Sharing a short academic piece concerning Genetically Modified Foods. MLA style not consistently followed for blog.
One of the more interesting and educational aspects of running for the Oregon House of Representatives in 2014 included the many requests for me to speak before numerous groups and organizations. On April 24, 2014, for example, I was asked to come for an interview before members of the AG-PAC Political Action Committee. One of the main issues of concern to the board that day concerned something I had only heard and read bits and pieces about: genetically modified organisms (GMO). The board questioned me about my beliefs and opinions concerning the safety of genetically modified foods. At the time, all I really knew was that the protests of those opposing genetic modification of food seemed to be expressing a kind of hysteria of which I was deeply skeptical. After all, isn’t the history of agriculture filled with examples of successful hybridizations of crops? I expressed my view at the time that the hype and hysteria concerning genetically modified foods seemed largely more an emotional than rational response, and my views seemed appreciated by the board members present. Since 2014, I have had the opportunity to learn much more about the science—and controversy—surrounding genetically modified foods. The fact of the matter is that we are already eating these foods most likely on a daily basis. No new illnesses appear to have been created in the process, and our ability to feed the world is challenged now more by antiquated distributions systems and public opinion rather than potential crop production. The evidence will demonstrate that genetically modified foods are not only safe, but they offer a new way of feeding many more people than before—as well as providing insecure populations with increased access to critical vitamins. It is also important, however, to understand why so many fear the technology associated with these food advancements. What is it about genetically modified food that makes people fear the worst?
A good place to begin in this exploration of the root of fear with regards to genetically modified foods might be pinpointing the distinction between hybrid plants and GMOs. Monsanto’s website provides the following helpful clarification.
Hybrid seeds are created using traditional breeding methods where two different but compatible plants are crossbred to create a new plant—also known as a hybrid. An example of this is the Honeycrisp apple. Developed through the University of Minnesota's apple breeding program, the Honeycrisp is a hybrid produced by breeding two different apples to create a new, crisper and juicier type of apple.
A GMO seed is made when scientists take a beneficial trait from one living thing and adapt that trait to a plant. For example, by adding two genes to a rice plant, rice is able to accumulate beta-carotene in its grains. Scientists and humanitarians believe this new type of rice, called Golden Rice, can increase Vitamin A in people's diets and help prevent childhood blindness. (Monsanto)
Plant hybridization is not a particularly new process. George Washington Carver, for example, made exciting breakthroughs in creating a hybrid cotton plant that better resisted the onslaught of the boll weevil pest. Carver’s early scientific work, which was often conducted under remarkably primitive conditions and with little in the way of equipment, served as a sort of prelude to the genetic modification seen today. (Clark, 54) It seems one way to consider the distinction between hybridization and genetic modification could rest upon the level of interference with nature. Where hybridization is a gentle push, genetic manipulation is seen by much of the public as a more dramatic or aggressive interference with the natural order. This uneasiness, particularly on display in the political discussions referenced at the opening of this essay, are human nature’s expression of fear of the unknown, but is this a valid fear?
An illustration of the fear is found in the following excerpt from Seeds of Deception, Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating by Jeffrey Smith.
It wasn’t until the massive food recall prompted by StarLink®* corn that Americans were even alerted to the fact that they were eating GM foods everyday. Moreover, the American press was forced to question whether GM foods were safe. Up until then, the media had portrayed European resistance to America’s GM crops as unscientific anti-Americanism. But as the story of Arpad Pusztai reveals, the European anti-GMO sentiment had been fueled, in part, by far greater health risks than the scattered allergic reactions attributed to StarLink. (Smith)
There is a sense of conspiracy or exaggeration conveyed within the cited text, which immediately casts doubt upon the passage’s objectivity. If we play devil’s advocate for a moment, though, perhaps the reader can begin to sympathize with the expression of fear. In a century, our technology has advanced to the point that the daily news reports seen today would be taken as science fiction if read a generation or two ago. Speaking from the perspective of popular culture, then, is it small wonder that there exists both suspicion and fear concerning GMO products? The public questions, for example, what might happen if an oak or poplar tree were genetically modified with the DNA from a venus fly trap or pitcher plant? Another scenario that seems to spark fear in people is found referenced in “Rethinking the Meat Guzzler” from the New York Times: “Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of “meat without feet”—meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further manipulated into burgers and steaks.” (Bittman) The academic audience may derisively dismiss some, or all, of these sort of creative examples as products of a fanciful imagination alone, but is the common denominator of the passions surrounding this controversial topic simply an expression of uncertainty regarding the ethical character of those working within the sciences? Are the genetic scientists and technicians trustworthy, or are they “playing god?” If this is an accurate distillation, then there is likely no fast road to adaption of these products; it is more a matter of the scientific community earning the trust of the public.
