Definition: Genetically Modified Organisms are crop plants designed in laboratories to have special traits meant to accelerate growth, kill or repel insects, produce a better yield, or exhibit other desired activities. This is done through the injection of desired genes into the DNA of natural plants, so that GM corn, for instance, already has a pesticide to kill the corn borer when attacked.
It differs from hybridization (cross-breeding) in that the process, in a sense, defies nature. GMOs are not necessarily injected with preferable genes from species that can cross-pollinate, sometimes they are injected with genes from a completely different plant. How this will affect our environment, our health, and the entire process of evolution is yet to be seen.
Proponents of GMOs' arguments:
more nutritious than non-GMO counterparts
increase yields, benefiting farmers' income and potentially solving food crises
no environmental risks, just extension of hybridization
reduces harmful spraying of crops since herbicides and pesticides are inherent in GMO DNA
Oppositions' arguments:
can cause allergenicity in humans
actually increases chemical inputs over time
shows negative or no increase in yield
potentially environmentally harmful product that can never be recalled
Conclusion:
At the very least, GMOs need to be scrutinized more intensively if they are to be used in any way. There are no GMO labelling regulations in the US, while the first raw GMO species, corn, is about to be introduced into our supermarkets. There are not nearly enough studies proving beyond a doubt their harmlessness, while there is an increasing body of evidence showing their risks. Although there could be some benefits, economically, the outcome can be disastrous.
Humans are now patenting seeds for god sakes. (Does anyone else think this is slightly weird?) One of the main claims by big agri-business (like Monsanto, who holds the patent to many GMOs) is that farmers will benefit from higher yields. Many studies are already showing that this is largely untrue or that GMO yields are even lower than natural plants'. One study showed that GMO soy beans demonstrated a 50% drop in yields over a decade (GM Crops). Per acre, small farmers that invest in polycultural farms (growing many types of plants) are actually more productive than the prevailing huge monocultural farms of the American Midwest. Since most GMOs are sterile, farmers cannot store their own seeds and select for the best varieties; they are instead chained by a contract with agri-business to an endless cycle of debt, forced to buy the newest GMO varieties from corporations each and every year. That's our food we're talking about, something we all MUST rely on and respect; how long until corporations stamp rights on the water we drink and the air we breathe?
Another claim (tying into the increased yields promise) that has become very popular is that GMOs will solve the world hunger crisis... well too bad these seeds can be outrageously expensive (even the discounts given to developing countries aren't enough). Even if it were absolutely proven that GMOs could produce more grains or bushels per acre than their natural counterparts, they will never find their way into hungry mouths to benefit humanity or struggling economies if they are safeguarded by large, overarching businesses with a mind only to maximize profit. Technology cannot solve world hunger, especially since the real root cause in this disparity-ridden world is not a lack of food, but a lack of access to it.
I could say more but I know it's already lengthy; I'm just really passionate about this issue!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment