n July 19th, debate over the use of genetically modified (GMO) crops was once again at the forefront of the European Union agenda, when farm ministers failed to reach a consensus as whether or not GMO maize should be imported, Reuters reported. The use of GMO crops is a hot button issue throughout the world, and the July 19th EU meeting in Brussels illustrates the contentions between supporters and opponents of importing the crops of high tech companies such as US-based Monsanto, which produces a form of corn called Roundup Ready, which, according to Reuters “allows farmers to manage weeds more effectively” and can be used in a variety of ways. Supporters of GMO crops say that it is a significant step towards alleviating famine brought on by natural disaster and poor agricultural methods.
Opponents of altering crops argue it is a racist attempt to force poverty-stricken Third World farmers into a dependent relationship with Western multinationals, and that the altered crops are unhealthy and laden with chemicals. Producers of the crops insist that the alterations will not harm humans or animals, and that modification improves the nutritional value of the crop being altered. A recent petition by International Consumers, an organization of free-market oriented advocacy groups and think tanks calls upon the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to move beyond the “polarizing political rhetoric” and to consider the legitimate risks and potential benefits of encouraging the use of genetically modified crops to help solve the problems of poverty and starvation in poor areas.
The fight over GMO crops is focused mainly between government and corporations at the moment, and in many areas of the world, private citizens oppose its use. Special interest groups are polarized on the issue, with groups such as Greenpeace standing firmly against the concept. The organization dedicates a significant amount of time to the issue and offers a section entitled “Food Fight: The Truth About GMOs” on its website in an attempt to explain and refute the “myths” perpetuated by big business as to the positive aspects of genetically engineered food. On the contrary, the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies published a study in 2002 entitled “The Looming Trade War Over Plant Biotechnology” in which it strongly supports GMO crops as a way to increase production in poor areas while increasing the nutritional value of crops already native to certain areas.
The first myth Greenpeace attempts to dispel states “genetic engineering is merely an extension of traditional breeding.” Greenpeace disputes that claim by countering
“genetic engineering is a new technology that has been developed to overcome the limitations (emphasis theirs) of traditional breeding. Traditional breeders have never been capable of crossing fish genes with strawberries. But genetically engineered “fishberries” are already in the field. With genetic engineering, these types of new organisms can be created and released into the environment…Food and Drug Administration scientists stated that genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, and so are the risks. Despite this warning, the FDA continues to assert that GMOs are not different and don’t require special regulations”
Greenpeace’s logic is misguided, however. It can be argued, is much more than just an extension of traditional breeding; however Greenpeace’s argument concerning FDA approval of the crops is not entirely accurate. The Environmental Protection Agency plays the main role in approving GMOs because most genetic mutations involve making crops resistant to bug, soil, and other conditions normally associated with pesticide use. Thus, the mutations save farmers (and governments) millions of dollars every year as pesticides and herbicide costs are significantly reduced. According to the Cato Institute report, “U.S. farmers save an estimated $216 million annually in weed costs and make 19 million fewer herbicide applications per year. In addition, using no-till farming made possible by herbicide-resistant biotech soybeans, farmers prevent 247 million tons of topsoil from eroding away.” To date, no serious, wide-spread side effects from human consumption of such crops has been reported, and United States (including the FDA) as well as European Union regulatory agencies have publicly stated the crops are safe for people to eat, the Cato Institute reported. Additionally, GMO advances have led to more nutritious crops such as “golden rice,” which is fortified with Vitamin A.
The second aspect of GMO food production Greenpeace disputes is the notion that genetic engineering “can make foods better, more nutritious, longer-lasting and better tasting.” This is false, the organization insists, because “there is little benefit aside from the financial gains reaped by the firms producing” the crops, and the main reason for engineering is to “withstand more pesticides.” It is correct that genetically engineered crops often are altered to withstand pesticides. Even if it is true that the only benefit of GMOs are their ability to withstand harsh pesticides, the money saved benefits production costs, which is positive for companies, but those savings are eventually passed down to the consumer in the form of lower prices. Additionally, the ability to hold up against pesticides is advantageous to farmers in the Third World, where poor farming conditions and inadequate means of controlling insects leads to bad harvests and exacerbates an already short food supply. According to the Cato Institute, “as biologist Richard Flavel concluded… ‘it would be unethical to condemn future generations to hunger by refusing to develop and apply a technology that can build on what our forefathers provided and can help produce adequate food for a world with almost 2 billion more people by 2020.’”
