GMOs (genetically modified organisms) have been in the
public mouth recently, especially with the seeming failings of corporations
like Monsanto (a company that is known for producing controversial substances
in the past like Agent Orange and DDT). Quite frankly we're scared of it since
we've seen this things turn negative in the past. We're now afraid we'll see
mutant corn ears meandering angrily down the street. Images, as they say in "Crop
Protection Institute of Canada Plant Biotechnology Manual" which was
produced by CropLife Canada that "conjure up images of killer tomatoes and
Frankenfood monsters." (CropLife,7).
But the thing is, genetic engineering
(not necessarily in the way we think of) has been occurring for thousands of
years—ever since we decided to sit down and purposefully plant things instead
of picking what naturally grew. Even "…corn today looks nothing like it
did one hundred years ago because of plant breeding and selection."
(CropLife, 11).
We tend to think of
the term "genetically modified" and infer chemicals and radiation and
any number of other negative and deleterious things. And why shouldn't we? The
public doesn't know much about biological engineering and what we do know tends to be misused or misquoted facts about experiments that didn't go quite right
(but we have do have to consider the number of experiments in any other field
that have not gone right and not gained nearly the same amount of traction).
The thing is, the anti-GMO lobby is small but loud. It's incredibly easy to
fall into their argument—humans' default setting is skepticism (which stems
from survival tactics developed while we were hunter-gathers as explained in
this TED talk by Michael Shermer); assume it's dangerous and you just might live. However, as the
Biotechnology Manual explains, there is always a risk to life and "there
is no such thing as 'zero risk' for any food…" (CropLife, 12). Look at the
countless recalls of food that developed problems simply because they weren'tstored at the right temperatures or the food acquires salmonella from
potentially irrigating fields with water that may contain animal feces infected with the bacteria (salmonella grows in the stomachs of animals).
One such benefit that is being worked towards is
drought-resistant crops. This is going to come in handy as we move into an era
where our potable water supply is dwindling so rapidly and our ocean levels are
rising. We are losing land and gaining water that is contaminated and/or
prevented from entering back into our aquifers—instead it is draining off backinto the oceans, which explains a portion of the sea level rise. Though, latelywe have seen a drop in the sea level, which seems to indicate a collection ofsea water in Australia's lowest point. Besides issues with sea levels, we're seeing things like the
depletion of major water sources like Lake Meade due to increasing populations(and by the way, the population is supposed to reach "10 billion by
2050" according to CropLife and 9.6 billion by 2050 according to the UN) thermonuclear coolingsystems, and irrigation systems. Irrigation systems for farming accounts for one third of the water use in the entire US and is the largest use for fresh water in the country. Most of our water goes to farming. So why are people going hungry?
Well,"hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, notscarcity." According to this linked Huffington Post article, the global
food industry produces enough food for 10 billion people already. We have no
need to increase our crop production as CropLife seems to believe we do. While producing more with the
same amount of land is a possibility from these forays into crop genetic
engineering, it's not necessary. We produce enough but it is not affordable to
those in poor areas so portions of that food goes to waste. So then the challenge
does not become increasing food production but actually reducing environmental
impact on top of making the food grown available to those who need it
(particularly those who farm the land and yet cannot afford to eat what they
grow). We want to be able to use the land we have but also reduce the amount
of water we are polluting with pesticides. We want to get crops growing in
places that are dry and places that are "developing." "Biotechnology can increase yields, thereby
helping to address food shortages and hunger…" in these areas (CropLife,
12). But do we need genetic engineering or do we need just plain old genetic
modification (crossbreeding and experimenting). According to this article inNature, corn being bred for draught resistance for arid African climates is
beating out genetic engineering. Perhaps we can beat the hunger without needing
to isolate genes in one plant and inject them into others. The thing is, there's a good chance we already do consume GMOs (as stated in this wired.com article),
just in smaller doses. So, is the point moot? Can we conserve water, use less land, and feed everyone?
