GMOs: Discovering the Risk
In the last few decades, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have taken the world by storm. GMOs have been hailed as the solution to world hunger. The truth of the matter is we just don’t know enough about the effects of GE products. Too many questions have been left unanswered, and the profit-driven producers of these agricultural products use incorrect claims to make it seem as if GE is the only answer, and that the world population needs GMOs. While they are about different aspects of GMOs, all of the articles examined argue that not enough is known about the long-term negative effects these crops could have on our society and ecosystems. Genetic pollution and genetic drift are a great example of virtually uncontrollable results of using GMOs.
Most arguments in favor of using genetically engineered plants are based on claims that they will increase agricultural productivity, increase food security, and reduce the use of chemical inputs (Altieri and Rosset, 155). However, it has generally been found that current GM crops are not designed with poor small farmers in mind and fail to increase yields. Altieri and Rosset write that there are risks involved, many yet undiscovered. They also believe that there are better “agro-ecological alternatives” available. The article cites the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGAIR) as assuming that “hunger is due to a gap between food production and human population density or growth rate”, which Altieri and Rosset say is simply not so. The first of their ten reasons biotechnology is not the answer is that there is enough food available in the world to feed each person 4.3 pounds a day (Altieri and Rosset, 156).
A breakdown of their ten reasons “Why Biotechnology Will Not Ensure Food Security, Protect the Environment and Reduce Poverty in the Developing World”:
1) Enough food is available to feed 4.3 lbs/person/day
2) Innovations are profit-driven rather than need-driven
3) Increased price of inputs gives slower returns to the farmer
4) Recent trials have shown GE seeds do not increase yield of crops
5) Potential risks
-allergens/toxins
-alter metabolisms
-reduce nutritional quality/value
6) Transgenic crops follow the pesticide paradigm
7) Not enough testing done
8) Unanswered ecological questions
9) Private sector largely in charge
10) Much of the food can be produced by small local farmers
Their seventh and eighth reasons point to the fact that there is simply not enough known about these products to warrant they are safe for use. Agribusiness lobbyists have pushed the issue; “In the United States, private sector pressure led the White House to decree ‘no substantial difference’ between altered and normal seeds, thus evading normal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testing… the FDA’s own scientists do not agree with this determination” (Altieri and Rosset, 157). Also, “the funds for research on environmental risk assessment are very limited” (Altieri and Rosset, 158).
David Moeller makes a different but related argument in his article “GMO Liability Threats for Farmers: Legal Issues Surrounding the Planting of Genetically Modified Crops”. Moeller focuses on the legal risks of using or not using GMOs, especially considering intellectual property (IP) rights and patenting of genes by companies like Monsanto.
Non-GMO growers can take action against their neighbors for genetic drift and pollution. Moeller explains, “The tort claim of trespass to land arises when someone intentionally enters another person’s land and causes damage. This claim could arise in a GMO context if a farmer and/or seed company knew that genetic traits from a GMO crop would enter a neighbor’s property and genetic drift in fact occurs, causing harm to the neighbor’s crop. The farmer and/or seed company could then be liable for any resulting harms caused by the GMO crop” (Moeller, 3).
On the other hand, farmers who do use GMO seed could be targeted for IP infringement. Monsanto, for example, has brought suits against farmers in a number of states for genetic drift to other farms. Moeller explains the hardship to farmers in these situations, since “Whether or not farmers violated Monsanto’s intellectual property rights, the still must raise a defense in court ringing up thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees” (Moeller, 6).
Farmers are only just beginning to realize the full scope of the complex legal issues that arise from GMOs, whether or not they choose to plant them. Clearly genetic drift is a large problem when using this technology, both to the legal rights of farmers and to the ecosystem outside of agriculture.
The Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) focused on Agricultural Biotechnology in The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004. Scientists agree that gene flow happens, but don’t agree on whether or not it matters. The report argues, “management and genetic methods are being developed to minimize the possibility of gene flow”, and concedes that “The complete isolation of crops grown on a commercial scale, either GM or non-GM, is not currently practical although gene flow can be minimized…” (FAO, “Gene Flow”). The only management strategies suggested in the report are avoiding planting of transgenic crops in “centres of biodiversity”, planting buffer zones of non-GM crop around the perimeters, and altering the flowering periods to avoid cross-pollination (FAO, “Gene Flow”). While these ideas are worthwhile, the question then follows: who will make sure that farmers take these precautions?
These three articles all focus on different aspects of GM technology, but all agree that there are potential risks to all parties involved: the farmer, the farm, and the environment as a whole. While I think there are several compelling arguments against GMOs, gene pollution and the risks to biodiversity and farmers’ rights stand out. With so little research done about long-term effects of this technology, scientists cannot say with any substantial degree of certainty that GM crops are safe. While there are ways to limit the adverse effects of GMOs on surrounding areas, there is no regulatory body to oversee their implementation or to educate farmers on how to avoid legal recourse.
Works Cited
Altieri, Miguel A., and Peter Rosset. "Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Ensure Food Security, Protect the Environment and Reduce Poverty in the Developing World." AgBioForum 2.3&4 (1999): 155-62. Web.
Moeller, David R. GMO Liability Threats for Farmers: Legal Issues Surrounding the Planting of Genetically Modified Crops. Tech. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Nov. 2001. Web.
The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04 [agricultural Biotechnology : Meeting the Needs of the Poor]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2004. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment