Genetically Modified Crops - Essay Example

Genetically Modified Crops There is a growing problem of hunger facing most of the world’s populations.Many thousands die from starvation daily and as the population increases, this problem escalates which further necessitates the desperate need for a reliable supply of food. The technology of bioengineered foods, sometimes referred to as genetically modified, genetically engineered or transgenic crops, will be an essential element in meeting these challenging needs. The concept is not new but along with the increasing amount of bioengineered food appearing in the marketplace and as the associated benefits are being realized, a growing amount of controversy has ensued. Some have termed the genetically manipulated crops ‘frankenfoods’ and have questioned the potential harm to people and the environment that could come from their production. This discussion will answer these questions regarding the safety of these foods and present an overview of bioengineered foods. Bioengineering food involves “splicing a gene from one organism, such as a bacterium, into a plant or animal to confer certain traits” (Muth et al, 2002). These traits, developed for agricultural crops such as corn, soybeans, canola and cotton include increasing nutrients, tolerance to herbicides and drought, resistance to fungus and insects and reduced spoilage. Bioengineered corn and soybeans have become increasingly widespread among farmers during the last decade and the products can be commonly found in most grocery stores. Companies that engineer and produce bioengineered foods as well as manufacturers that choose to use these foods in their ingredients are faced with a stringent and ever-developing regulatory oversight by three government agencies; the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Which agency regulates a particular product is determined by the intended use of the crop. Very often, a product is regulated by multiple agencies. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a division of the USDA monitors products and organisms that affect plants. Products and organisms derived from bioengineering methods introduced to or manufactured in the U.S. require USDA identification. This agency then determines if the item in question is a ‘regulated article’ or a possible disease. If the USDA decides that the product or crop is to be regulated, “a written approval usually is issued that designates conditions for introduction of the article” (McCammon, 2002). The EPA has the responsibility of regulating the sale, use, distribution and testing of all pesticides, even those genetically produced in a crop such as a type of corn which produces toxins that repels insects but is harmless to humans. The EPA also establishes tolerances for pesticide in crops meant for both animal and human ingestion. It does not designate between the two however, either a genetically produced crop is safe for both or neither. The FDA bases its policy concerning bioengineered foods on the conception of ‘substantial equivalence.’ Those bioengineered foods not considered substantially equivalent are categorized as food additives. These foods are significantly similar to foods both functionally and structurally as foods commonly found in the marketplace. “Thus far, the FDA has determined that most bioengineered food crops are substantially equivalent” (US Food and Drug Administration, 2001). Companies involved in producing foods from bioengineering methods are required to inform the FDA. It has been reported that the industry has been 100 percent compliant in this notification requirement. Bioengineered crops are genetically predisposed to repelling insects which reduces the amount of pesticides and fertilizers used by farmers. This is an important by-product of bioengineered foods. Reducing the amount of chemicals used on crops not only lessens toxins ingested by consumers but helps avert much more catastrophic consequences. Fertilizers which are necessary to grow sufficient amounts of food are poisoning drinking water and its runoff is draining into waterways and killing many species of fish and plants. Farming, which supplies life itself to the human race also contributes to soil erosion and polluted water. Farmers and large agricultural corporations must clear trees to find land that will sustain crops. Wind and water passes over barren land which initiates erosion, a condition which has been caused by poor farming practices or deforestation. Cattle are generally raised on the eroded, previously farmed land which further degrades the soil. “Such practices tend to lead to rapid soil degradation as most soils are too poor to sustain agriculture” (“Underlying Causes,” 1999). Eroding soil mixes with clean water supplies thus reducing the amount of available, life-giving water for an increasing number of people. The soil that is washed into the drinking water contains toxins, pesticides, fertilizers and industrial wastes which not only restricts the supply of potable water but makes its way into the watershed underground, rivers, streams, lakes and eventually into the ocean and gulf waters which creates large areas of ‘dead zones’ where no living thing can survive. Soil degradation occurs when using chemical fertilizers which break down the chemical composition of the soil. “Many scientists observed a gradual decrease of soil organic matter content in soils, as well as a decrease of soil biological activity in particular, in relation to chemical uses” (“Soils retrogression”, 2007). The combination of erosion and degradation results in desert-like conditions where neither plants nor animals can survive but this problem can be overcome by implementing proven agricultural practices which enhance and rebuild the soil. “Rebuilding is possible through the improvement of soil structure, addition of organic matter and limitation of runoff” (“Soils retrogression,” 2007). These erosion reducing methods are relatively easy to implement but seldom are because of the initial expense, however slight. If these progressive farming methods were utilized, the soil would be improved but would not return to its previous state which took thousands of years to develop. The benefits of reducing chemicals on crops are multi-faceted