Tak Maga
Ward
English 10 3o
January 1, 2018
Genetically Modified Crops: A Superior Life for Humanity
An Analysis of the Benefits of Genetically Engineered Foods
If one reads at an average rate, 75 people will be dead due to hunger upon finishing this essay. However, in this new age of technological encroachment, there are few fields in which there have been greater debates than in the field of genetic modification. Also known as genetic engineering, these techniques involve editing the genome of crops to produce a product that has significant advantages over traditional varieties. These vary from disease and herbicide resistance, to greater yield. Using technology such as CRISPR Cas9, a gene editing tool, companies can develop seeds to be sold to a worldwide market. This can increase the quality life for billions worldwide and save countless lives that otherwise would have been lost due to hunger. Detractors of such a scenario object to it due to possible environmental destabilization (ISAABA), increased economic pressure on small farmers (Azadi), and safety concerns. Although there are some concerns over the use of genetically modified crops, the use of them is ethical. This is because it aides the environment, increases yields, and is safe.
Certainly, through the implementation of genetically modified crops, it is possible to increase the yield of such crops. Consequently, the argument that introducing GM crops would hurt smaller producers is invalid. A joint review conducted in Belgium, Iran, and Germany found that the cost of GM crops could hurt small farmers (Azidi et al. ). The genetically modified seeds have a higher cost than traditional, non modified crops. However, the presented concerns regarding capital cost would be solved because increasing yields would offset the higher initial cost of seeds. Recently, the regulatory approval of the AquaAdvantage salmon provides a level of insight in regards to the yield levels of genetically modified organisms. As Rebecca Nesbit of Scientific American reports, the salmon can “reach market size in… roughly half the time its non-GM counterpart [takes], and requires less feed” (Nesbit). The implications of such are obvious. By cutting the growth time of the salmon in half, the yield is doubled. This means that more food can be produced at a lower cost, making higher quality food more accessible for lower income individuals and families. While this is an example of a GM animal, this could be easily adapted to GM crops. An example of a modification is insect resistance. The crop is engineered to repel harmful insects. The stance that these crops will increase yield is a solid one; the National Academies of Science reports that insect-resistant crops resulted in “reduction in crop losses” (NAS), and that the observed herbicide-resistant crops had a “greater yield” (NAS). By closing the gap between expected and actual yield, more food can be produced for those who are in need of it.
Similarly, the fact that GM crops can aid the environment is well established in the scientific community. There are, however, some concerns within the environmentalist field that certain groups of organisms may be detrimentally affected. An example might be the (now debunked) effect of genetically altered corn on Monarch Butterfly larvae. This view is provided by some reports in the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. It is understandable to be concerned, but the gains to be made by adopting genetically modified crops are exponential. This is demonstrated clearly by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who are funding projects that are attempting to develop crops that have the ability to fix their own nitrogen (a necessary component of plant growth) without the aid of a fertilizer. A Nesbit reports, these projects could “reduce the huge environmental cost of producing and using fertilizer” (Nesbit). This example illustrates how the pollution resulting from the production and use of fertilizer (an example being fertilizer runoff, the process by which fertilizers contaminate water) can be completely eliminated with the introduction of genetically engineered crops. This would help stop pollution, a large help for the environment. To further this point, a conclusive study by the National Academies of Science found that when first introduced, the amount of herbicide that was used generally declined. The effects varied, sometimes with a reduction of almost 40%. While this information comes with the important caveat that some decrease in use was not sustained, the general finding was that it was possible, with genetically engineered crops, to use more specific herbicides that are more effective in lower amounts. This results in lower production pollution, and consequently a decrease in fertilizer runoff. Overall, the use of genetically altered crops can help reduce pollution, which would dramatically improve the environment.
Finally, existing genetically modified crops are proven to be as safe, or even safer than traditional crops. The methods that create these engineered crops are assuredly innocuous, and are becoming even more so. As Richard Hynes, cancer researcher at MIT says, “It looks like it [genetic modification] is going to be done safely… the research [gene editing] is a big breakthrough” (Belluck). This shows the leaps and bounds that have taken place in the field of genetics. From this, it is seen that he methods used to create these crops are developed to be safe, and should not be a cause for any concern. There are still doubts, however, about the results of these processes. Again, the National Academies of Science puts to rest any debate about the safety of these products. Its study found “no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized crops…”. There is simply no evidence to the contradict the fact that GM crops are at least as safe as non-GM crops. In fact, there is rational to reason to believe that GE crops could be more safe than alternatives. One reason for this is found in allergies. Imagine a scenario where a child has a peanut allergy. That child could be given significant peace of mind if the child were exposed to peanuts that were engineered to be safe. That would ease parental fears, making society better as a whole. By preventing children and adults from having an allergic reaction to crops, society would become measurably safer and more healthy.
The end result of a world introduced to genetically modified crops would be one only previously seen through rose colored glasses. The benefits that would be seen would include increased environmental health, greater crop yields, and a safer food supply. These results would send shockwaves across the world, as previously disadvantaged people could then go to sleep with food in their stomachs. Children with food allergies could be free of fear. The edifice of prosperity that has been built upon the foundation of our food is on the brink of collapse. The 75 that have died while one is reading this would be a number to envy as the amount of hunger balloons. Without the intervention that takes the form of GM crops, the world as we know it could come to its knees.
Works Cited
Belluck, Pam. “In Breakthrough, Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation From Genes in Human Embryos.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html.
Brody, Jane E. “Fears, Not Facts, Support G.M.O.-Free Food.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 June 2015, well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/fears-not-facts-support-gmo-free-food/.
Lombardo, Crystal. “How Many People Die From Malnutrition Each Year.” Vision Launch, 5 Apr. 2017, visionlaunch.com/many-people-die-malnutrition-year/#.
Nesbit, Rebecca. “The Future of GMO Food.” Scientific American Blog Network, 5 Sept. 2017, blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-future-of-gmo-food/.
“Pocket K No. 4: GM Crops and the Environment.” GM Crops and the Environment - Pocket K | ISAAA.org, www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/4/.
“Report in Brief.” Genetically Engineered Crops at the National Academy of Sciences, nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/16/report-in-brief/.
Sandel, Michael J. “The Case Against Perfection.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 1 Apr. 2004, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/302927/.
Azadi, Hossein, et al. “Genetically modified crops and small-Scale farmers: main opportunities and challenges.” Taylor & Francis Online, Taylor & Francis, 8 Jan. 2015, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2014.990413?journalCode=ibty20.