 |
Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMO's) are a hotly
contested subject in the
| Genetically
Modified Organism (GMO): The 41st
Edition of the International Air Transport
Association Dangerous Goods Regulations
defines GMOs as microorganisms and organisms
in which genetic material has been purposely
altered through genetic engineering in a
way that does not occur naturally. http://www.biotechmedia.com/definitions-g.html#GMO
|
realms
of modern agriculture. The watershed in the
US patent law as regards to life forms occurred
in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)
when a new, man-made microorganism that could
break down oil was made patentable subject matter
by a 5-4 decision of the US Supreme Court. This
opened the floodgates for economic impetus and
incentives to not only research further discoveries,
but put them to market before they were adequately
vetted.
From the
public's perspective there are more questions
than answers regarding this phenomenon. People
view them as "Frankenfoods" because
they have been fundamentally altered in order
to streamline the growing process- reduce
|
effects of pesticides,
improve shelf life, adapt a certain growing trait or
characteristic via genetic manipulation, etc.- mostly
to the benefit of producers, not the consumers. While
this is part of the public backlash, most of it is coming
from the fact that many of the applications of genetic
manipulation have not been tested for their repercussions.
"The commercialization of transgenic crops may
pose a spectrum of risks-from ill effects on humans
and animals that consume engineered crops to the disruption
of wild ecosystems. Engineered plants risk becoming
weeds in agricultural ecosystems or becoming established
outside the field, disturbing unmanaged ecosystems."
(Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, "Environmental
Risks Posed by Transgenic Crops," The Ecological
Risks of Engineered Crops, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1996, p. 27.) Shouldn't we know before we grow?
|
|
In
most cases, there is no reliable way to test these
repercussions. Nature operates in a much more
fragile manner than we are used to thinking about.
Minor changes in an organisms DNA can have drastic
effects on overall populations. The biology of
the world and its corresponding ecosystems
are inextricably tangled. For example, if the
| Ecosystem
: A term used to describe a system
of interactions between living organisms
occupying the same environment. |
polar
icecaps melted tomorrow it would have much more
of an effect than a rising sea level. Weather
patterns would change altering climates, rainfall,
and seasons |
in general;
ocean conditions would be altered resulting in further
climactic and biological uncertainty. The weatherman
would surely not stand a chance. The event splinters
itself into every facet of the biological world, be
it weather related or organismic. The point is that
for every action there is not necessarily a direct
quantifiable reaction. Haste makes waste, or extinction.
Big agricultural
companies, such as Monsanto, make the Malthusian
case of intrinsic population growth in order to
justify their technologies. In other words, more people
are
| Malthus,
Thomas : " An Essay on the Principle
of Population" was first published in 1798. This
important essay first identified the geometric
role of natural population increase in outrunning
subsistence food supplies, prompting Charles Darwin
to explore the actual patterns of evolution. What
"struck" Darwin in Essay on the Principle
of Population (1798) was Malthus's observation
that in nature plants and animals produce far
more offspring than can survive, and that Man
too is capable of overproducing if left unchecked.
Malthus concluded that unless family size was
regulated, man's misery of famine would become
globally epidemic and eventually consume Man.
Malthus' view that poverty and famine were natural
outcomes of population growth and food supply
was not popular among social reformers who believed
that with proper social structures, all ills of
man could be eradicated. This sentiment is similar
to that of the Agricultural revolution in that
Nature could be manipulated with no dire repercussions. |
coming, we need
more food, and biotech and genetic manipulation are
the only or best option. Or, we can get more out of
the same food, rather than being more efficient using
what we produce. The limiting factor to raising crop
production in hungry and poor rural areas around the
world tend to be ecological in nature--low soil fertility
or erratic water supply--not genetic in nature. There
seems to be more promise in the informational power
of biotech and genetic studies in discovering how
and why crops respond to disease or tolerate drought.
There is markedly less risk involved compared to swapping
and inserting foreign genes into genetic organisms.
It seems that concentrating on healthy soil (organic)
growing more food in less space (hydroponics) and
properly utilizing that which we produce (Local Agriculture)
would be a more healthy and sustainable means of food
production going forward. It's kind of like the tax
system. Would you rather increase the amount of taxes
you are charged or have the government spend the money
you are already taxed more efficiently?
Further, there
is a serious disconnect between the alleged beneficiaries
of biotech crops and GMO's, the poor and the environment,
and where the investment is really going- crop applications
for large-scale, First World farmers that reinforce
chemical dependence and monocultures (www.worldwatch.org,
Brian Halweil, June 07, 2002). As has been discussed,
these large corporations use the image of the "family
farmer" to utilize subsidies in order to further
this chemical dependence and monoculture. It's a vicious
cycle.
Bottom line,
educate yourself on your options and purchase food
in accordance with what makes you feel comfortable.
Use your Buying Power as your voice to exhibit your
preferences and hopefully our food production techniques
will end up on the side of reason.
back
to top
|
