Tyler
Janice Tyler
INRW 0420
Professor Koledoye
15 April 2013
Planting Profits, Reaping Danger
What do you think of when you sit down for a meal? Does your mouth start to water
when you smell your favorite food? Are you curious about what a certain dish or its spices will
taste like? Do you look around the table and appreciate the friends and family with whom you
share your food? Are you content to satisfy one of life’s basic needs with one of life’s tastiest
dishes, or do you consider the billions of dollars and hours of scientific research that has made
your meal possible? Are you wondering if the steak is overcooked? Do you think of the use of
genetic engineering, its impact on not only your meal but on agricultural trends? What’s for
dessert?
Agricultural biotechnology and genetically engineered (GE) foods have become
surrounded by many hopes and just as many controversies. For some, genetic engineering is seen
as a solution to world-hunger and an easing of the farmer’s demanding task. For others, GE
foods represent a danger to the world’s food supply and to the earth on which it grows. Those
who are not aware of the problem will probably be eating a product of agricultural biotechnology
for dinner tonight. It is an issue that concerns everyone but, I believe, benefits only a few.
Agricultural biotechnology is a short-sighted and untested plan that aims to give longstanding
profit to the companies who champion it. The benefits of agricultural biotechnology and GE
foods are few, but the impacts are dangerously great. Genetically engineered foods affect the
Tyler
earth they are grown in, the animals that are engineered, the farmers who use them, and the
people who eat them.
Agriculture companies provide a service and product utilizing a new technology but have
failed to foresee problems with its use. According to Mark Schapiro in The Nation, seed and
agricultural companies such as ADM, Monsanto, Cargill, and Dupont have been seeking
practical uses for our new understanding of DNA and genetic engineering. They have come up
with GE foods and certain hormones that are capable with what seems like very great things.
Brian Tokar lists several ways that farmers use them. A farmer can grow a crop that is resistant
to pesticide; therefore, the pesticide will only harm its target of weeds. Also, a farmer can inject
his dairy cows with a certain hormone, and they will produce more milk. Crops can be
engineered to grow their own pesticide so no other chemicals have to be used. A plant can grow
its own medicine that will cure disease in the animals that eat it. All of these new resources are
now available, but they are too good to be true.
The agricultural companies that produce the GE products have a limited understanding of
genetics and of the effects of GE crops on ecosystems. David Ehrenfeld states that to produce a
genetically ‘superior’ seed, a company will take one favorable gene from one plant and insert it
into another plant; the favorable trait should act just as it did in the donor plant (“Agricultural
Biotechnology Presents Health Risks”). However, our understanding of genetics is limited.
Ehrenfeld writes that a favorable gene from the donor plant can act in a totally different way
when combined with another plant’s cell structure and metabolism, killing the plant or changing
the desired effect. A GE crop will usually contain many genes on multiple chromosomes, and
this problem is only intensified.
Tyler
In the case of a crop that produces its own insecticide, the problem lies with our lack of
comprehension. Miguel Altieri, who works at the University of California’s Institute for Food
and Development Policy, describes this problem. Traditionally, a natural insecticide Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) is sprayed or dusted onto crops to kill dangerous beetles and moths. The Bt
kills its target and then quickly breaks down into harmless substances. The insects are gone and
so is the insecticide. The insects have no chance to adapt or evolve to overcome this method.
However, when a crop is engineered to produce its own Bt, the plant will produce this
constantly. Since it never breaks down and with time, Bt resistant insects could cause great
amounts of damage to a field where every plant is genetically identical. According to Altieri,
there has also been evidence of Bt engineered crops killing beneficial predator insects, ones who
feed on our pests. Crops that are engineered to produce immunity to herbicides pose a similar
risk. The pollen from a GE plant containing herbicide resistance could be received by a wild or
even domestic plant, turning that plant into a ‘super weed’ (“10 Reasons”). Along the same
lines, the GE crop in one field could easily become the nagging weed in the field of another crop.
Until there is a firmer grasp on genetic engineering and ecosystems are fully understood,
agricultural biotechnology could sow many problems.
Many corporations seek to reap profits, ignoring long-term effects, through contracts and
competition while supplying a knowingly faulty product. Companies have competed and
continue to compete against each other to provide a more desirable product. This competition has
taken many years of testing and many dollars of research. The cost of the company’s product is
transferred onto the individual farmer. Ehrenfeld describes how the agricultural company
Monsanto provides a product called “Posilac,” a brand of recombinant bovine growth hormone
(rBGH). rBGH produces more milk in cows and is the most widespread use of biotechnology in
Tyler
America. As stated on the package from Monsanto, problems from its use are: “bloat, diarrhea,
diseases of the knees and feet, feeding disorders, fevers, reduced blood hemoglobin levels, cystic
ovaries, uterine pathology, reduced pregnancy rates, smaller calves, mastitis (an udder infection)
that can result in visibly abnormal milk” (“Agricultural Biotechnology Presents Health Risks”).
Treatment of mastitis includes using antibiotics that can appear in milk and could increase
resistance in bacteria that cause human disease.
Ehrenfeld goes on to explain another effect of hormone use: rBGH treated cows require
expensive feeds, sophisticated feed-management systems, and additional veterinary attention.
These extra needs and high cost of their use are shutting down smaller, usually family owned,
dairy farms. rBGH cows also require a very high protein diet; the regular diet is supplemented
with ground-up animal parts. This practice has been associated with “mad cow disease”. Mad
cow disease has been linked to the human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease where the brain quickly
deteriorates. Monsanto also produces many different kinds Bt and GE seeds. They are distributed
only with contracts, and the GE seeds are only resistant to Monsanto’s herbicide, RoundUp.
When the farmer enters a contract, he is usually willing to accept whatever costs are needed to
reap the benefits of the company’s weed management system. These costs include paying for use
of the only useable herbicide, “technology” fees, and the terms of Monsanto. These terms usually
include agreeing that the seed is the intellectual property of the company. The farmer is not
allowed to reproduce, share, store, or use seeds for next year are planting. The farmer is now
dependent solely on one company for the seed, the herbicide, and any loss if some problem
arises.
Companies are also trying to accommodate the demands of farmers in developing
countries. Promises of increased yields and decreased costs are soon broken as the farmer is sold,
Tyler
under contract, a non-native seed and is forced to rely on the company for herbicides (Altieri).
The problem of non-native seeds is that different areas have evolved different traits in the same
crop. When a non-native seed is introduced, it may not perform well under different climates and
soil. Also, farmers in developing countries have always relied on age-old and inexpensive
techniques, but now, contracts call for use of cutting edge technologies and the expensive
techniques and equipment to implement them. Around the world, the individual farmer will soon
be an “employee” of a large profit-driven corporation.
There is a common misconception that GE foods will eradicate hunger from the world.
The yields of GE crops are not larger or more beneficial for humans or for the animals that
humans eat. The problem of world hunger has little to do with the density of the population;
rather, hunger is caused by poverty, inequality, poor distribution, and lack of access (Schapiro).
There are many people who are too poor to buy food, find food unevenly distributed, or lack the
resources to farm their own land. If distribution were even, there is more than enough food for
everyone. According to Altieri, there is enough food grown on earth to provide everyone with
2.5 pounds of grain and nuts and a pound of meat, milk, eggs, fruits and vegetables per day
(“Ten Reasons”). It is not logical to produce more food, at a higher economic and social (health)
cost, when the problem seems to lie in distribution. Keeler and Lappe report that an FDA study
of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans, with data submitted from Monsanto (currently the
FDA considers food to be food, does not require labels for genetically modified food but
encourages producers to volunteer information), showed that soybeans grown contain smaller
amounts of fat, carbohydrates, fatty acids and a vitamin called choline that contributes to brain
health (“Agricultural Biotechnology”).
Tyler
GE foods can also cause various physical problems in those who eat them. There are
more proteins that are shown to cause allergic reactions. An inhibitor of protein digestion,
trypsin, was 27% more prevalent in Monsanto’s product (Keeler and Lappe). These beans were
fed to cows, causing no major difference except a slight increase in milk fat. The intense research
and development of this genetically engineered product showed no beneficial results, only higher
costs. There is also evidence that genetically engineered products can inadvertently cause great
harm when used as normal consumer products. The United Kingdom Advisory Committee on
Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) which approves commercial use of “useable” plants and
animal products in England found that Monsanto’s transgenic cotton seed, when used as
consumer products, could result in a bacterial resistant strain of gonorrhea (“GE Cotton in
Tampons and Bandages Could Give Rise to Untreatable Gonorrhea”). It seems that Monsanto
inserted a gene to make their cotton insect protected and herbicide resistant. This same gene,
known simply as aad, is resistant to the antibiotics used to treat gonorrhea. A woman using
tampons, a person with any type of wound dressing, or even a baby in diapers could acquire this
gene while normally using a product and then would become immune to the most effective
treatment of gonorrhea, antibiotics. An expensive growing process coupled with a mediocre or
even harmful product is what agricultural companies are providing as a solution.
We have always used and sometimes abused new tools, resources and technologies as
they have been discovered or developed. It is in our nature to experiment, to seek answers and
solutions for problems that we face. Sometimes, solutions are implemented and used with great
success. They become standard and convenience, safety or easement is acquired. It has been
shown that is not beneficial to experiment with nature. The consequences are too severe and the
Tyler
benefits are harvested by only a few. The use for agricultural biotechnology is not truly
necessary but it is a dream of immature science and selfish marketing.
Tyler
Works Cited
Altieri, Miguel A. “Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the
environment, and reduce poverty in the developing world.” University of California, Berkeley
and Peter Rosset Institute for Food Development Policy, Oakland, CA. 1 Dec. 2002.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/miguel-cn.htm
Enrenfeld, David. “Agricultural Biotechnology Presents Health Risks.” Food Safety. Laura K.
Egendord, Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press. 2000. Reproduced in Opposing Viewpoints
Center. <http://www.galenet.con.servlet/OVRC>
“GE Cotton in Tampons and Bandages Could Give Rise to Untreatable Gonorrhea.” UK Press
Release. 28 Sept. 2000. Lexis-Nexis. 1 Dec. 2002. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/universe…5=bb22e325d39cc994e272c858d5c>
Keeler, Barbara and Lappe, Marc. “Monsanto’s Own Tests Show Roundup Ready Soybeans Not
‘Substantially equivalent.’” Los Angeles Times. V44 126 A3. 1 July 2001. InfoTrac OneFile. 3
Dec. 2002. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/829/404/
33360595w5/purl=rc1_ITOF_0_A90401792&dyn=5!ar_fmt?
sw_aep=mnavcc>
Schapiro, Mark. “Sowing Disaster.” The Nation. 28 Oct. 2002.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mytml?i=20021028&s=schapiro
Tokar, Brian. GE Foods and Crops Fact Sheet. 1 Dec. 2002.
<http://www.purefood.org/ge/gefactsheet/htm>