GMO Essay 3 APA Format.docx - Weeblyrlapidus.weebly.com/.../6/7/4/26746537/gmos_will_not_e… · Web viewMonsanto and other sponsors of biotechnology continually tell the public

GMO’s and the Hungry World 1

Genetically Modified Foods and the Hungry World:

A Solution With Problems

Rachel Lapidus

City College of New York


Abstract

Genetically modified (GM) foods have become commonplace in our world. They are present in

many foods in the first world, from High Fructose Corn Syrup to the feed given to livestock.

They came into common usage, seemingly overnight, without satisfactory study or scientific

understanding. Many bio-tech companies (the companies who develop and produce genetically

modified foods) and the advertising agencies they’ve hired have taken advantage of the

confusion to promote the use of GM foods for their own profit. Governments have taken actions

for and against GMOs (genetically modified organisms), often with very little information to

guide them. In the hope of fostering more reasoned discussion, this paper will provide some

background about the process of genetic modification, the following examples will discuss the

process of genetic modification, its potential benefits, its potential risks, and the global effects of

their use.

Keywords: GMO, GM food, genetically modified, bio-tech, agriculture, Monsanto


Genetically modified organisms, sometimes known as GMO’s, are plants or animals that

are created through the process of genetic engineering. Genetically modified (or GM) foods are

commonly offered as a solution to world hunger, because they take less time to produce larger

crops. They have gained increased use because they can grow bigger and faster than regular

crops in more difficult environments. They seem to defeat pests that have plagued farmers for

generations. But their common use has reshaped the entire farming industry. Small farms that

cannot afford the cost of genetically modified seed are forced out of business by larger

companies. As large agricultural corporations plant across their giant farms with genetically

modified seed, the local environment adapts and changes creating large portions of land that can

only grow crops from genetically modified seed. This will eventually restrict the amount and

type of food that can be grown. GMO’s have become the main ingredient in a hungrier world.

The most attractive quality of genetically modified, or GM, foods is the claim that they

can provide a solution to the global hunger crisis. With genetic engineering, it seems suddenly

possible to solve many of the problems that plague food production worldwide. “Most GM crops

are either insect-resistant (that is, produce their own pesticide), herbicide-tolerant or sometimes

both” (Cotter, 2011).

This seems an easy way to make life better for farmers across the world. The larvae

European Corn Borer Moth can devastate a farmer’s entire crop. But by genetically engineering

the crops, suddenly this pest is no longer a problem. In Hawaii, the Ring Spot virus attacks


papaya trees, leaving them unable to produce fruit, if not killing them entirely. In 1999, they

implemented a genetically engineered strain of papaya that resists the virus. It has remained in

heavy use ever since (Hartl, 2011).

The theoretical usefulness of GM crops extends beyond resolving production issues to

potentially solving malnutrition problems. In 2000, a biologist named Potrykus released news of

a potentially life-saving genetically modified crop called golden rice. This quickly caught the

attention of large corporations such as Monsanto, a leading GMO seller. Monsanto prides itself

on advanced plant breeding and biotechnology that uses chemicals and genetic engineering to

“enhance” plants. Many critics of Monsanto claim they are trying to push the genetically

modified processes on the world and have long been looking for a seemingly beneficial plant to

help push their agenda. Despite its initial success, golden rice, the poster child for GMO’s across

the world, has begun to garner criticism. After over a decade, now that the first long-term studies

are nearing completion, some researchers have come to the conclusion that golden rice is a far-

fetched, glamorized idea. Besides the environmental and economic impacts of the grain,

malnourished people are not able to absorb Vitamin A in this form; a young boy would have to

eat close to thirty bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the

vitamin (Taverne, 2007).

The marketing divisions of many biotech companies take advantage of the confusion

about how GMO’s are made and limited studies. Confronting the major players of these groups

will get unsure mixed answers as to the genetically modified organisms’ dangers, and that

genetically modified organisms are the solution to world hunger, but very little information about

the actual process (Vernon, 2007). It is therefore important to note that the process of genetic

engineering is different from the more common practice of cross-breeding. The process of


crossbreeding can only combine related organisms, has been used for centuries, and has few

associated health risks. Genetic manipulation takes dominant genes from one organism to replace

weaker, less-resistant genes in another and easily creates a genetic exchange that is completely

impossible in nature. The purpose is to insert genes from a donor organism carrying a desired

trait into an organism that does not have the trait (Hart, 2002).

Humans may make many improvements in the world through technology, but when

humans start to tamper with the natural order of life and growth, such as changing and

reconstructing the genetic layouts of plants and animals, it creates unpredictable chains of long

and short term events. These events are potentially irreversible and are something not to be

taken lightly when considering food is a major means to survival. “If Nature has spent millions

of years building a structure with natural boundaries, it must be there on purpose. It is there to

guide the evolution of life and to maintain its integrity. Using genetic engineering in agriculture

is like trying to fix something that has nothing wrong with it in the first place,” said Dr. Antoniou

of molecular genetics (Tyson, 2001).

Genetic engineers can pull a desired gene from virtually any living organism and insert it

into virtually any other organism. Many labs use animal genes to enhance agricultural crops

against weather conditions and disease factors. Scientists can put a rat gene into lettuce to make a

plant that produces vitamin C (Hart, 2002). However, the DNA code inside every plant and

animal cell is controlled by a complex chemical network that regulates how the cell interprets the

DNA. Exactly how this happens is currently unknown. Inserting DNA via the genetic

engineering process can cause dramatic and unexpected reactions within the cell. Many times

scientists and genetic engineers are unable to predict exactly what will happen when they insert a


new gene. Sometimes adding one piece of DNA will result in a cell destroying large portions of

it DNA. Sometimes it results in the creation of entirely new genetic code (Cotter, 2011):

“Unexpected and unknown fragments of genetic material have been found in commercial

GM crops (P. Windels, et al. European Food Research Technology, 2001). Examples

include: Roundup Ready soya (A. Rang, et al. European Food Research Technology,

2004) and insect resistant maize, MON810 (M. Hernandez, et al. Transgenic Research,

2003)” (Cotter, 2011).

In addition, genes can be suppressed or overexpressed, causing a wide variety of results.

One such consequence of overexpression is cancer. Nutritional problems can also result from

the transfer of genes. Genetically modified crops have been linked to health problems as diverse

as reproductive damage, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes (Dach, n.d.).

Genetic disruption and instability is one of two major ways that genetic modification may

affect our food supply. “[It] may lead to new toxins being produced; the new protein produced

by the foreign gene may cause allergies or toxicity” (Cotter, 2011). Allergic reactions typically

are caused by proteins which trigger an immune-response in the body. This is no small concern,

as during the genetic modification process, nearly every transfer of genetic material from one

host into a new one results in the creation of new proteins. This can increase the levels of a

naturally occurring allergen already present in a food, or insert allergenic properties into a food

that did not previously contain them, or even result in brand new allergens never before known

(Vernon, 2007).

And the potential risks of GMO’s merely begin with allergens. The majority of

genetically modified crops in cultivation are engineered to contain a gene for pesticide


resistance. Most are “Roundup Ready,” meaning they can be sprayed with Monsanto’s

glyphosate herbicide Roundup without being harmed. The idea is that if the crop itself is immune

to Roundup, you can spray it to kill any weeds endangering the plant without worrying about

harming your crop. But what about exposing the general population and the ecosystem to all of

those chemicals? (Pringle, 2003).

Furthermore, genetic engineers rely heavily on the use of antibiotics during experiments.

Not all host cells will take up foreign genes, so engineers attach a trait for a particular type of

antibiotic resistance to the gene they introduce into host cells. After introducing the gene into the

cells, the cells are then filled with the antibiotic to see which ones survive. The surviving cells

are antibiotic-resistant, and therefore engineers know the seeds have taken up the foreign gene

(Cotter, 2011). Although this may seem like a beneficial process that produces ideal genetically

modified crops, one then has to think about the potentially fatal allergens and contaminants that

consumers may now unknowingly consume to in their foods (Hart, 2002).

However, the overuse of antibiotics can potentially cause the development of antibiotic-

resistant pathogens. Several health organizations, including the World Health Organization and

the American Medical Association, have addressed the need for the use of these antibiotics to be

discontinued as part of the process of making genetically modified foods. Preexisting germs or

bacteria within the antibiotic-resistant test subject can create a “superbug”; meaning previously

unknown strains of diseases or viruses that are resistant to antibiotic or anti-viral treatment

(Cotter, 2011). Sometimes the dangers antibiotic resistance can be caused by things the GMO

was designed to do. In the Philippines, many people eat GM corn designed to produce an

insecticide called Bt toxin.


“[T]heir body processed engineered traits and reacted to them. The same

consumers of the GMO corn in the Philippines developed a resistance to ampicillin [a

commonly prescribed antibiotic]. Antibiotic resistance is something that science hadn’t

counted on, which is indicative of questionable experimentation” (Group, 2006).

These unexpected dangers of GM foods are well-illustrated by the work of a Scottish

scientist named Arpad Pusztai, who had previously been awarded a research grant to create a

testing procedure for GMO’s (which unfortunately seems to have never been put into effect).

Pusztai found disastrous results within just a few days of giving genetically altered potatoes to

lab rats. The rats experienced severe health issues including the complete failure of the immune

system as well as other vital organs. Pusztai discovered that it is not the actual additives within

the potatoes that were damaging but rather something inherent in the gene splicing process itself.

(Cummins, 2000). He also found that the nutrient value from potato to potato varied

significantly, even among plants of the same generation (Smith, 2003). Many GM foods are

vastly reduced in nutritional value as a result of the genetic modification process, as well as the

processing of the food itself, creating the risk of malnutrition among first world populations

(Roberts, 2008).

Researchers and doctors continue to gain reasons to believe that genetic modification of

food also causes health problems among those who eat it (Australian Government, 2001).

Numerous health problems increased after genetically modified organisms were introduced in

1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from seven

percent to thirteen percent in just nine years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as

autism, reproductive disorders and digestive problems are on the rise (Dech, n.d.). And the


linked percentage of obesity, diabetes and cancer has since increased by an amount that cannot

be ignored (Australian Government, 2001).

Those against genetic modification often raise the issue that the industry is unable to, or

rarely tries to prove that the new proteins in foods do not contain allergens, contaminants, or

other dangerous health effects. The U. S. Government does not require biotechnology

companies to test for allergens. Many new GMO’s are approved for public consumption without

very much testing at all. For a company this makes sense. Reasons such as time, research

expense, market control, and the fact that testing most often does not work in the companies

favor provide them plenty of incentive to leave their products untested (Nestle, 2003). But for the

world’s population, this is dangerous. When asked if genetically modified foods might pose

health risks for certain people, Dr. Martha R. Herbert, a pediatric neurologist stated:

“Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified

substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure

you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on

human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet

manufactures of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest

uncontrolled experiments in modern history” (Tyson, 2001).

Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that genetically modified organisms

are a contributing factor, some medical groups, such as the American Academy of Doctors, state

that if emergency medicine tells us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and

especially our children who are most at risk, then we must begin immediately protecting

ourselves from GMO’s. The potential hazards are too difficult to predict or identify immediately

(Dech, n.d.).


Much of the current basis for labeling the use of GM crops as safe to use comes from an

initial study done in 1975. The scientists reviewing potential risks of genetically modified foods

considered their work to be of high importance and stated that if the foods did come with health

risks, those risks would be small in comparison to the benefits of such crops. Their findings

were especially valuable to the GMO industry, because at first glance, genetically modified crops

seemed to pose no health risks at all. This initial study has many critics who disagree, stating

genetic mutation and manipulations carried bacteria responsible for diseases in plants, antibiotic

resistance, as well as a number of other factors unknown in the beginning of genetic transferring

(Nestle, 2003).

In 1992, Calgene, Inc. introduced a new type of tomato called the Flavr Savr (pronounced

“flavor saver”). The new tomato would be resistant to rotting and thus could be allowed to ripen

naturally instead of being picked green and ripening during the shipping process. In 1994, the

USFDA approved it for use with a glowing recommendation. It would require no label, and its

test performance would be allowed to stand in for testing on other GM foods. Most disturbing of

all: “The FDA suppressed reports describing deaths and stomach lesions in rats that had eaten the

Flavr Savr®. The Flavr Savr failure has not been an isolated incident” (Group, 2006).

It was not until 1995 that Arpad Pusztai, along with other members of his team at the

Rowett Institute in Scotland, was awarded the research grant in order to devise the first official

standard of testing for genetically modified foods so that Britain and eventually the European

Union could have a basis for determining the safety of the individual GMO's proposed by bio-

tech companies. About two years into their research, Professor Philip James, the director of the

Rowett Institute, brought the team about 700 pages of proposals for GMO's, and told them they

had less than three hours to make recommendations for the British Ministry of Agriculture, who


would be making decisions on them that afternoon. The team didn't actually need three hours,

since not one of the reports contained enough data to support the safety of the genetically

modified food. So, Pusztai called the minister to urge him to refuse the proposals (Smith, 2003).

"I told the minister, on the basis of what we had seen so far, even with just two

and a half hours of review, I advised him to be extremely cautious and not accept it," said

Pusztai. "And then he said something on the phone which I found really amazing: 'I don't

know why you are telling me this, Professor James has already accepted it"' (Smith,

2003).

Not only had Professor James already made the decision to accept and approve these

GMO's, so had the ministry, two years earlier, around the time that Pusztai's research grant had

been awarded. The actual hope had been for Pusztai to provide the ministry with some

comforting platitudes to pass along to the over 58 million people of Britain who had been

unknowingly eating genetically modified produce for nearly two years (Smith, 2003).

“[I]t’s often not clear which consumables have been genetically manipulated. This

is because currently, in the United States, food companies are not required to tell you if

their products contain GMOs. The federal government has declared it’s their choice, not

yours, to know what’s in the food you eat” (Group, 2006).

In the United States, GM crops are not required by law to be labeled as GMO’s not list

warnings for the products used in their creation process. In fact, the United States regulatory

system is equipped to deal with problems occurring with genetically modified foods only after

they occur. (Dach, n.d). The government has yet to agree on what is meant by genetic

modification, genetic modified organism, or even living modified organisms. And the definition

is complicated further with the expansion on products that are part of the genetically modified


process it is no longer as simple as dichotomy (safe vs. not safe) when looking at the amounts of

arsenic in foods. Now one must question how much is safe and what, then, is the definition of

safe (Mc Hughen, 2000). When more than sixty percent of all processed foods on U.S.

supermarket shelves contain ingredients from engineered soybeans, corn, or canola, this is not an

insignificant consideration (Hart, 2001).

Most of the health and environmental risks of genetically modified organism are ignored

by the few superficial regulations and safety assessments in place. The reason for this tragedy is

largely political. The United States Food and Drug Administration does not require a single

safety study, does not mandate labeling of genetically modified organism and allows companies

to put their genetically modified foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Secret

agency memos, made public by a lawsuit, show that the overwhelming consensus even among

the Food and Drug Administration's’ own scientists was that genetically modified organisms can

create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. However,

the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology. The agency official in

charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, later their vice president.

He’s now the United States Food Safety Czar. (Richards, 2010).

Many citizens and scientists alike are concerned about the amount of secrecy this lack of

regulation permits companies to maintain (Dach, n.d.). With genetically modified foods being

able to pass over the labeling process the consumer does not know what they are eating and has

no option of choosing not to buy foods with genetically modified ingredients. If the consumer

does get sick from a genetically modified food, with fewer ingredients and components tracked,

it will be more difficult to trace the illness back to its source (Vernon, 2007).


The confusion even extends to the international scale. Because of international

negotiations and mass confusion about official definitions there is much debate regarding what

should be allowed into countries that do not support genetically modified crops (McHughen,

2000). “In 2006, Japan suspended long grain rice imports from the US after tests revealed that

the rice contained trace amounts of GMO that were not approved for human consumption”

(Group, 2006).

Many countries attempting to ban genetically modified organism fall foul of free trade

laws. Europe banned the import of United States beef treated with growth and other hormones,

and the United States lodged a formal world trade organization complaint. Europe had based

their ban on a scientific report showing that the hormones added to United States beef were

cancer-causing, yet another health risk of genetically modified products. However, the World

Trade Organization ruled that Europe did not present a valid scientific case to refuse import, and

Europe was forced to pay $150 million annually for lost United States profits (Victor, 2001).

The expressed will of the majority of countries in Europe and much of the rest of the

world has been trampled upon for the gain of private genetic companies. No international legal

framework exists to deal with these new technologies, and developing countries in particular are

calling for a fair liability and compensation system. The differences in forging policies

concerning genetically engineered foods are causes of many protests and create a large amount

of propaganda for both sides of the issue (Cummings, 2010).

Theoretically, by creating labels for genetically-modified crops and requiring their use in

supermarkets, GMO and non-GMO foods can co-exist in the free market. Monsanto themselves

work hard to convince food distributors and merchants that genetically modified organisms, non-

genetically modified organisms, and organic crops can co-exist, hoping to leave the issue to


“consumer choice.” Relegating the issue to “consumer choice” keeps the challenge fair only if

people are really concerned and educated about what they are consuming (Vernon, 2007). The

segregation of genetically modified organisms and non- genetically modified organisms is such a

complicated process that it would require doubling the work and expense for the FDA approval

process (McHughen, 2000).

For genetically modified foods to be used safely, total reform is needed from the state

level to the international level. An effective protocol must give states and countries the right to

individually apply the precautionary principle when deciding whether or not to allow the import,

introduction, transfer, handling or use of genetically modified foods or their products within their

territory. Similarly all states should be able to take full account of socio-economic impact within

their territory when taking decisions on genetically modified foods and their products

(Cummings, 2010).

But better testing protocol and application procedures first must be approved and put into

effect. The story of Dr. Pusztai’s research grant is altogether too common. Genetically modified

foods are approved for public use on the basis of insufficient and incomplete research. Recently

in Australia, an audit was conducted of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (also known as

FSANZ) to determine the effectiveness of their process for reviewing GM foods. “The Auditor

found that FSANZ has no procedure for ensuring the data provided by corporate applicants is

actually correct and complete. They found gaps in supporting data and evidence that some

applications were approved (ANAO, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2010), despite

these gaps” (Cotter, 2011).

These things might seem obvious, but they are directly opposed by the biotech industries.

Monsanto and other sponsors of biotechnology continually tell the public that genetic


engineering is necessary for the world’s food supply is to keep up with population growth. But

even with nearly one hundred million acres planted, their products have yet to do anything to

reverse the spread of hunger. There is no more food available for the world's’ less fortunate. In

fact, most of their testing fields grow transgenic soybeans and corn that are destined for livestock

feed. Neither Monsanto nor any of the other genetic engineering companies appear to be

developing genetically engineered crops that may solve global food shortages.

Monsanto knew the risks and costs of producing golden rice, as well as the

ineffectiveness of its vitamin A compound. Yet Monsanto and their cohorts still spent fifty

million dollars on the golden rice ad campaign. That’s more than the company spent on

developing the rice in the first place. Imagine if that money had been spent on irrigation projects

in sub-Saharan Africa, or given as microloans to start-up farmers in Southeast Asia. Monsanto

and the other biotech companies aren't developing these seeds with the intention of giving them

away in efforts to benefit the world (Taverne, 2007).

These are for-profit companies creating these seeds with the intent of licensing them for a

profit. At the end of the day, for Monsanto along with all the other major corporations, the main

objective isn’t solving world hunger. It’s making money. The companies invest millions of

dollars in developing genetic crops so they can patent them and recoup their investment.

(Taverne, 2007). The companies that create GMO’s work hard to maintain control of them,

vastly limiting who has the ability to benefit from them. Genetic modification technology

permits companies to ensure that everything America eats is owned by them. These companies

can patent the seeds and the processes which give rise to them. The companies can make sure

that crops can't be grown without patented chemicals, prevent seeds from reproducing

themselves, and buy up competing seed companies to close them down. In this way, just one or


two companies can capture the entire food market, the biggest and most diverse market of all

(Hart, 2001).

In January of 1999, an employee of Arthur Anderson Consulting Group, the marketing

firm which had been representing Monsanto for some time, came forward and explained how his

company had helped Monsanto to create and carry out a plan to do just that:

“First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in fifteen to twenty

years. Monsanto executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds

genetically modified and patented. Anderson Consulting then worked backward from that

goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with

the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in

which natural seeds were virtually extinct" (Smith, 2003).

The first action was for Monsanto to buy up as many other bio-tech companies and seed patents

as they could. The purchase of about twenty-three percent of the world’s seed companies,

including the company that produced the Flavr Savr tomato, left Monsanto the global leader in

patents on genetically modified foods. They hold roughly ninety-one percent of the world GM

food market (Smith, 2003).

The ownership by large companies of biotechnology genetic information is crippling

public-sector efforts to use this technology to address the needs of subsistence farmers. The large

companies that control the industry are not devoting significant resources to developing seed

technology for subsistence farmers because the investment offers minimal returns. Genetic

modification has created a surplus of first generation crops, also referred to as staple crops. The

major first generation crops are corn, soybean and cotton. These are not the primary crops of

human food production.


These companies are also cheating the free exchange of seeds and techniques vital to

public agricultural research programs, which are already under severe financial constraints. The

majority of production comes from the support of the following companies, Monsanto, DuPont,

AgEvo, Zeneca, Pioneer, and Novartis (Ackerman). Genetic Use Restriction Technology (also

known as T-GURT) is utilized by both Monsanto and AstroZeneca to create sterile plants that

cannot produce their own seed. Even companies that do not utilize T-GURT may require a

farmer to sign an agreement that forbids them from re-planting GM seed. Instead of utilizing the

age-old practice of saving some of the harvest to seed the next year’s crops, farmers must buy

new seed from these companies each year (Group, 2006).

Furthermore, GM crops often require the use of specialized chemicals, equipment, and

additional water. This mono-crop model is potentially devastating to the smaller, independent

farms who don’t have an enormous corporate backing to support themselves with. With

everything invested in hundreds of acres of a single crop a tiny shift of the market could destroy

a self-reliant farmer (Pawlick, 2006).

The GMO’s themselves are capable of great adaptation. Genetically modified organisms

can cross pollinate, allowing the seeds to travel and interbreed with unmodified species. It may

be impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution

could easily outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is

huge, threatening the health of future generations. Genetically modified organism contamination

has also caused economic losses for organic and non-genetically modified organism farmers who

often struggle to keep their crops pure.

Because of this, it is nearly impossible for a farmer to produce both GMO and non-GMO

crops separately, even with so-called buffer zones, (an area between the two crop fields), which


are useless against the wind and drift seeds (Vernon, 2007). It is also common for a farmer to

blend genetically modified seed with regular seed in order to keep their planting costs down.

Even Monsanto has been accused multiple times of refusing to segregate many of their major

genetically modified crops from those untouched by the process (McHughen, 2000). So, while

the market may be open to GMO and non-GMO products, a farmer must make the choice one

way or the other where it is not legislated for him (Vernon, 2007).

While a farmer may make the decision to raise non-GMO produce, if a neighbor plants

genetically modified seed upwind of his crops, his crop may be contaminated with the GMO’s.

And the farmer may have the further misfortune to be sued by Monsanto or whatever company

owns the seed for using their product without paying the license fee. One such company buried a

poor man, who makes a living off cleaning other farmers' seeds, in lawsuits, claiming that he

encouraged farmers to break the patent law.

And the companies aren’t just taking money out of the pockets of small farms. For years

the U. S. government has been subsidizing staple crops in America and abroad. This expense,

especially given the slow recovery of the global economy, is completely unsustainable. “Where

protection against imports can no longer be provided at will and export subsidies will have to be

cut back, there is the danger that domestic subsidies will be used instead” (Pawlick,2006). These

companies have a gained a monopoly over America's food industry.

All magic comes with a price, if people can't afford to buy genetically modified seeds, or

if they can't afford the fertilizers, pesticides and water the seeds require, they will not benefit

from the qualities of the foods. Instead the starving will continue to be used as the poster child

for companies to gain the support of the real people who will be consuming these foods, the

overly fed and the wealthy; people forget that hunger and poverty go hand in hand (Taverne,


2007). Large companies own the farms, and by extension, the farmers, who often earn less than

the cost of production for the crops and animals that they bring to the market (Weber, 2009).

Much of this is the imposition of agricultural and bio-tech corporations: the global

industrialization of food. And genetically modified foods continue to be its largest contributing

factor. The globalization of agriculture means the rapid transport of food over long distances and

across national borders. This increases the risk of diseases traveling to different parts of the

world where plants, animals and humans may be more susceptible. The global industrialization

of food production pushes small, self-reliant farmers away and replaces them with corporate

chemically-enhanced farms in order to encourage exports in a monoculture crop. It causes many

under-developed countries to rely on other countries: the developed countries with large

companies that have the means to produce the crop. The net effect has been to allow the

powerful monopoly of five grain trading giants to dramatically increase the volume of food

commodities globally, ruining millions of family farmers worldwide in the process, while

maximizing their private corporate profits.

In addition to having massive health and economic effects, the use of GMO’s has an

environmental impact. Poor farming practices, deforestation, over cropping and overgrazing are

exhausting the Earth's fertility and spreading the roots of hunger. Increasingly, the world's fertile

farmland is under threat from erosion, salination and desertification. (Christopher, 1988). These,

along with soil pollution and soil degradation ruin land for future generations of farm use. For

example, the “miracle crop” golden rice cannot grow in the arid soil found in many of the parts

of the world that are facing drastic hunger. To grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilizers

and pesticides, expensive inputs unaffordable to the very people that the variety is supposed to

help. Golden rice also requires large amounts of water (Taverne, 2007).


The act of “watering plants”, when performed on an industrial scale, can bring

difficulties and cause a great deal of damage to a region, from the increased spread of desert

drought to severe flooding. Genetically modified crops need a large amount of water, water that

cannot always be supplied reliably to farms. At least twenty percent of the world’s yearly

renewable water supply is too remote from population to be of use. Many farmers can neither

afford costly irrigation projects, nor have the education or access to be aware of them.

Furthermore, when plants are watered, a large proportion of the water used is lost as run-off,

which can suddenly flood in an area that, because of more arid natural conditions, has inadequate

drainage for so much water. The run-off carries chemicals used on the crops into the surrounding

environment where it contaminates the natural ecosystem. Thus, the creation of heavy

monoculture crops has also affected the biodiversity of traditional agriculture. (Pawlick, 2007).

Herbicide tolerant crops, like those in Monsanto’s “Round-Up Ready” line, actively

encourage the over-use of herbicides, and it is easy to contaminate the environment with them.

The environmental impact of the use of glyphosate (Monsanto’s Round-Up) and glufosinate

(Liberty Link’s competing herbicide) has been vastly understated until recent years. Not only has

Round-Up shown itself to be toxic to tadpoles and other amphibious larvae, but its effects on soil

microbes can cause nutrient deficiency in the plants it is meant to help. Furthermore the weeds

themselves are adapting and becoming resistant to these chemicals and surviving herbicidal

treatments. When a farmer reacts by spraying again, he not only increases the toxic load to the

environment, he encourages the adaptation of the weeds (Cotter, 2011).

Insects, too, will eventually adapt to our chemical techniques and evolve in order to

continue feasting. Crops are generally engineered to produce a bacterial toxin by the name of

Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt).These crops are based on modifications of single genes that


theoretically allow the amount of pesticides to be reduced, as this toxin is commonly sprayed as

an effective and natural pesticide (Taverne, 2007). However, when produced by the crop itself,

the toxin is much stronger and kills far more insects than a single spray application would

(Cotter, 2011). These crops that continuously make Bt toxins may hasten the evolution of insects

impervious to the pesticide (Pawlick, 2006). Furthermore, new pest insects are coming to fill the

niche left by Bt sensitive pests. Such a breed of insect, by becoming resistant to Bt toxins, would

rob many farmers of one of their safest, most environmentally friendly tools for fighting the

pests. For this reason, many farmers like to use beneficial insects instead of or as a supplement to

insecticides. But crops that produce Bt can damage many of these such as green lacewings,

butterflies, ladybugs, and bees (Cotter, 2011).

People are understandably reluctant to the practicality of solving world hunger by

creating a surplus of food merely because the food can potentially shorten the lifespans of the

people who consume it or destroy the land where it is grown. We could always find a way to

make things less dangerous. It would all be worthwhile if we could just solve the global hunger

crisis. At the surface, as many bio-tech companies present it, it seems a simple problem with a

simple solution: If people are hungry, there must not be enough food to eat. By growing more

food, we can be sure that people will have enough to eat. Bio-tech companies often tout the

increased production as a sign of success of the genetic modification industry. If this were true, if

genetic engineering companies were actually creating a surplus of food in order to end, or even

decrease, the hunger crisis, one could then consider the pros and cons of what genetically

modified foods are all about (Australian Government, 2001).

But this is the simple logic of a small village, not of a global society. The evidence that

this is wrong is in the statistics. “The World Health Organization estimates that over a billion


people suffer from hunger worldwide. That's despite the fact that more food is being produced

than ever before “(Hartl, 2011).

The first thing to take into account is that much of the “food” that makes up that statistic

is never intended to go to any person’s plate. More than thirty percent “of the world's arable land

is used to grow animal feed - corn, grain and soy beans” (Hartl, 2011). GMOs are desirable as

animal feed because it has components to increase the growth rate and the ability to gain fat

quickly (Smith, 2003).

Our land is also being increasingly devoted to gasoline alternatives. In Brazil, Bayer Crop

Science is using sugar cane to produce one such fuel."’Sugarcane is the most productive

cultivated plant for cost-efficient renewable energy with the best CO2 balance,’ says Joachim

Schneider, head of the BioScience department” (Hartl, 2011). The genetically modified version

they are working on is expected to contain around forty percent more sugar than traditional sugar

cane (Hartl, 2011).

But even taking into account all of the production devoted to indirect consumption, there

is still an enormous amount of food being produced in the world every year. We must come to

realize that food is distributed across the globe evenly. It’s a little easier to notice when you

realize that more than two-thirds of the world adheres to a vegetarian diet, and we spend almost

half of our food production resources producing meat.

Many do not think about their food security, meaning the balance of what and how food

gets delivered from the producer to the grocery store to your home. Roberts explains that while

we have become accustomed to a food industry which efficiently delivers food, we have chosen

this with a cost that is not sustainable. The current food distribution systems are causing more

problems with food delivery as well as potentially destroying farmers’ lifestyles when they miss


a deadline or lose their crop to natural causes (Roberts, 2008). Industrial farming traps people in

the web of food insecurity where they are forced to play endless catch-up through years of bad

harvests due to global warming, the market effects of futures speculation for both agricultural

commodities and biofuels, random changes in public consumption, and the unjust and unequal

way that food is distributed. “This problem is not restricted to the Global South. In 2005, one in

20 Victorians [residents of Victoria, Australia] experienced food insecurity” (Cotter, 2011).

Even the increase in production is uneven. Global acreage planted in genetically

engineered foods grew nearly 25-fold in the three years after 1996, the first year of large-scale

commercialization. Yet this enormous growth took place almost entirely in only three countries.

In 1999, the United States by itself accounted for seventy-two percent of the growth. Argentina

was responsible for another twenty-seven percent and Canada weighed in with another ten

percent. These three countries together accounted for ninety-nine percent of the entire world’s

genetically modified foods. This revolution left places such as Africa out of food due to the

natural staple crops of their regions being given less priority, and less land (Pringle, 2003). The

GMO revolution has increased food-production worldwide, but the increase was limited to areas

that already had some success in food production. Staple crops only succeed readily in regions

where the crops were able to be grown previously without genetic modification. There is little

help from GMO’s where crops are already difficult to grow (Pringle, 2003).

In the starving parts of the world, very little food is delivered to the people from the

Agro-Industrial Complex. Many developing countries lack key agricultural infrastructure, roads,

warehouses and irrigation. The results are high transport costs, lack of storage facilities and

unreliable water supplies. All conspire to limit agricultural yields and access to food. Although

the majority of developing countries depend on agriculture, their governments’ economic


planning often emphasizes urban development (Christopher, 1988). According to the Food and

Agriculture Organization, the countries that are on track to reach the first Millennium

Development Goal have something in common: significantly better than average agricultural

growth (Pringle, 2003).

In the developing world, many small farms can do nothing against the large corporations

that have overtaken the land and destroyed their livelihood. Farmers often cannot afford seeds to

plant the crops that would provide for their people. Some lack the land, or water or education to

lay the foundations for a secure future. The people in poverty do not have enough money to buy

or to produce enough food for themselves and their people. These lands tend to be weaker and

cannot produce enough crops to sell to buy more food. The poor are hungry and their hunger

becomes a method of trapping them them in poverty.

Meanwhile, in the first world, food has turned from a necessity to a commodity: a social

event of feasting that has created a demand for foods that thrive on the genetically modified

process. The change in this attitude toward food opens first-world nations up to increased rates

of heart-disease, obesity, diabetes, and more (Australian Government, 2001).

People do not starve because there isn’t enough food to go around. There is an incredible

amount of food that is wasted in the United States every day. Go to any local grocery store or

restaurant and look behind the building. Grocery stores and restaurants always have large

dumpsters. They need them because they throw away a lot of food. In nearby New York City,

large black trash bags full of food often sit on sidewalks, left there by delis or restaurants after

closing. Sometimes people will scavenge the food. More often, it ends up in a landfill. In our

society, ss the amount of food increases, so does the amount of waste, and so does the population

of people who are starving.


