whether or not and under what circumstances they should use GM foods. However, this move has raised concerns in developing countries over what they refer to as a poverty trap. One major concern is that farmers will be forced to pay more for seeds price hikes and chemicals as super weeds will give them a constant headache and dig deeper into their pockets. According to Fagan (2011) GMOs are not needed to feed the world as there are far better ways of ensuring a safe and sustainable food supply (paragraph 1). This push has only been motivated by economic greed by developed countries who want to increase sales by targeting developing countries. Pushing GM foods into developing countries does not necessarily offer solutions to world hunger in that more important issues like improving food distribution, handling food waste, better land, soil and water management among others need to be controlled first (Gene Watch 2012:1). The ECT Group (2008) says that thirty years ago, humanity had an issue, science was a curiosity and industries had an opportunity (paragraph 5). The contribution of big agro-tech industries in the production and promotion of GM crops cannot be ignored. These multibillion dollar companies fund studies and research into new streams of GE crops and animals so that they can manufacture these products and chemicals and sell to farmers. Their contribution in the production and distribution of GMOs and chemicals has led to the current success of GMOs in most developed countries. These companies carryout studies and research no plant and animal gene to try to come up with various “superior” types of crops and animals that are resistant to most things that affect natural crops and animals. There their contribution to GMOs cannot be ignored as they are the key players in the field of GMO. In conclusion, the use of GM crops around the world is slowly increasing despite the fear and resistance by anti-GM activists around the world. There are issues on the use of these crops, but critics have said that these crops have been used for decades without inflicting any harm to humans at all. Any new technology affecting the human life directly has in the past been received with a lot of speculation and fear and so GM crops are no different. They do their pros and cons just like most technology and so the best way to approach this is through careful consideration further research and caution. Bibliography ANDERSON, K., & JACKSON, L. A. (2004). Genetically modified rice adoption implications for welfare and poverty alleviation. [Washington, D.C], World Bank. DIEHL PAUL. (2014). The controversy over the use of genetically modified food. Biomedical. Retrieved from http://biotech.about.com/od/Genetically-Modified-Organisms/a/The-Controversy-Of-Genetically-Modified-Food.htm EARTH OPEN SOURCE. (2011). 10 reasons we don’t need GM foods. Retrieved fromhttp://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/10-reasons-we-don-t-need-gm-foods ETC GROUP. (2008). Who owns nature? Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/707/01/etc_won_report_final_color.pd FAGAN JOHN. (2011). GMO myths and truth report. Earth Open Source. Retrieved fromhttp://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths FOOD AND DRINK FEDERATION. (2000). GM crops & the environment: benefits & risks. London, Food and Drink Federation FREEDMAN, J. (2009). Genetically modified food: how biotechnology is changing what we eat. New York, NY, Rosen Pub. Group. GENE WATCH. (2012). Feed the world. Retrieved from http://www.genewatch.org/sub-405262 HICKMAN LEO. (2013). Should the U.K embrace gm food? The guardian. Retrieved fromhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/mar/09/genetically-modified-food-uk-embrace MURNAGHAN IAN. (2012). UK laws and GM foods. Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved from http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/about-uk-laws-gm-foods.html TICCIATI, L., & TICCIATI, R. (1998). Genetically engineered foods: are they safe? you decide. New Canaan, CT, Keats Pub. THE REAL TRUTH MAGAZINE. (2014). Genetically engineered foods: why the controversy? Retrieved from http://realtruth.org/articles/223-gefwtc.html Read More