Case Study

Pros and Cons of GMOs and Cloning to Boost Production and Supply of Food

Roselle Marie D. Azucena, MAN, MBA

Case Abstract:

Since the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) foods into the United States

market in 1994 their sales have grown immeasurably.  In 1996, GE crops were

introduced to farmers, and 4.3 million acres were planted in six countries.  Between

1997 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with genetically modified

organisms had increased by a factor of 50, from 4.2 million acres to 222 million

acres. So GMO foods have been on the market for nearly 20 years, since 1996. During

those years, most of us have eaten GMOs in many foods, from soybeans, beef, dairy

products, corn, beets, sugar, cottonseed, and rapeseed, which is used to make canola

oil. The USDA reports that about 94 percent of all soy and 75 percent of all corn

grown in this country is genetically modified. Meanwhile, experts estimate that as

much as 75 percent of the processed foods sold in this country contain GMO

ingredients

The number of countries growing genetically modified crops has increased in recent

years causing much debate over the safety of these products. Supporters claim it will

feed the world and promote better health and ecological welfare, while others believe

the food contains risks to human health.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) include crops, vegetables and fruit that have

been created using genetic engineering methods. Scientists combine desirable genes

from various species to create new genetically-altered crosses with enhanced

nutritional, productive and ecological value. This differs from traditional breeding in that

genetic transference between unrelated species does not occur biologically in nature.

The process of combining inter-species genes, which is called recombinant DNA

technology, does not have the checks and balances that are imposed by nature in

traditional breeding. Because of this there is a risk of genetic instability. This means that

no one can make any accurate predictions about the long-term effects of GMOs on

human beings and the environment. Extensive testing in this regard is either very

expensive or impractical, and there is still a great deal about the process that scientists

do not understand.

This is the crux of the matter in the ongoing debate of GMOs. Food is an emotional

topic. It matters a great deal to all of us. We are what we eat after all. The subject is

also of vested interest for the corporations that manufacture genetically modified seeds

and agricultural technologies. The arguments are intense and passionate.

To answer the problem let us look at the pros and the cons of using GMOs and cloned

organisms as food sources.

Proponents Claim That There Are Many Advantages

o Crops are more productive and have a larger yield.

o Could potentially offer more nutrition and flavor (although this is debated).

o A possibility that they could eliminate allergy-causing properties in some foods.

o Inbuilt resistance to pests, weeds and disease.

o More capable of thriving in regions with poor soil or adverse climates.

o More environment friendly as they require less herbicides and pesticides.

o Foods are more resistant and stay ripe for longer so they can be shipped long

distances or kept on shop shelves for longer periods.

o As more GMO crops can be grown on relatively small parcels of land, they are an

answer to feeding growing world populations.

o Spend less money producing more food.

o Do less tilling to remove weeds, thereby protecting the soil.

Corporations insist that:

o Genetically modified foods are safe. Changing a few genes here and there does not

make a crop toxic or dangerous.

o Why shouldn't we alter nature to meet our needs? There are many natural

organisms that human beings have transformed to serve their purpose.

Critics Cite the Dangers of GMO Foods

o Scientists can choose which genes to manipulate, but they don't yet know where

in the DNA to precisely insert these genes and they have no way of controlling

gene expression. Genes don't work in isolation, changing a few could change the

whole picture, with unpredictable results.

o The use of genetically modified food should not be encouraged without research

into the risks.

o Not labeling is wrong and unfair to the consumers who should have the right to

know what they are buying so they can decide for themselves whether they want

to buy the food or not. Even if health safety factors are not an issue, some people

might have moral or religious objections. They should not have to eat GMOs if

they don't want to.

o Genetically modified crops pose a risk to food diversity as the plants are much

more dominant.

o Herbicide-resistant and pesticide-resistant crops could give rise to super-weeds

and super-pests that would need newer, stronger chemicals to destroy them.

o GMO crops cross-pollinate with nearby non-GMO plants and could create

ecological problems. If this were to happen with GMO foods containing vaccines,

antibiotics, contraceptives and so on, it would very well turn into a human health

nightmare.

o The claim of ending world hunger with GMOs is false. World hunger is not

caused by a shortage of food production, but by sheer mismanagement, and lack

of access to food brought about by various social, financial and political causes.

o GMO technology companies patent their crops and also engineer crops so that

harvested grain germs are incapable of developing. This is not empowering to

impoverished Third World farmers, who cannot save seeds for replanting and

have to buy expensive seeds from the companies every year. The new

technology also interferes with traditional agricultural methods which may be

more suited to local environments.

o GMOs are not the answer to world hunger and health. Instead we should focus

on improving organic agricultural practices which are kinder to the earth and

healthier for humans

o Creating “super weeds” that have evolved a resistance to glyphosate, a common

herbicide in GMO food production.

o Plants that produce their own insecticide, a bacterial toxin Bacillus thuringiensis

(BT), which has led to BT-resistant bugs.

o A human population that is unwittingly consuming BT, too, since the insecticide is

part of GMO plants.

o Disappointing crop yields and doubt over the environmental benefits of reduced

tilling.

Statement of the Problem:

Are we GMOs and Cloning the answer to World Hunger (the increasing need for food

due a growing population)? Are they safe and if not how bad are they?

Alternative Solutions:

It’s possible to produce food without poisoning people and the planet. Examples of fair

and sustainable ways of farming and producing food, agro-ecology, already exist in

Europe. They keep ecosystems in balance, respect wildlife, preserve soil, water and

other natural resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide high quality,

healthy, local and seasonal food with conventional and organic seeds and livestock

breeds.

These sustainable alternatives are gaining more and more support as the failings of the

current industrial methods become clearer; endless food scandals, the spread of

monocultures damaging landscapes, and the loss of nature as well as small-scale

farms. A movement is building towards local production and consumption, moving away

from the industrial agribusiness giants and their intensive and damaging methods of

food production.

1.Seed sovereignty

Seeds are fundamental to our food chain. In the past farmers exchanged their seeds

and saved part of their previous harvest to sow the next. They constantly improved seed

and adapted it to the diversity of soils, climates conditions, as well as to the

community’s needs. Farmers’ seeds gave us the diversity of crops and varieties we

cultivate today on European fields.

Industrial and GM seeds, on the other hand, serve only the financial interests of the

companies that produce them. The seeds are patented and covered by intellectual

property rights. They often require large quantities of chemicals in order to deliver high

yields – driving sales of pesticides, often produced by the same companies that produce

the seed, locking farmers into a cycle of dependency.

Farmers and citizens in Europe are beginning to recapture the skill of breeding their

own seeds, and  are launching campaigns to defend farm-grown seeds, to develop

participatory methods able to conserve many varieties, and improve seed diversity.

Seed networks and local seed-exchange fairs are being set up, and knowledge on the

selection of seeds is now being exchanged across Europe. Instead of patented seed

systems these solutions are based on a participatory approach, where exchange of

knowledge is key.

2.Movement for fairer and greener farming

In contrast to the ever growing supermarkets and the increasing corporate control of the

whole food chain, there has been a renaissance in locally produced, agro-ecological

food across many countries. These have led to more and better jobs, including young

people, and a more vibrant rural economy.

GM-crops go hand-in-hand with large industrial monocultures. Fields and fields of the

same crops. This is bad for wildlife, bad for environment and climate change. Smaller

fields, biodiversity-rich hedgerows, increased crop rotation and many other techniques

can be used to create a healthier countryside.

In addition, tens of thousands of people have been taking to the streets across Europe,

demanding GM free and sustainable farming, a healthy environment and an end to

industrial agriculture and factory farms.  A real movement for change is happening – a

real movement based on food sovereignty and challenging the corporate control of food

and farming.

3.Methods of sustainable Agriculture

When the goals include reducing dependence on pesticides and herbicides, there are

clearly alternatives to many biotechnology products. Many of these alternatives are not

other products, but instead the systems and methods of sustainable agriculture.

A good example is crop rotation, which keeps pests under control by depriving them of

the continuous food supply they need to build up large populations. Crop rotation has

many advantages:

it controls a broad variety of pests rather than just one or two.

it does not select for resistance genes, as do chemical toxins or genetically

engineered crops.

it does not result in ongoing pollution of air or water.

As a pest-control strategy, crop rotation is far preferable to both chemical insecticides

and genetically engineered crops. Unfortunately, because it involves processes and not

products, there is no industrial constituency to develop and support crop rotation as

there is for the products of biotechnology.

Conversion from industrial agriculture to sustainable systems that depend less on

chemicals would eliminate the need for many of the currently projected products of

biotechnology.

Recommendations:

GMOs and Cloning is not the answer to World hunger. We should eat organic

produce, grass-fed beef, free-range poultry, and wild-caught fish whenever possible due

to Health and Environment issues..

This stand based on the following points of the argument:

1.Health and Safety

The GM foods through an increased yield in staple crops can help to combat world

hunger, however, there are also very important issues associated with GMOs that must

be discussed. Until we know the results of this "grand experiment," we can't really be

sure. No studies have found GM foods to be harmful, but many concerned citizens and

scientists believe there have not been sufficient longitudinal (making observations over

a substantial period of time) nor clinical studies on the effects of GMOs on human

health. Even if researchers were to conduct long-term studies, it would be very difficult

to prove that any adverse — or positive — health outcomes are due specifically to the

GMOs themselves

To put it bluntly, no one can really answer that question. To site an example, Monsanto,

the corporation that owns patents on many GMO seeds, assures us that these foods

are harmless and points to studies – many of which the company has conducted itself –

demonstrating that. These studies, however, have been widely criticized for their

obvious bias, and I agree with those assessments. The Monsanto studies only prove

that data can be manipulated, not that the products are safe. So, without high-quality,

objective information, the debate quickly turns into a he said/she said standoff, leaving

us with more questions than answers.

Meanwhile, although these foods are being sold in the U.S., GMO foods are either

banned or severely limited throughout much of Europe, including the United Kingdom,

Spain, Italy, France, and Germany. And a long list of other countries are following suit,

including Japan, China and Brazil. In fact, Monsanto has virtually stopped lobbying for

GMO planting in Europe due to low demand by farmers and consumers.

Here is another concern: Monsanto has spent millions of dollars defeating legislation in

states like California that would have required foods containing GMOs to be labeled. In

addition, a recently passed Farm Assurance law, commonly referred to as the

“Monsanto Protection Act”, essentially grandfathers farmers’ rights to utilize existing

planting of GMO seeds and plants, even if we learn at a later date that these products

have serious health consequences.

The company’s unwillingness to allow labeling and the fact that the Monsanto Protection

Act has become law – in spite of a tremendous number of consumers who petitioned

the government to veto the bill – certainly does not give me confidence that these foods

are safe to consume. In fact, it suggests the company has something to hide. And

Monsanto’s apparent “profits before people” attitude shows the reckless disregard the

company has for consumers.

Meanwhile, the outcome of a European study with lab animals has created even more

questions. Rats in the study that were fed a popular GM corn developed horrifically

oversized tumors and organ damage. That study has been widely criticized. But so have

studies done by the industry showing that GMOs are safe.

.In today’s researches, most people carry a heavy burden of toxins, ranging from

plastics to heavy metals to compounds found in drugs and – nowadays – food and

beverages. One of my major concerns about GMOs is that they could easily

increase our toxic load, leading to even more cancer diagnoses.

And now, it turns out that even supposedly “safe” levels of one substance can cause

cancer when combined with a “safe” level of another chemical. A new study from Texas

Tech found that when low levels of estrogen are combined with small amounts of

arsenic, lab animals were nearly twice as likely to develop prostate cancer as animals

that were not exposed to estrogen and arsenic.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a choice about exposure to these substances. We are

continually exposed to estrogen through the plastic products we use every day, as well

as the lining of canned foods. Even small amounts of arsenic are very common in the

environment.

New studies on the toxicity of various chemicals used to produce GMO products are not

reassuring, either. One recent clinical trial, for example, found that glyphosate, a

common herbicide ingredient used to grow GMO plants, caused human breast

cancer cells to grow due to its estrogen-like qualities. This is significant because

glyphosate was supposedly a safe ingredient with low toxicity.

The pesticides from GMO plants are new to humans, and, right now, we don’t

know how our bodies will handle them. However, we definitely do know that

pesticides (a term that includes herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) are linked to

cancer, neurological diseases, like Parkinson’s, and a number of other very serious

health concerns. They have also been shown to cause cancer in children.

Another problem with GMO crops was discovered earlier this year, when an Oregon

farmer found GMO wheat growing in fields where he had not planted it. Although that

story is still developing, it appears that other GMO plants have also escaped into the

nation’s farmland. If this cross-contamination continues, the consequences could affect

the entire food supply, making us all unwilling guinea pigs in a massive and very

dangerous experiment.

The fact remains that there are no long-term studies demonstrating that GMO foods are

healthy – or unhealthy. Given the results of studies I’ve seen and since GMOs affect the

health of nearly everyone we should go for organic food, which has been grown

without chemicals or growth hormones, although it does tend to cost a little more. Its a

toss between you paying a few cents more for organic produce, or you paying a lot

more for doctor visits, prescription medication, and hospital stays.

The debate over GMOs will likely continue for years. "The introduction of genetically

modified organisms into the supply is a grand experiment," said Ann Yonkers, co-

director of Fresh Farm Markets and a leader in the sustainable-farming movement. "We

should be using the precautionary principle with GMOs, and assume that GMOs have to

be demonstrated to be good rather than assume that they are good."

In the meantime, I hope we can develop national labeling standards that will make it

easier to determine which foods have been modified and which have not, so at least we

can all make informed choices

2. Environmental consequences of GM and cloned foods

As for the environment, GMOs and cloned seem to have impact. The environmental

safety of the genetically modified crops depends heavily on the local conditions. Some

of the concerns include: the capability of the genetically modified organism (GMO) to

escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the

persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-

target organisms, for an example insects which are not pests, to the gene product; the

stability of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of

biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture (Dale 2009).

Recently, a rogue strain of Monsanto GM wheat was found in a field in Oregon. Several

Southeast Asian countries stopped imports of wheat from the U.S. Pacific Northwest,

pending investigation, financially hurting American farmers, according to the Associated

Press. Agriculture biotechnology giant Monsanto uses high-handed legal tactics to

harass small farmers into using and paying huge sums for Monsanto GM seeds, putting

some out of business, according to a CBS News report and other sources. Although the

impact of GMOs on health and nutrition is unclear, the impact on the environment

seems much more definite — and detrimental.

Huge soy and corn crops displace a more naturally diverse farming system — one that

uses fewer resources, is more sustainable in the long term and is healthier for the

planet and people .According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, about 84

million acres in the United States are devoted to corn, and about 73 million acres are

dedicated to soybeans, a close second.

CONCLUSION:

The major problem with genetically modified foods is that it's such a new technology

that people are unsure about its potential effects to their health and the environment. 

Some studies, which I have mentioned show its already detrimental impacts. The United

States and world food markets are continuing to carry genetically modified foods

because of the low cost and industrial farmers benefit.  Although these foods are

cheaper, people will begin to see the effects they have on small scale family farming

operations, environmental, and human health and therefore will not meet the needs of

current market places.  We need to educate ourselves on these new foods and become

aware of what is healthy for our bodies, mind and soul.

There are other alternative solutions to these growing problem of World hunger that we

could still explore and further develop which are healthier and environment friendly.