Fare is Fair: Support GMO’s

Each year, as our global population increases exponentially and our food supply increases linearly, more and more people are left undernourished. Additionally, climate change, which results in both droughts and floods, and ubiquitous pests continue to hinder farmers from yielding peak crops. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, food insecurity, defined as the state of not having access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food, plagues nearly 800 million people worldwide (Food and Agricultural Organization 3). The hunger crisis we are facing is certain to worsen as our population grows. However, one way to effectively and safely attack global hunger is through the power of genetic engineering. Though there is great fear and skepticism surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the companies that produce them, this fear is misplaced. We should not be afraid of GMOs, but rather should embrace them and realize their grand potential: GMOs are our best bet for combating global hunger.

A powerful example of the benign power of genetically engineering food is demonstrated in the rice plant. Plant geneticist Pamela Ronald notes that more than half of the world’s population relies on rice as a staple in its diet. But, every year, 40 percent of the world’s potential rice harvest is lost to pests and disease. In the 1990s, scientists isolated a gene from a rice plant that had natural resistance to a bacterial disease prevalent in Asia and Africa, and inserted it into a normal rice variety that was typically very susceptible. The results were beyond exciting; the rice resisted the disease and was able to grow normally (Ronald). Ronald later describes another occasion where genetic engineering saved rice crops all around the world. If submerged in standing water for more than three days, most rice varieties will die. After a decade of research, Ronald and her colleague, Dave Mackill, finally found and isolated a gene from an ancient rice crop that could withstand two weeks of full submergence. They called the gene “Sub1” and inserted it into a conventional rice variety. After experiments succeeded in the greenhouse, a conventional variety of rice and the rice with the Sub1 gene were grown next to each other in a field. Though at first both were growing well, when the field was flooded for 17 days only the Sub1 variety continued to flourish. By the time the harvest was ready, the Sub1 variety had produced 3.5 times more grain that the conventional variety (Ronald). Scientists knew that this could be the key to the future. Logically, when fewer crops die from disease and flooding, more mouths can be fed.

Those breakthroughs were just the start for the world of genetically modified rice. Since then, scientists have created “golden rice,” a modified version of rice which contains beta carotene, the source of vitamin A. Amy Harmon describes the importance of vitamin A in her article Golden Rice; Lifesaver?: “Lack of the vital nutrient causes blindness in a quarter-million to a half-million children each year.” For those whom it does not blind, the lack of vitamin A massively weakens the immune system of millions, especially in Asia and Africa. Vitamin A deficiency claims the lives of two million people every year, most often from diseases that they would survive if their immune systems had not become so weak. The creation of golden rice has helped prevent hunger, improve diets, and has ultimately saved the lives of countless people who lack access to the essential vitamin (Harmon).

Season after season, destructive pests plague farmers who must to resort to spraying pesticides on their crops several times a week. Pesticides are harmful to both humans and the environment in general. During her TED Talk, Ronald notes “In less developed countries, it’s estimated that 300,000 people die every year because of insecticide misuse and exposure.” Not only are pesticides dangerous, but they are also less available, and therefore more expensive to distressed farmers in developing countries. Yet again, science comes to the rescue: GMOs can help limit pesticide use. According to Mark Lynas, the cultivation of GMOs has allowed for a 40% reduction in worldwide pesticide use. Rather than spray bacteria-based pesticides directly onto the crop, scientists have discovered one can simply take the same bacteria gene that the pesticides use and insert it directly into the crop’s genome without compromising the plant’s health (Ronald). This way, fewer inexperienced farmers have to handle these potent pesticides. Consequently, they can cut down on their costs while expanding their yield. In addition to increasing the quality of the crop, GMOs increase the quantity as well. Again it is clear that genetically engineering certain crops has great benefits: less crop destruction, a greater, healthier harvest, and safer environmental conditions.

The stigma surrounding GMOs is one that scientists and supporters alike are fighting hard to extinguish. Many consumers and non-experts fear these crops because they seem less natural and are often branded as a dangerous health threat. The Institute for Responsible Technology, self-described experts against GMOs, vaguely writes that, “genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects.” Another major anti-GMO group named the March Against Monsanto claims, without any sources, that “studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects.” In reality, Alison Van Eenennaam, a geneticist at the University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science, and research assistant Amy E. Young conducted a study analyzing 29 years of livestock productivity and health data. In what is the most comprehensive GMO study to date, Van Eenennaam and Young focused on both the time before and after genetically engineered crops were introduced to farmers. Their research found no unusual trends in the health of livestock after GMO feed was introduced, as well as no evidence that suggested a health effect on humans who consume said livestock (Entine). The lack of evidence on the opposing side is apparent. Using careful and extensive research to disprove the theories that GMOs negatively affect humans and livestock is an incredibly important step in the fight for genetic engineering.

