Select any time point in the history of agriculture—say, agriculture and agricultural research in 1990—and we cannot really say that before this point things were still done in a natural way. Go back another ten or twenty years, and we still could not maintain that up to that point, plant breeders were doing no more than nature itself could have managed. Why, in the debate on natural versus unnatural, should we draw the line right here, right now, at the point where genetic engineering has entered the scene?

(Pinstrup-Andersen & Schioler 80-81) (Fedoroff & Brown 129)

 

 

Currently there are about 1 billion people who have less than a dollar a day to live on; the number of people who do not have enough food to eat is greater than 800 million. Roughly a quarter of the children under the age of 5 in developing countries are malnourished (Millennium 6). There are 30,000 children under the age of 5 die each day and approximately 15,000 of these deaths are influenced by malnutrition in some way (Millennium 18). There are those who feel that hunger is a fact of life, even a necessary evil, and a way to control population. There are also those who are looking to end hunger and some feel, especially the people in the field of genetics, that science may provide the answer. An example of how genetic engineering can help aid in ending world hunger can be found in Vitamin A deficiency, which can lead to blindness and death or other health problems. Rice is the primary food for almost half of the world’s population, and rice does not naturally have Vitamin A or beta-carotene, which is important for healthy vision. “Each year as many as 230 million children are at risk from going blind from vitamin A deficiency” (Fedoroff & Brown 2). It is estimated that 70% of 1 to 4 year olds in Southeast Asia have a Vitamin A deficiency (Lurquin 113). Scientists have found a way to prevent this deficiency using genetic modification. They have inserted a gene that produces beta-carotene, the precursor of Vitamin A into rice. In my paper I hope to explore and discuss whether or not GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) should be given to help feed starving nations. I intend to explore the background of GMO’s, the current controversy, and possible solutions to this question. I feel that the use of genetically modified organisms to help feed the people of starving nations is a good thing, and I feel that the use of these foods will help the people of these nations to be able to adequately feed themselves. In the end I hope that both sides of this issue will be clearly understood and that one will be able to form an educated opinion considering implications of these views.

 

Definition

 

As Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler suggest, genetic modification of plants and animals used by humans for food has been occurring for some time. The methods, though, of modification have changed. A Genetically Modified Organism or GMO for short is an organism that has had genes artificially introduced either from a different organism or genes altered from the same organism. GMO’s are also known as transgenic organisms. Just by saying that a food is genetically modified has two different possible meanings at the moment because when taken literally any person could make the argument that all crops in production today have been modified genetically. Not all crops though, have been modified directly by genetic manipulation (Halford 17). By just simply selecting and crossing plants through the ages, man has caused them to produce better yields. In this way, humans have altered the genetic make up of that crop and this practice has been going on for centuries. The other definition of a GMO is that it is any organism that has had its genes modified by scientific means such as having genes artificially implanted to produce a specific effect or characteristic in a plant. This is a much more recent and direct form of genetic manipulation. At one point in time grafting, which is taking part of a plant and getting it to grow on another plant, was even viewed the same as GMO’s are today (Fedoroff & Brown 52-53).

Background

 

Under the current definition, though, scientists have had the technology for GM plants available to them since the late 1970’s (Halford 17).

FlavrSavr®

The first commercially available GMO was the FlavrSavr® Tomato in 1994 which was sold in the US. It was genetically modified to delay its ripening. This allowed it to be picked riper than other store bought tomatoes because it would not spoil as quickly and have more flavor. It turned out to be a big hit with consumers (Siedler 45). The FlavrSavr® also sparked the controversy over whether genetic modification of human foods was an acceptable new farming technique (Lurquin 112). It was pulled from the market, not because of the controversy over its genes, but because it was sold for $8/pound and it cost $10/pound to produce (Fedoroff & Brown 92).

NewLeaf

Another GMO taken off the market is the NewLeaf potato, which was marketed in 1996; it was taken off the market due to a lack of sales. The NewLeaf potato was genetically modified to be resistant to pests and to the potato leaf roll virus.

Even4 176

There was also a transgenic corn known as Even4 176 which was pulled from the market due to the fact that its insect resistance was only effective during part of the growing season. Another issue with this corn was the fact that the pollen from the plants was toxic to the Monarch caterpillars (“Discontinued”).

GMO’s on the Market

 

Although there are many GMO’s developed for public consumption, currently there are no genetically modified foods available to the general public that are directly health related (Lurquin113). Golden Rice is a GMO that is now in the pipeline for nations that use rice as their main food source and someday soon we may see bags of yellow rice on market shelves. There are, however, foods that have been modified for other reasons on the market at this time. One such example is Clearfield corn, which has been on the market in the US since the 1990’s. Clearfield corn is an herbicide tolerant crop (Fedoroff & Brown 15). Herbicide tolerant crops could assist in helping to feed starving nations because if the crops are not fighting with weeds that are absorbing the nutrients it needs the yield of the crop will be greater. Genetically modified foods that are currently available include: soybeans, corn, and canola. According to Gerald D. Coleman, in America 68% of soybeans, 55% of canola oil, and 26% of corn, along with 70% of cotton are genetically modified (15). Because 60-70% of processed food contains soy (Burros), many of the products on the supermarket shelves today contain ingredients from a genetically modified plant.

Controversies

 

GM crops are being grown in over 40 countries and on 6 continents (“Genetically”). The amount of acreage devoted to growing GM cops continues to rise with over 200 million acres in production as of 2004(“Genetically”). Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops include issues of concern for the environment, food safety for human health, labeling, and poverty reduction.

Concern for the Environment

A GM crop could reduce problems with weeds if the crop is resistant to herbicides so the farmer has more options on what to spray and when to spray (Halford 1&2). Also if the crop is resistant to herbicides, the farmer can leave his soil alone over the winter, which would reduce the amount of soil erosion and help to keep fertilizers such as nitrate from getting into and polluting water (Halford 44). Resistance may lead to higher yield in the long run. GM crops could make it so that land currently unusable because of salt content may become available (Halford 54 & 55). An increase in land used for crop production, could in turn, produce a greater food supply, which could be used to feed starving people. There are arguments, however, that the introduction of plants resistant to an herbicide or pesticide may not decrease the amount of spraying, but increase the total amount of spraying (Cook 163). People will spray more freely throughout the growing cycle knowing it will not harm the crop. This could lead bugs and weeds to mutate and become resistant to the sprays. The increased spraying could also lead to the spray seeping into ground water and polluting.

Potential Environmental Gains

So far, no environmental disasters have been documented from GM crops or GM animals have occurred. While some fear negative environmental impacts of GMO's, a 2005 study by PG Economics investigating the global impact of GM crops showed they contribute to the environment by significantly reducing gas emissions from agricultural practices (“Genetically”). They often also reduce the use of chemicals and soil erosion. The ability to grow more food with less chemicals and equipment equates to a better economic gain for the farmer. This would allow farmer’s in third world countries to better be able to afford to improve their farms to produce even more food and to have money to be able to buy the food they need for their family that they do not grow themselves (“Genetically”).

GM Fish

In addition to GM crops, GM animals are being developed. Aqua Bounty Technologies has developed a salmon that grows twice as fast as a normally farmed salmon. This is because the salmon has genetic trait added to it from another fish which enables it to produce growth hormones year round and not just in the summer months. The benefits of this salmon include a 35% reduction in cost to grow while doubling the production of the fish because it takes half the time for the fish to grow to the size needed to sell. The ability to produce twice as much food, faster, and at a lower cost could assist in feeding starving nations. Aqua Bounty hopes to have their salmon approved by the FDA and on the Market by 2008 (Weintraub). Possible drawbacks to GM fish include the fear that they would be more successful in mating and eventually wipe out the world population of wild salmon if they got released into the wild. Also, some studies of GM fish indicate that they produce inferior offspring that are less likely to survive to adulthood (Boutin). These fears may be overcome if Aqua Bounty is successful in their use of all female fish, only use farmed fish, and the fact that their fish do not grow bigger but just faster, than normal salmon and therefore should not have any breeding advantages over natural salmon (Weintraub).

Human Food Safety

We are already consuming some genetically modified crops in America like soybeans and corn and using things like genetically modified cotton (Siedler 43). In 10 years of having GM foods available, no catastrophic issues of human health have materialized. One soybean using a gene from a Brazil nut was developed, but in the modification of the soybean the gene causing allergic reactions in some people was transferred. Fortunately, it was discontinued before it ever left the testing phase (“Genetically”). If scientists can identify the genes in foods that cause people to have allergic reactions to foods, it might be possible to remove those genes from those plants to make them safer to eat, just as long as the genes that cause people to have reactions are not necessary to the plants survival.

Labeling Laws

The labeling laws in Europe over GM foods are stricter than they are in America. In Europe anything containing a GM product must be labeled except in two instances: one of them is foods containing less than 1% of a GM product from unplanned mixing. The other is processed foods such as vegetable oil and sugar, because they contain no DNA or protein and could not be discerned from non-GM products. Currently there is also no law in Europe requiring cheeses and yogurts to be labeled if they are made from or contain genetically modified bacteria (Halford 72 & 73). The USDA considered putting GMO’s into the category of organic foods when making the guidelines for qualifying to be an organic organism (Siedler 59). Greenpeace lists a shopper's guide on how to avoid genetically modified foods which lists many name brands as containing genetically modified foods. A few of the brands listed were: General Mills, Kellogg’s, Kraft, Stouffer's, Western Family, Quaker Oats, and Fred Meyer's brand (“Greenpeace”). If GM foods are given to starving nations, the question surrounding the labeling controversy arises as to how much information should be required to be given to these nations about the background of the foods they are eating and if their people are truly starving, would they even care where their food came from?

Conclusion

 

As GMO’s are still relatively new there may also be unexpected environmental and health implications. At this point no one can say for certain what will become of this process. It may turn out like the practice of grafting and over time become a normal, generally acceptable, process that few if any would even consider objecting to, or it may turn into a banned science. It is my hope that GMO’s will someday be able to help starving nations feed their people and maybe lead to them being better able to support themselves over the coming years.

Works Cited

Boutin, Chad. "Purdue Scientists: Genetically Modified Fish Could Damage Ecology." Purdue News. 23 Feb. 2004. Purdue. 20 Feb. 2006 .

 

Burros, Marian. "Eating Well." The New York Times 21 May 1997. 20 Feb. 2006 .

Coleman, Gerald D. “Is Genetic Engineering The Answer to Hunger?” America 21 Feb. 2005: 14-17. Religion and Philosophy Collection. EBSCO. Riverdale High School, Portland, OR. 13 Oct. 2005. .

Cook, Christopher. Diet for a Dead Planet: How the Food Industry is Killing Us. New York: The New P, 2004.

"Discontinued Transgenic Products." Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide. 11 Mar. 2004. Colorado State University. 20 Feb. 2006 .

Fedoroff, Nina V., and Nancy M. Brown. Mendel in the Kitchen: a Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Foods. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry P, 2004.

"Genetically Modified Food." Wikipedia. 21 Feb. 2006. 21 Feb. 2006 .

"Greenpeace Shopper's Guide." How to Avoid Genetically Engineered Foods. Greenpeace. 20 Feb. 2006 .

Halford, Nigel G. Genetically Modified Crops. London: Imperial College P, 2003.

Lurquin, Paul F. High Tech Harvest: Understanding Genetically Modified Food Plants. Boulder: Westview P, 2002.

The Millennium Development Goals Report 2005. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information. 24 January 2006.

Pinstrup-Andersen, Per, and Ebbe Schioler. Seeds of Contention: World Hunger and the Global Controversy over GM Crops. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2001.

Siedler, Maurya, ed. The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. San Diego: Greenhaven P, 2005.

Weintraub, Arlene. "Salmon That Grow Up Fast." Business Week Online 16 Jan. 2006. 20 Feb. 2006 .