Why are tomatoes from Mexico and quinoa from Bolivia are being shipped to the US

when those nations cannot feed their own people? Why thousands of acres of farmland here in

the US are devoted to huge amounts of corn and soy beyond our nation’s consumption, rather

than growing our own domestic tomatoes and quinoa? And as first world consumers grow larger

from the surplus of food, starving nations are still facing the same problems as they were before

(Australian Government, 2001). To solve this, we must not only ask some hard questions, but

also be willing to make some difficult changes.

“While nearly one billion people worldwide are overweight or obese, the same

number of people-one in seven of us- can’t get enough food to eat. Food is cheaper and

easier to get now than at any time in history, offers the most dramatic proof that the

modern food economy is failing catastrophically” (Roberts, 2008).

The way we bring food to our tables has changed drastically in the past fifty years.

America is no longer a nation of farmers. When most areas had many local farms, a farm’s

annual yield could support about six people. Now, one single farm feeds around 125 people.

People have become removed from the farming process; instead we've become strictly

consumers, the places in which the food being grown are highly mechanized factories. Today,

farmers grow one crop of staple foods such as soybeans, corns, cows, chickens, pigs, etc. in mass

quantities (Weber, 2009).

Food, Inc. stated that there is a "veil" between the consumer and the story behind the

products we see on our supermarket shelves. The companies don't want us to know about their

poor business practices, as it may provoke us to boycott their food. Genetically modified crops

are not only ineffective at fighting world hunger, but are a genuine threat to public health. Even


if they became effective at feeding more individuals than traditional farming practices, one

would then have to choose to suffer from disease or starvation (Weber, 2009).

Such statements about the use of GMO’s have led to a change in public opinion about

their use over time. Increased attention and concern has led to the funding of new research. A

team of nine hundred scientists and researchers were funded by the World Bank and United

Nations, to create an organization known as the International Assessment of Agricultural

Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. This group was tasked with examining

the complex issue of world hunger, specifically to analyze if world hunger could be ended with a

modified seed. Although the issue of world hunger has a lot of aspects to account for, the group

found that genetically modified crops are not a meaningful solution to the problem (Weber,

2009).


References

Christopher, J. (1988). The Hunger Road. New York: Mac Millan Publishing.

Cotter, J. (2011). Busting the Myths. The Conversation Media Group, Retrieved from

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/busting-the-myths-about-gm-foods-

63080.html

Cummins, R. (2000). Genetically Engineered Food. New York: Marlowe & Compa

Dach, J. (n.d.). Gmo Food Scandal. Natural Solutions with Bio Identical Hormones,

Retrieved from http://seedsofdeception.com/about/

Fedoroff, N. (1999). Mendel in the Kitchen. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.

Group, F. E. (2006). Genetically Modified Foods. Global Healing Center, Retrieved from

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/nutrition/genetically-modified-foods

(2011). Genetcally Modified Food Explained. Australian Government, Retrieved from

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/11/genetically-modified-food-explained/

Hart, K. (2002). Eating in the Dark. New York: Pantheon Books.

Hartl, J. (2001). Genetically Modified Food to Fight Hunger. The Hungry World,

Retrieved from http://www.dw.de/genetically-modified-food-to-fight-hunger/a-15525069

Herda, D. J. (1990). Land and Abuse. New York, London, Sydney: Library of Congress.

Lappe, A. (2010). Diet for a Hot Planet. New York: Bloomsbury.

Mc Gonvern, G. (2001). The Third Freedom. New York: Simon & Schuster.


Mc Hughen, A. (2000). Pandora's Picnic Basket. New York: Oxford Press.

Nestle, M. (2003). Safe Food. California: California Press.

Pringle, P. (2003). Food inc.. New York: Simon&Schuster.

Pawlikc, T. (2006). The End of Food. New Jersey: Barricade Books Inc.

Richards, B. (2010). Health Scandal. News With Views, Retrieved from

http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron189.htm

Roberts, P. (2008). The End of Food. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Smith, Jeffery M. (2003). Seeds of Deception. Fairfield, Iowa: Yes! Books.

Taverne, D. (2007). The Great GM Food Scandal. Prospect, Retrieved from

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/therealgmfoodscandal/

Tyson, P. (2001). Should We Grow GM Crops. Harvest of Fear, doi: Should we grow

them

Vernon, J. (2007). Hunger; A Modern History. London, Massachusetts: Belknap Press.

Victor, D. (2001). Trade, Science, and Genetically Modified Foods. Council Foreign

Relations, Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/genetically-modified-organisms/trade-

science-genetically-modified-foods/p8689

Weber, K. (2009). Food inc.. New York: Participation Media.

Documents

GMO Essay 3 APA Format.docx - Weeblyrlapidus.weebly.com/.../6/7/4/26746537/gmos_will_not_e… · Web viewMonsanto and other sponsors of biotechnology continually tell the public