and deeply meaningful to the immediate crisis of starvation and the future sustainability of the soil used for growing crops. However, there exist potential drawbacks. “Genes from the genetically modified crop could be transferred to the pests. The pests then become resistant to the crop spray and the crop spraying becomes useless. A variety of insects are at risk of being killed. It might be predatory insects that eat the harmful ones or, perhaps attractive insects such as butterflies” (Future Food, 2002). All genetically produced proteins contained in food products currently on the market have been evaluated by the FDA. According to the FDA, these proteins have been found to be “non-toxic, sensitive to heat, acid and enzymatic digestion, and hence rapidly digestible, and have no structural similarities with proteins known to cause allergies” (Thompson, 2000). This governmental agency has determined that the quality control and safety procedures such as taste testing, visual and chemical analyses commonly practiced by genetic food manufactures are adequate to ensure the public’s safety. The USDA, EPA and FDA have tested bioengineered foods extensively both in a natural environment and controlled laboratory settings for more than a decade. During the past 15 years, more than 4,000 field examinations by the various government agencies have been executed for performance, suitability and efficacy of the crops as well as environmental influences of manufacturing in 18,000 locations all over the U.S. Additionally, many thousands of similar examinations of bioengineered food products have been conducted in several countries throughout the world. “Volumes of data have been generated on the food safety of bioengineered foods as well, with no evidence of safety risks” (Ruttan, 1999). The further development and distribution of bioengineered foods will provide additional food sources in which to feed the masses of today and future generations of people as well. These products are also genetically designed to enhance vitamin deficiencies in staple food items which already have greatly improved life circumstances for many people. The implications for the future are boundless. Strains of rice genetically infused with Vitamin A have been developed which holds the promise of preventing blindness. This will give the gift of sight to millions of children in Asian countries whose diets, which consist mainly of rice, are currently deficient in the vitamin. “Vitamin A is a highly essential micronutrient and widespread dietary deficiency of this vitamin in rice-eating Asian countries has tragic undertones… five million children in South East Asia develop an eye disease called xerophthalmia every year, and 250,000 of them eventually become blind” (Potrykus, 1999). The new strains of rice have the potential to greatly reduce the instances of this significant health issue. In addition, according to UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), the vitamin enriched rice could prevent as many as two million infants from dying of this dietary deficiency because it predisposes them to measles and chronic diarrhea. Rice strains are also being genetically infused with iron which could supplement the diet of approximately 30 percent of the world’s people, who are located mostly in under-developed countries, who suffer from iron deficiency. “Edible vaccines, delivered in locally grown crops, could do more to eliminate disease than the Red Cross, missionaries, and United Nations task forces combined, at a fraction of the cost” (Arakawa et al, 1998). Companies involved in manufacturing and distributing bioengineered foods, several academics and many various organizations throughout the world, including the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, continue to warn that crop yields must be increased so that adequate supplies of food are available to feed the ever-growing populations of the world. Critics allege that the problem of global starvation is caused primarily by a disproportion of wealth and not by the lack of available foods. However, these critics are in the vast minority. Most experts agree that to at least some extent, bioengineered foods are the key to saving thousands of deaths from starvation every year. As time goes on, this challenge will become harder to meet and many more will starve on a daily basis unless bioengineered foods are more generally accepted and thus made more accessible to every part of the world. Many of those that warn of the horrors of ‘frankenfood’ are the same ones that attempt to debunk other scientific advances such as stem cell technologies. These advances will eventually be integrated into society but will do so more slowly because of fear-based objections which have little merit. While the development and distribution of bioengineered foods are slowed by these fears, millions more will starve, be blinded or die from malnutrition. Works Cited Arakawa, T. et al. “Efficacy of a Food Plant-based Oral Cholera Toxin B Subunit Vaccine.” Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 16, (1998): pp. 292-297. “Future Food” Bionet. (2002). March 12, 2009 McCammon, Sally L. “Ensuring Safe Food.” Science Advisor. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture, (May 2002). March 12, 2009 Muth, M.K.; Mancini, D; & Viator, C. “US Food Manufacturer Assessment of and Responses to Bioengineered Foods.” AgBioForum. Vol. 5, I. 3, (2002): pp. 90-100. March 12, 2009 < http://www.agbioforum.org/v5n3/v5n3a03-muth.htm> Potrykus, I. “Vitamin-A and Iron-Enriched Rices May Hold Key to Combating Blindness and Malnutrition: A Biotechnology Advance.” Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 17, (1999). Ruttan, V.W. “Biotechnology and Agriculture: A Skeptical Perspective.” AgBioForum. Vol. 2, N. 1, (1999): pp. 54-60. “Soils Retrogression and Degradation.” Answers.com. (2007). March 12, 2009 Thompson, L. “Are Bioengineered Foods Safe?” FDA Consumer. Vol. 34, I. 1, (2000): pp. 1-5. March 12, 2009 “What are Underlying Causes of Deforestation?” World Rainforest Movement. Uruguay. (1999). March 12, 2009 US Food and Drug Administration. “Premarket Notice Concerning Bioengineered Foods: Proposed Rule.” Federal Register. Vol. 66, N. 12, (January 18, 2001): pp. 4706-4738. Read More