Greenpeace’s third “myth” about GMO challenges the notion that the crops “eliminate pesticides and are necessary for environmentally sustainable farming.” The organization counters this claim by saying that large companies such as Monsanto, who create GMOs force farmers who grow their crops to buy herbicides along with the seeds, which leads to more chemicals going into the crops rather than less. Eventually, Greenpeace argues, GMO crops will be immune to natural pesticides, and “farmers will turn to increasingly toxic chemicals to deal with the ‘superbugs’ created by GMOs.” Time will tell if this is the case, but as the Cato Institute report points out, “conventional spray pesticides encourage the evolution of pesticide-resistant insects, so there is no scientific reason for singling out biotech plants.” In effect, the evolutionary side effects of both methods are the same, so the argument that GMO farming increases pesticide use and will create pesticide-resistant bugs is not entirely accurate.
The fourth component of Greenpeace’s argument against the use of GMO crops is the false notion that “the government ensures that genetic engineering is safe for the environment and human health.” The argument is supported by asserting “biotech companies are on the honor system.” This is somewhat true, as genetically engineered crops are still a somewhat new phenomenon without an established government policy. However, according to the Cato Institute, activists seize not on documented cases of failed government regulations and dishonesty by corporations that develop GMO seeds, but on the potential for harm. For example, a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred created an engineered soybean seed that contained a protein found in Brazil nuts, which caused an allergic reaction in people with Brazil nut allergies. However, “the soybean never got close to commercial release because Pioneer Hi-Bred checked it for allergenicity as part of its regular safety testing and immediately dropped the variety.” In this case, the company self-regulated and avoided potential catastrophe, which is to be commended. Unfortunately, activists decry lack of government regulations and the inherent, but undocumented in this instance, greediness of corporations to support its opinion.
Greenpeace’s fifth “myth” contests the belief that GMOs do not harm the environment or the humans who consume them. Noting that there are no long-term studies to support the claim that GMOs are harmless and using the vague argument that “doctors around the world have warned that GMO foods may cause unexpected health consequences that may take years to develop,” Greenpeace does not specify or name any doctors, organizations, hospitals, or other medical professionals who have denounced the use of GMOs. The Cato Institute report, on the other hand, cites a study from Great Britain’s top science organization, the Royal Society, which stated “Given the very long history of DNA consumption from a variety of sources, it is likely that such consumption poses no significant risk to human health, and that additional ingestion of GM DNA has no effect.” Additionally, the Cato Institute study raises the question of politics influencing governments such as the EU and organizations such as Greenpeace in the decision about whether to allow GMOs. In the EU for example, agriculture subsidies give farmers little incentive to increase productivity, and if GMOs are approved competition increases, subsidies would be forced up, and “fiscal disaster” would result.
Lastly, Greenpeace argues against the claim “GMOs are necessary to feed the developing world’s growing population.” Using information presented at a 1998 UN Conference by African scientists who believed that “gene technologies would undermine the nations’ capacities to feed themselves by destroying established diversity, local knowledge and sustainable agricultural systems.” Furthermore, Greenpeace argues:
“genetic engineering could actually lead to an increase in hunger and starvation. Biotech companies eagerly pursue a genetic-engineering technique named ‘terminator’ technology that would render a crop’s seed sterile, making it impossible for farmers to save seed for replanting. Half the world’s farmers rely on saved seed to produce food that 1.4 billion people rely on for daily nutrition.”
This sounds horribly cruel of companies, an attempt to manipulate poor farmers into paying more to grow their crops. However, if documented cases of United States farmers are to be believed, as the Cato Institute reports, farmers can increase their yields while making more money, and reducing costs when they use GMO seeds. In the case of United States cotton farmers, genetically engineered crops helped them to avoid “spraying 2.7 million pounds of insecticides and made fewer pesticide applications per year by switching to biotech varieties. Their net revenues increased by $99 million.” Clearly, cotton does not feed people, but the point remains that the crop was harvested at a significantly cheaper cost to farmers. In the case of modified corn, farmers increased yields by 66 million bushels; this technique applied to areas plagued by famine could have a momentous impact on alleviating the problem.
Opponents, as well as supporters of genetically modified foods each have an agenda, but based on the arguments presented by both sides, it is clear that GMOs can have an extremely beneficial impact on poor areas. Large multinational corporations may earn profits if impoverished rural farmers use their techniques and purchase their products, but the potential to assuage the famines plaguing poor nations without doing long-term harm to humans or the environment is too advantageous not to attempt. Obviously, the implementation and usage of GMOs will not be perfect, but given massive subsidies, astronomical amounts of food aid, and that more organic methods of growing have failed, it is worth trying GMO crop production in indigent areas.
