Genetically modified organisms, or GMO’s for short, continue to be a controversial topic despite the fact that they have been around for many years. They have been instituted, banned, and re-instituted in many communities worldwide.
For those uninitiated, GMO’s are basically organisms whose genetic material have been altered via genetic engineering in order to reap the benefits from pick-and-choosing certain ‘good’ characteristics. For example, they can:
- Increase food production
- Better crop resistance
- Increase crops’ nutritional value
- Require less pesticides and chemical deterrants
- Give fruits and vegatables longer shelf-life
- Increase of plant material fuel for bio-fuels
The list does continue, but for the sake of this article we will stop here and address points 1 and 6. But first, the list of arguments against GMO’s:
- Altered genes may end up in unexpected places
- Genes can mutate unexpectedly
- GMO’s may interact with surrounding crops in adverse ways
- GMO’s may interact with surrounding animal life in adverse ways
- Potential for new allergens
- GMO’s can make rich companies richer
- (Editors note: GMO can also result in the creation of the X-Men, Incredible Hulk, and other Marvel Characters)
This list goes on as well, but we shall stop it at #6.
The point is that lately, we have seen food riots erupt worldwide, from Haiti to Egypt to Myanmar and it’s no coincidence that these shortages have been occurring at exactly the same time that Biofuels have been advocated by governments, which, in turn, promises to continue these shortages indefinitely.
The points against GMO’s are all valid as well – potentially. The fact is, organisms have been modifying their own DNA through evolution and natural selection for millions of years, and humans have been modifying what they find in nature for thousands of years. This is really not a new phenomenon and the reactionary opposition to GMO production is somewhat reminiscent of a creationist’s standpoint.
Obviously, GMO’s should be clearly labeled and observed for any potential harmful effects. A blanket ban on them, however, is not the answer – especially, when they might be the only reasonable solution to keeping the world fed.
If anything, we should remember Norman Borlaug, winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize and generally credited with saving over a billion people from starvation. During the middle of the 20th century, population growth was exploding and crop yield could not keep up. It had gotten so bad that several pundits were wondering the unquestionable: if a world-wide famine had to occur as a form of population control. Norman Borlaug, through genetics and plant breeding, was able to bring about disease-resistant wheat along with techniques such as multi-line variationing and dwarfing. The successes of which brought the regions of India and Pakistan out of famine and eventually aided countries world-wide. Interestingly enough, he still believes that the world food supply must double by 2050 in order to keep up with the current levels of population growth.
In short: the struggle is not over and GMO’s are undeniably a critical part of this struggle.
Remember the Tomacco plant that was once mentioned on the Simpsons? Well, for anyone who believes that GMO’s are the only way to create something against nature, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomacco (half-way through the article).
Ha!
Of course cabbage, broccoli, and many vegetables we eat today were derived from human meddling in different plants.
From an article by Bjorn Lomborg: How to Get the Biggest Bang for 10 Billion Bucks (taken from WSJ)
“Providing micronutrients — particularly vitamin A and zinc — to 80% of the 140 million or so undernourished children in the world would require a commitment of just $60 million annually, a small fraction of the billions spent each year battling terrorism or combating climate change. The economic gains from improved productivity and a lower burden on the health system would eventually clear $1 billion a year. Every dollar spent, therefore, would generate economic benefits worth $17.
Investing in research to make technological improvements to developing-country agriculture provides the opportunity to improve access to micronutrients. It also reduces the cost of food by increasing the incomes of landless laborers. Biofortification can be achieved through genetic modification, or through other methods. Spending $60 million a year would be enough to develop two staple crops such as rice and wheat fortified with micronutrients for about 40 countries across South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
The improved nutrition would lead to higher productivity and fewer health problems. Each extra dollar spent would generate economic benefits worth $16.”