April 22, 2012
Genetically Modified Organisms: A Real Concern?
Genetically modified organisms tend to have a negative connotation within society. They’re considered unnatural, unhealthy, and even risky to human health. Yet, the majority of society lacks knowledge on science. People are bombarded each day with articles opposing genetically modified food, arguing that they have potential human health risks and pose dangers to the environment. However, most articles in the news exaggerate the negative effects of GMOs without providing sufficient proof. This negative influence on society has created an automatic opposition to GMOs without considering its many benefits that could ultimately better the world and reduce world starvation.
In reality, GMO’s benefits outweigh its costs by increasing and improving food production. For example, through the insertion of certain genes into rice, people could obtain more vitamin A (A Report on Genetically Engineered Food). In many developing countries, rice is the staple food and often one of the only foods available for consumption. Without receiving enough vitamin A, people in developing countries could face early blindness. However, with the creation of genetically engineered rice that contains vitamin A, people could live a healthier lifestyle regardless of their poverty level.
GMOs can also contain herbicides and pesticides that would not affect the crop itself but would attack certain weeds and pests that try to harm it. In Africa, there is a weed called striga that depletes crops’ nutrients underground (A Report on Genetically Engineered Food). While most weeds can be pulled out by hand, striga begins attacking crop seeds even before it has sprouted. However, through the collaboration among Kenyan and Israel scientists, a herb resistance trait was engineered, allowing crops to continue their normal growth while simultaneously attacking the weed (A Report on Genetically Engineered Food). This engineering feat has allowed farmers in Africa to grow their crops without fear of weeds damaging their crop yield.
These two examples are not the extent of GMO’s functions. They can also quicken growth, prevent pest attacks, reduce the use of fertilizer, and enhance desired traits. Furthermore, they could be better for the environment than conventional crops. Especially since land is becoming scarcer and there is a greater demand for food, GMOs have stepped in to increase the crop yield by being able to resist environmental factors such as salinity, drought, and cold (Biotechnology and the Developing World). Similarly, some GMOs are equipped with traits that require less tilling, which contributes to less soil erosion and runoff. GMOs can promote sustainable farming by encouraging farmers to increase their crop yield, while maintaining the same amount of land and using the same amount of fertilizer (Biotechnology and the Developing World).
Ultimately, genetically modified organisms are nothing to fear. Although media has hyped up the negative effects by appealing to society’s concern for the unknown, the public needs to understand the tremendous benefits of GMOs. They can improve human health by increasing nutritional value. They can also encourage sustainable farming by using GMOs that require less tilling, which benefits the environment by keeping the topsoil intact and reducing fertilizer runoffs into rivers and streams. Sure, GMOs has its drawbacks but every technology has its own faults; nothing is foolproof. But the most important issue is that the benefits exceed their costs, and GMOs does just that.
Links:
http://members.tripod.com/c_rader0/gemod.htm
http://www.betterfoods.org/Promise/Hunger/Hunger.htm
Kaylee Yang is an undergraduate in the USC Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
Ultimately, I believe that we are going to reach a point in time where genetically modified organisms might be the only answer in providing enough food for the world population. I believe that the inventions of GMO’s are with good intention; however, there is great perceived risk with such technology. For example, since GMO’s are a relatively new invention, we are still not fully aware of what the long-term effects of consuming GMO’s are. Moreover, the invention of GMO’s has made year-long harvest possible, which is good for the global food supply but ultimately bad for lands that are already strained by impractical farming methods. Additionally, one could argue that the inclusion of GMO’s can significantly boost the resistance of pest to several things because all the crops are now available year round and they are all almost identical.
I agree that genetically modified organisms have been given a bad reputation from the media. They provide tons of benefits. Since we do not really have the best global distribution and storage a lot of food goes to waste. So I think while we get to the point where most of the world can actually distribute and safely store their food, we need to embrace GMOs because we get more food for the world’s increasing population.
The only problem I have with GMOs is the whole patenting process, especially the case of Monsanto in Food Inc., the documentary of where our food comes from. The film points out that big companies end up suing nearby farmers because the patented organism gets into their crops. Patenting life just seems really iffy, but overall we should look at GMOs as a solution to a big problem.
I think this blog post has a lot of strong arguments for using GMO’s that more people in the general public should know about. There definitely is a negative stigma around the whole topic of genetic modification that is largely unprecedented, and I feel like if the positives of GMO’s were broadcast in equal light, people would be much more accepting of such methods of agriculture. And I also agree with the first comment that we will reach a point soon where GMO’s will be necessary in order to fulfill the food demands of the growing population.
That being said, I think this post does skim over some of the aspects of GMO’s that, while perhaps aren’t negative, still should be researched further before we dive into full scale genetically modified crops. For example, issues regarding loss of biodiversity, human health impacts, and pest resistance still remain. However, I think what we should focus on is not how bad these things could be, but actually researching them and finding solutions we can implement so when the time comes for GMO use on a larger scale, we will be doing it in the best way possible.
Great overview of the benefits of GMOs. I had not heard of the African weed striga that would deplete crop nutrients, and I found it interesting that GMOs could enable farmers to deal with such exotic weeds.
While GMOs may provide many benefits along with a path to agricultural sustainability, I am still concerned about the unknown. Maybe my opinion has been affected by the media–but the question still remains, what if? I believe that scientists who work on GMOs have the public’s best intentions, but there is always the possibility of unintended consequences. I’m more comfortable with playing it safe and waiting a few more years until we have had the chance to observe the long-term consequences of GMO consumption.
As Bryan Villa alluded, the production of GMOs may lead to a patenting issues. To further this idea of GMO patents, GMO use may end up creating a market for GMO seeds, especially if these GMOs are modified to prevent plant reproduction. I’m not sure whether a seed market would strengthen the economy, but we may run into a problem if large corporations are able to control crop production by refusing to sell seeds to certain areas or farms. This is an issue that the agriculture industry will need to consider carefully, as it could threaten food security worldwide. Still, after reading your post I’m cautiously optimistic for the possibilities of GMOs.