As the leading producer of genetically engineered seeds, Monsanto has become one of the most controversial corporations in the world. Their products are used by millions and contribute to crop yields all over the world. For this reason, Monsanto earns massive sums. In 2014, the company had a remarkable revenue of $15 billion (Monsanto). Groups like the aforementioned March Against Monsanto oppose GMOs because they believe Monsanto and similar companies act in a dishonorable manner. These groups view the several lawsuits that Monsanto has been pursued as an example of the company’s greed and lack of sympathy towards farmers. Since 1997, Monsanto has filed 147 lawsuits against American farmers. At first glance, this seems outrageous and excessive, which is why opposition often points to the cases as a prime example of the corruption in Monsanto. But further research is necessary to understand the whole picture. Monsanto defends itself by saying that when someone illegally saves the company’s seeds, investigators look into it and decide whether the case is legitimate. The company also points out that it distributes seeds to more than 325,000 farmers in the United States every year, which makes 147 filed lawsuits in an 18-year span seem far less unethical. Monsanto goes on to note that it only proceeded to trial with eleven of the 147 cases, and that Monsanto won each case (Monsanto). The enforcement of patent law is important to any company. The seeds rightfully belong to the company and it is only making a point to protect its product.

GMO advocates find it essential to prove that genetic engineering is more natural than it sounds. In the case of golden rice, scientists reject fears that the gene being inserted is artificial or factory made. Instead, they point out it is simply a gene that is found in squash, carrots and melons (Harmon). Experts have proven again and again the safety of these crops. In fact, most of the opposition forgets that 88% of corn, 90% of canola, and 93% of soy grown in the United States has been genetically modified (Kelly). Ronald points out, “genetic engineering, the process of moving genes between species, has been used for more than 40 years in wines, in medicine, in plants, in cheeses. In all that time, there hasn’t been a single case of harm to human health or the environment.” For decades we have been consuming GMOs. Without them, we would be missing many staples of our diets.

The reputation GMOs have for being unnatural and unsafe needs to be reversed. In November of 2015, seventeen nations of the European Union banned the cultivation of genetically modified crops. When asked what its reasoning was, a spokeswoman for Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, admitted the decision was not based on scientific evidence against GMOs, but in order to protect the “clean green image” of Scotland’s produce (Lynas). This decision was far from ethical, as it acknowledged yet ignored the evidence of GMOs’ benefits and focused solely on the country’s image. Though the European Union itself will not feel a negative economic consequence from banning GMOs, those who rely on food from GMOs will certainly feel a negative effect of their own. Lynas made his opinion on this quite clear: “The worldwide scientific consensus on the safety of genetic engineering is as solid as that which underpins human-caused global warming. Yet this inconvenient truth on GMOs — that they’re as safe as conventionally cultivated food — is ignored when ideological interests are threatened.” We need to promote GMO growth not just for ourselves and our economies, but for the greater good.

The scientific proof that GMOs are safe is plentiful, clear, and validated from decades of research. Ronald notes, “After 20 years of careful study and rigorous peer review by thousands of independent scientists, every major scientific organization in the world has concluded that the crops currently on the market are safe to eat and that the process of genetic engineering is no more risky than older methods of genetic modification.” On the other hand, most arguments against GMOs are merely based on speculation, misguided fear, and ignorance. The fact of the matter is we cannot even come close to sufficiently feeding our global population if we do not allow for cultivation of genetically engineered crops. The stigma behind GMOs needs to be stifled before we as a planet can produce them to their potential. The adversaries who raid GMO farms and destroy crops are harming our fellow humans. It is unjust and unethical to deny those in need of more food, higher nutrient diets, and the resilient plants that technology can provide for them. In the genetically engineered food controversy, the benefits outweigh the risks. Millions of lives, including our own, can be changed for the better if we accept and support the fight to promote GMOs.

Works Cited

“10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs – Institute for Responsible Technology.” Institute for Responsible Technology. 25 Aug. 2011. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

Entine, Joe. “The Debate About GMO Safety Is Now Over, Thanks To A New Trillion Meal Study.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

Harmon, Amy. “Golden Rice: Lifesaver?” The New York Times. 23 Aug. 2013. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

Institute for Responsible Technology. “10 Reasons to Avo10 Reasons to Avoid GMOsid GMOs.” Institute for Responsible Technology, 2006. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

Kelly, Margie. “Top 7 Genetically Modified Crops.” The Huffington Post. 30 Oct. 2012. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.

Lynas, Mark. “With G.M.O Policies, Europe Turns Against Science.” The New York Times. 24 Oct. 2015. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.

“March Against Monsanto.” March Against Monsanto. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.

Ronald, Pamela. “The Case for Engineering Our Food.” TedTalks March 2015. Web. 30 Oct 2015.

“The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2015. Web. 31 Oct. 2015.