Evaluating the risks and benefits of GM crops.

Evaluating The Risks And Benefits Of GM Crops

This essay aims to define GM, evaluate the risks and benefits of it’s current existence and finally I will conclude on whether I think GM crops post a greater risk or benefit to consumers and the environment.

The contentious subject of GM crops never seems to leave the media spotlight long enough before entering again with claims of it’s hazardous effects or the latest innovations, leaving the consumer baffled by the vast amount of contradictory information. The great worldwide debate concerning all aspects of GM crops has drawn many groups of participants with articles, research, and reports proving their stance, ranging from environmental pressure groups to scientists to biotechnology companies to the government.

The British Medical Association defines genetic modification as “ the process of altering genetic material to express different characteristics.” Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are plant, animal, or microbe resulting from genetic modification.

The regulations on all aspects of GM crops are very stringent. In July 2003, the EU lifting a 5-year ban on the sell of GM food, on the basis that they are fully labelled as containing GMO’s. Non-EU countries especially the US companies have reacted angrily to the mandatory labelling of their GM products, as they know how reluctant the Europeans are to GM. Under the new law, all foods with more than 0.9% genetically modified content will have to be labelled. This aspect of the labelling has also angered consumer groups who say that consumer can’t express their free will to avoid GM products, as those with less than 0.9% are classified as non-GM.

Though essentially carried out for the same purposes, to remove or improve particular characteristics of crops, conventional plant breeding and genetic engineering differ greatly.

There are many conventional plant-breeding methods used. Crossing involves the removal of male pollen from one superior plant to the stigma of another superior plant, in the hope that the offspring from this process will possess the preferred characteristics of both its parents.

Like conventional plant breeding, there are many methods of genetic engineering, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and the gene gun being the two most used.

Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a naturally occurring genetic engineering agent and in nature once this bacterium enter a plant, it delivers some of its own DNA (named T-DNA) into the plants material, causing the plant to produce harmful tumours. Geneticists have found they can withdraw from the bacteria, the tumour-inducing T-DNA and replace them with genes providing useful characteristics. When the infection plant cells are exposed to these modified bacteria, they transfer the useful genes to the plant instead of the harmful genes.

The second method is genetic engineering with the use of a gene gun. This fires tiny gold particles coated with DNA that produce useful traits directly into a plant's cells

Now that we have established a basic background on GM, we will now look at the benefits and risks of GM crops.

Supporters of GM crops say that the benefits of them are aimed at consumers, producers, and developing countries.

One of the most documented benefits of GM crops is the ability to create herbicides that are harmless to crops and crops that have been genetically ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The second method is genetic engineering with the use of a gene gun. This fires tiny gold particles coated with DNA that produce useful traits directly into a plant's cells

Now that we have established a basic background on GM, we will now look at the benefits and risks of GM crops.

Supporters of GM crops say that the benefits of them are aimed at consumers, producers, and developing countries.

One of the most documented benefits of GM crops is the ability to create herbicides that are harmless to crops and crops that have been genetically modified to tolerant the herbicide. The benefit of such crop is that when producers use herbicides to kill surrounding weeds, the crops are unaffected. The biotechnology company, Monsanto produced RoundupTM ready, a popular herbicide resistant brand of crops that was resistant to its glyphosate based RoundupTM herbicide. The Company itself stated that “that correct use of the genetically modified soybeans (one of its roundupTM ready crops) and the herbicide could reduce herbicide use by one third, by eliminating the need to use herbicides to kill weeds before the soybean crop starts to grow”. Usage of the herbicide meant that farmer incurred less costs, as land did not require herbicide treatment for use.

Another benefit is the ability of crops to be disease and pest resistant. Crops genetically modified to be disease and pest resistant are available on the market now, for example Ingard cotton in Australia. The main threat to non-GM cotton was the Heliothis caterpillar, and farmers would use endosulfan, an agricultural chemical used in cotton crops. The problem arose that this chemical was it leached into food chain through cattle that shared the same environment as the treated cotton. This Ingard, a branded GM cotton crop had the naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t) poison-generating gene directly inserted into its DNA. This resulted in a pest resistant crop that didn’t need to the use of endosulfan, which leached into the environment.

Improved nutritional value is another said benefit of GM crops. This goes hand in hand with another benefit, the development of sustainable agricultural in the developing countries. In developing countries where the staple food is the only food that people will eat, staples such as rice could be enriched with Vitamin A to curb the effects of Xeropthalamia, a vitamin A deficiency that causes blindness and Anaemia, a deficiency in iron that causes reduces vitality and the work capacity of workers. Pro GM supporters suggest providing developing countries with these enrich food or with the materials to grow the types of modified crops discussed above, would let these people be able to make a sustainable living from their produce and would incur less costs than they may already face purchasing pesticides and herbicides that may kill the majority of the crop.

There is overwhelming opposition to GM crops and this anti GM supporters state there are many risks of GM use to the consumer and environment. Their arguments are directly opposite those the pro GM supporters propose benefit from this innovation

The leading reason to opposition to GM crops is that its risks posed to the long-term health of humans are unknown. The now well-known poison rat research carried out by Arpad Puztai, who is a lectin and protein chemistry expert, aimed to find out if there was any harmful effects, of the genetic modification of potatoes with a lectin with traits to defend against insects, on mammals. The rats were fed three different diets of potatoes, one group was fed normal potatoes, the other had lectin sprinkled onto the potatoes and the last groups were fed GM potatoes were the lectin gene was inserted into the potato. Puztai concluded that only the rats fed on the last diet, the GM potatoes, were affected, suffering from brain shrinkage and organ damage.

Another risk of the GM creation is that it builds an oligarchic industry; with a few large companies possess a large amount of power. Monsanto produces more than 90% of crops worldwide. Another four companies, Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, Dow and Du Pont produce the rest. Not only are farmers dependent on the fact that there will be these modified seeds for them to purchase every year but like the roundupTM brand by Monsanto, farmers need to purchase both the herbicide and the herbicide resistant crop from them.

Anti GM protester are also disgusted with the “guilt” tactics used by the biotechnology companies and GM sympathisers to change consumer opinions. These organisations claim their products could save the developing countries inhabitants by ending world hunger by them just purchasing their goods. They promise increased yield, better quality crops and resistant to pest and diseases and in the long term reduced cost due to the largely reduced amount of herbicides and pesticides being required but the developing countries farmer then have to accept that these advantages come with the disadvantage of being dependent on these large multinationals and that at any time these companies could increase the price or chage their technology, meaning more purchases for these farmers with little money to begin with.

World hunger is due to politics and food distribution issues and not solely agricultural problems. The developed world produces mountains of food that is left to rot, when in fact it could be distributed to the starving people in developing countries, but isn’t. The introduction of GM crop seeds to these countries may produce great yields but who would purchase it? With fierce hostility against GM crops in the EU, the only market would really be the USA. Research carried out by the Consumer Association in 2002; found that less than a third of the respondents felt that food made from GM plants was accepted.

Another risk is the long-term effects GM crops may have on the environment. The BMA stated in their report: The impact on genetic modification on agriculture, food, and health that they felt that too much emphasis was being made on making crops resistant to insecticides and pesticides rather than making them resistant to the actual pest or weed leaving plants with increased amounts of insecticide and pesticide residue. There are concerns that pest-resistant crops will remove important food sources for wildlife, and the ecological impact of such crops certainly must be evaluated

Conclusion

As can be seen from the information provided above, there are a lot of issues surrounding GM crops, with both sides willing to use information to prove their points, though with the omission of some information. In the arguments against GM crops, many organisations have used the Putzai research as evidence that GM crops are harmful, but what isn’t usually discussed by those people is that his research was found to be highly flawed and did not follow the correct guidelines, rendering its conclusions invalid. In addition, the issue of the terminator gene is one not fully explored, though Monsanto was granted a patent on such a gene, after heavy criticism they promised not to release such a product into the market. But wouldn’t such a gene be a benefit to the environment that the anti GM supporters want to protect so desperate, having gene that don’t sprout every year means that if an incident happened where GM seeds were blown far and wide, they would not grow and contaminate areas which may be in use of GM free agriculture.

And in the same way that the biotechnology companies use their products to become the “saviours” of the developing countries as a selling point, is highly flawed. The very same countries said to benefit from GM have decided to reject the technology. The decision was taken after the Zambian Government despatched a team of scientists around the world to study the potential effects of importing GM crops. "In view of the current scientific uncertainty surrounding the issue... government has decided to base its decision not to accept GM foods in Zambia on the precautionary principle," Agriculture Minister Mundia Sikatana said.

In conclusion the real facts of GM technology and all that surrounds it needs to be released in its entirety and plain talk so that the consumer can understand both sides of the arguments and make a educated decision with their minds. GM is potentially a very helpful technology but I believe that more research needs to go into proving there is no risk to the consumer and the environment