Whether the element of fear exists, or not, the subject matter can still be examined as objectively as possible to discern whether this technology truly offers a ray of hope for the hungry and starving of the world—not to mention avoided environmental harms of factory farming. In “Still Feeding the World,” Paul Driessen frames the argument this way.
He {Dr. Borlaug} has little patience for "well-fed utopians who live on Cloud Nine but come into the Third World to cause all kinds of negative impacts," by scaring people and blocking the use of biotechnology. These callous activists even persuaded Zambia to let people starve, rather than let them eat biotech corn donated by the USA. They also oppose insecticides to combat malaria – and fossil fuels, hydroelectric dams and nuclear power to generate abundant, reliable, affordable electricity for poor nations.
"Our planet has 6.5 billion people, says Borlaug. "By all means, use manure. You can’t let it sit around. But if we use only organic fertilizers and methods on existing farmland, we can only feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2.5 billion people volunteering to disappear." To feed everyone with organic and traditional farming, we would have to plow millions of acres of forests and other wildlife habitat, he calculates. If, instead, we continue to use commercial fertilizer and hybrids, and have strong public support for both biotech and traditional research, "the Earth can provide sufficient food for 10 billion people."
Understood this way, there is a sense that the resistance to biotechnology and genetically modified foods has its roots in a kind of colonial paternalism: the First World knows what is best for you in the developing world. If we in the West combine suspicion and fear with arrogance, are we really serving the desperate needs of the starving and hungry in the Third World, or are we permitting something akin to pride to stand between those who have and those who have not?
Another positive perspective on biotechnology and the GMO question is offered within an OPB article featuring a short piece by Charles Arntzen, Ph.D. Dr. Arntzen notes that “We’re just at the tip of the iceberg of an enormous number of things that will be technically possible to do with plants. Some folks are talking about how they are going to change the qualities of plants so that they’ll be able to do bio-remediation and clean up toxic sites…” (OPB) Repeatedly, the environmental benefits potentially available through a new reliance upon genetically modified foods is encountered within the writings of the proponents of this new scientific frontier. When one examines the environmental—not to mention animal treatment issues--impact of factory farming, the promise of GMOs seems even more persuasive.
From air to water pollution, it is common knowledge that factory farms pose an environmental threat. It is also worth remembering the ethical treatment issues that are also raised within the harsh and cramped conditions of this kind of factory farming. If alternative methods of meat production could be sustainably and ethically practiced along the lines of “meat without feet,” a potentially significant environmental restoration might well be within our reach. This, combined with a possible increase in production of meat and other food products, might truly place a world without hunger within our grasp. Genetically Modified Foods should be considered as a new tool or means of production, as opposed to the creation of dangerous new organisms. It will likely take years for the public’s distrust of these advancements to fade away, but they almost certainly will with time. When that time arrives, perhaps we will see an end to the scourge of world hunger once and for all. If hunger is indeed conquered, we should also bear in mind it is because of Christians like George Washington Carver and Dr. Borlaug who worked tirelessly to feed the hungry and help alleviate the suffering of the poor.
Cited and Consulted Sources
Barbara Beyer, Personal Communication (AG-PAC)
Bittman, Mark. “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26
Jan. 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html.
Carpenter, Janet. “GM Crops Can Benefit Farmers | Janet Carpenter.” The
Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 21 Apr. 2010,
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/apr/21/gm-crops-benefit-
farmers.
Clark, Glenn. The Man Who Talks with the Flowers: the Intimate Life Story of Dr. George
Washington Carver: a Recollection of a Close Relationship with the Black Leonardo Da
Vinci. Wilder Publications, 2014.
Driessen, Paul. “Still Feeding the World.” Institut Économique Molinari, 30 Apr. 2008,
www.institutmolinari.org/still-feeding-the-world,178.html.
Ian Godwin Professor in Plant Molecular Genetics, The University of Queensland. “GM Crops Can Benefit Organic Farmers Too.” The Conversation, 27 Nov. 2017, theconversation.com/gm-crops-can-benefit-organic-farmers-too-51318.
PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/viewpoints/benefits.html.
Bittman, Mark. “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.” The New York Times, The New York Times,
26 Jan. 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html.
Smith, Jeffrey M. Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety
