Sharing a short academic piece concerning genetically modified foods. MLA style not consistently followed for blog.
One of the more interesting and educational aspects of running for the Oregon House of Representatives in
2014 included the many requests for me to speak before numerous groups and organizations. On April 24, 2014, for example, I was asked
to come for an interview before members of the AG-PAC Political Action
Committee. One of the main issues of
concern to the board that day concerned something I had only heard and read bits
and pieces about: genetically modified organisms (GMO). The board questioned me about my beliefs and
opinions concerning the safety of genetically modified foods. At the time, all I really knew was that the
protests of those opposing genetic modification of food seemed to be expressing
a kind of hysteria of which I was deeply skeptical. After all, isn’t the history of agriculture
filled with examples of successful hybridizations of crops? I expressed my view at the time that the hype
and hysteria concerning genetically modified foods seemed largely more an
emotional than rational response, and my views seemed appreciated by the board
members present. Since 2014, I have had
the opportunity to learn much more about the science—and
controversy—surrounding genetically modified foods. The fact of the matter is that we are already
eating these foods most likely on a daily basis. No new illnesses appear to have been created
in the process, and our ability to feed the world is challenged now more by
antiquated distributions systems and public opinion rather than potential crop
production. The evidence will
demonstrate that genetically modified foods are not only safe, but they offer a
new way of feeding many more people than before—as well as providing insecure
populations with increased access to critical vitamins. It is also important, however, to understand
why so many fear the technology associated with these food advancements. What is it about genetically modified food
that makes people fear the worst?
A good place to begin in this
exploration of the root of fear with regards to genetically modified foods
might be pinpointing the distinction between hybrid plants and GMOs. Monsanto’s website provides the following
helpful clarification.
Hybrid seeds are
created using traditional breeding methods where two different but compatible
plants are crossbred to create a new plant—also known as a hybrid. An example
of this is the Honeycrisp apple. Developed through the University of
Minnesota's apple breeding program, the Honeycrisp is a hybrid produced by
breeding two different apples to create a new, crisper and juicier type of
apple.
A GMO seed is made
when scientists take a beneficial trait from one living thing and adapt that
trait to a plant. For example, by adding two genes to a rice plant, rice is
able to accumulate beta-carotene in its grains. Scientists and humanitarians
believe this new type of rice, called Golden Rice, can increase Vitamin A in
people's diets and help prevent childhood blindness. (Monsanto)
Plant hybridization is not a
particularly new process. George
Washington Carver, for example, made exciting breakthroughs in creating a
hybrid cotton plant that better resisted the onslaught of the boll weevil
pest. Carver’s early scientific work,
which was often conducted under remarkably primitive conditions and with little
in the way of equipment, served as a sort of prelude to the genetic modification
seen today. (Clark, 54) It seems one
way to consider the distinction between hybridization and genetic modification
could rest upon the level of interference with nature. Where hybridization is a gentle push, genetic
manipulation is seen by much of the public as a more dramatic or aggressive
interference with the natural order.
This uneasiness, particularly on display in the political discussions
referenced at the opening of this essay, are human nature’s expression of fear
of the unknown, but is this a valid fear?
An illustration of the fear is found in the following excerpt from Seeds of Deception, Exposing Industry and
Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re
Eating by Jeffrey Smith.
It wasn’t until the massive food recall
prompted by StarLink®* corn that Americans were even alerted to the fact that
they were eating GM foods everyday. Moreover, the American press was
forced to question whether GM foods were safe. Up until then, the media had portrayed
European resistance to America’s GM crops as unscientific anti-Americanism. But
as the story of Arpad Pusztai reveals, the European anti-GMO sentiment had been
fueled, in part, by far greater health risks than the scattered allergic reactions
attributed to StarLink. (Smith)
There is a sense of conspiracy or exaggeration
conveyed within the cited text, which immediately casts doubt upon the passage’s
objectivity. If we play devil’s advocate
for a moment, though, perhaps the reader can begin to sympathize with the expression of fear. In a century, our technology has advanced to
the point that the daily news reports seen today would be taken as science
fiction if read a generation or two ago.
Speaking from the perspective of popular culture, then, is it small wonder
that there exists both suspicion and fear concerning GMO products? The public questions, for example, what might
happen if an oak or poplar tree were genetically modified with the DNA from a
venus fly trap or pitcher plant? Another
scenario that seems to spark fear in people is found referenced in “Rethinking
the Meat Guzzler” from the New York Times: “Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to
believe in the possibility of “meat without feet”—meat produced in vitro, by
growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further
manipulated into burgers and steaks.”
(Bittman) The academic audience may derisively dismiss some, or all, of
these sort of creative examples as products of a fanciful imagination alone,
but is the common denominator of the passions surrounding this controversial
topic simply an expression of uncertainty regarding the ethical character of
those working within the sciences? Are
the genetic scientists and technicians trustworthy, or are they “playing
god?” If this is an accurate
distillation, then there is likely no fast road to adaption of these products;
it is more a matter of the scientific community earning the trust of the
public.
Whether the element of fear exists, or not, the subject matter can still
be examined as objectively as possible to discern whether this technology truly
offers a ray of hope for the hungry and starving of the world—not to mention
avoided environmental harms of factory farming.
In “Still Feeding the World,” Paul Driessen frames the argument this
way.
He {Dr. Borlaug} has
little patience for "well-fed utopians who live on Cloud Nine but come
into the Third World to cause all kinds of negative impacts," by scaring
people and blocking the use of biotechnology. These callous activists even
persuaded Zambia to let people starve, rather than let them eat biotech corn
donated by the USA. They also oppose insecticides to combat malaria – and
fossil fuels, hydroelectric dams and nuclear power to generate abundant,
reliable, affordable electricity for poor nations.
"Our planet
has 6.5 billion people, says Borlaug. "By all means, use manure. You can’t
let it sit around. But if we use only organic fertilizers and methods on
existing farmland, we can only feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2.5 billion people
volunteering to disappear." To feed everyone with organic and traditional
farming, we would have to plow millions of acres of forests and other wildlife
habitat, he calculates. If, instead, we continue to use commercial fertilizer
and hybrids, and have strong public support for both biotech and traditional
research, "the Earth can provide sufficient food for 10 billion
people."
Understood this way, there is a
sense that the resistance to biotechnology and genetically modified foods has
its roots in a kind of colonial paternalism: the First World knows what is best
for you in the developing world. If we
in the West combine suspicion and fear with arrogance, are we really serving
the desperate needs of the starving and hungry in the Third World, or are we
permitting something akin to pride to stand between those who have and those
who have not?
Another positive perspective on biotechnology and the GMO question is
offered within an OPB article featuring a short piece by Charles Arntzen,
Ph.D. Dr. Arntzen notes that “We’re just
at the tip of the iceberg of an enormous number of things that will be
technically possible to do with plants.
Some folks are talking about how they are going to change the qualities
of plants so that they’ll be able to do bio-remediation and clean up toxic
sites…” (OPB) Repeatedly, the
environmental benefits potentially available through a new reliance upon
genetically modified foods is encountered within the writings of the proponents
of this new scientific frontier. When
one examines the environmental—not to mention animal treatment issues--impact
of factory farming, the promise of GMOs seems even more persuasive.
From air to water pollution, it is
common knowledge that factory farms pose an environmental threat. It is also worth remembering the ethical
treatment issues that are also raised within the harsh and cramped conditions
of this kind of factory farming. If
alternative methods of meat production could be sustainably and ethically
practiced along the lines of “meat without feet,” a potentially significant
environmental restoration might well be within our reach. This, combined with a possible increase in
production of meat and other food products, might truly place a world without
hunger within our grasp. Genetically
Modified Foods should be considered as a new tool or means of production, as
opposed to the creation of dangerous new organisms. It will likely take years for the public’s
distrust of these advancements to fade away, but they almost certainly will
with time. When that time arrives,
perhaps we will see an end to the scourge of world hunger once and for all. If hunger is indeed conquered, we should also
bear in mind it is because of Christians like George Washington Carver and Dr.
Borlaug who worked tirelessly to feed the hungry and help alleviate the suffering
of the poor.
Cited and Consulted Sources
Barbara Beyer, Personal Communication (AG-PAC)
Bittman, Mark. “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 26
Jan. 2008,
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html.
Carpenter, Janet. “GM Crops Can Benefit Farmers | Janet
Carpenter.” The
Guardian,
Guardian News and Media, 21 Apr. 2010,
farmers.
Clark, Glenn. The
Man Who Talks with the Flowers: the Intimate Life Story of Dr. George
Washington Carver: a Recollection of a
Close Relationship with the Black Leonardo Da
Vinci. Wilder Publications, 2014.
Driessen, Paul. “Still Feeding the World.” Institut
Économique Molinari, 30 Apr. 2008,
www.institutmolinari.org/still-feeding-the-world,178.html.
Ian Godwin Professor in Plant Molecular Genetics, The
University of Queensland. “GM
Crops Can Benefit Organic Farmers Too.” The Conversation, 27
Nov. 2017, theconversation.com/gm-crops-can-benefit-organic-farmers-too-51318.
PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/viewpoints/benefits.html.
Bittman, Mark.
“Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.” The New York Times, The New York Times,
26 Jan. 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html.
Smith, Jeffrey M. Seeds
of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety
of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're
Eating. Scribe Publications, 2004.
Kindle.
Thurow, Roger, and Scott Kilman. Enough: Why the World's Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty.
PublicAffairs,
2010.
Wahlquist , Asa. “GM Crops 'the Only Way to Feed the World'
Says Agri Expert.” The Weekend
Australian, 8
Sept. 2008, www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/gm-crops-the-only-way-to-
feed-world/news-story/b445d2ecfdb65068b6950d836d4b4dcd.
“What Is the Difference between a Hybrid Seed and a GMO
Seed?” Monsanto, monsanto.com/innovations/biotech-gmos/q/what-is-the-difference-between-a-hybrid-seed-and-a-gmo-seed/.
No comments:
Post a Comment