Genetically Modified Crops

Personally I believe that farmers in the United States have every right to grow genetically modified (GM) crops. This is greatly influenced by scientific evidence supporting their use, as well as global usefulness of these crops. These crops allow greater efficiency in terms of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. With built in defenses in every seed and every plant, farmers don’t need to spend nearly as much time, labor, and money (if any) on carpeting their fields in harmful chemicals. This allows farmers to grow more due to lowered costs. And what that allows is greater food supplies for use.

The United States produces the majority of the crops used around the world, and due to the first and second green revolutions this capacity has been greatly expanded, as well as the ability of poorer countries to utilize these crops on their own. For instance, crops can be modified to grow in conditions that would otherwise prohibit efficient growth: areas without enough water, places where the soil is poor, or the land is too boggy, sandy, or salty. Also, these plants can be modified to produce more: meaning that an area can sustain more people on less land.

The argument can be made that the genetic inclusion of herbicides and pesticides into plants may make them harmful to consumers: however, this has not been shown to be the case. Studies on these plants carried out before release into the market showed no harmful effects, and in the ensuing time since introduction, no health problems have been attributed to genetically modified crops.

Are there problems with genetically modified crops? Yes. Depending on what the plant has been modified to do, there could be drastic side effects. For instance, the ‘contraceptive corn’ is a terrifying concept. If the genes from that plant spread to other populations of corn, or was sold unknown to consumers, there could quickly be severe problems. At that point the need for regulation comes in. I believe only traits expected to help the plant survive, and those that are beneficial to all people should be allowed. Modifying a plant to enhance vitamin content, or make it resistant to bacteria does not infringe on a human’s rights in any way. Making it prevent pregnancy does. The smallest accident with a trait like that could spell disaster. That is a sort of poison. Such ideas are best left to pharmaceutical companies and products that are not everyday food items.

The idea of a ‘superweed’ or ‘superbug’ is a valid one, but I don’t think it should be used as a reason to only farm organically. That would be akin to abolishing antibiotics in favor of natural remedies because of the possibility of producing resistant strains of sicknesses. It is exactly the same. Do the companies know that eventually they will have to modify their genetically enhanced plants to react to changing pests? Absolutely. But nature doesn’t work like that. There is always a race between nature and technology. Organic growers are able to thwart this in many ways by working within the natural system, however, their yields are nowhere near as high (though their profits may be). To sustain and improve upon current food supplies and decrease global hunger, these crops are necessary.

I believe the market will decide the fate of genetically modified crops. I believe they should be labeled so that those who wish to eat organically may, while those who do not mind are simply aware. I think there needs to be more education about these crops, because I think a lot of people become convinced that these crops are unhealthy, though they are often more nutritious than their organic counterparts.

No, these crops would not naturally occur, but neither would concrete or steel. The majority of organic crops today would not exist in nature. Taking two types of corn from different places (too far away to interbreed) and breeding them to form a third, better type is not natural. Obviously there is a difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering, but the concept is the same. In both cases you are modifying the plant’s genes to something you want. The difference is that in the interbreeding scenario, the two can do so outside a laboratory, and can do so naturally given the chance, while the genetically modified plant could never exist, no matter the circumstances.

This does not mean we should not pursue the thought. What it does mean is that there need to be rigorous tests, federal oversight and strict regulation, as well as ethical corporate policies and release of information to consumers. The buyer deserves to know if the plant they buy is organic or genetically modified. And they deserve to know what that modification is and what it does. But they also need to know more about the entire issue: what the pros and cons of organic versus genetically modified crops are, so that NGOs and other partisan parties cannot use fear an paranoia to destroy an industry that does not deserve destruction. In the end, if people do not want to eat genetically modified crops, they won’t. And the market will be reduced to those who require the modifications only genetic engineering can provide (such as third world countries), until they reach such a point as can sustain themselves in an organic fashion.