In class today, we were introduced to a rather sinister corporation named Monsanto. Monsanto, in addition to selling herbicides, is a World leader in the market for Genetically Modified Crops. Even without Monsanto's tarnished name attached to them, Genetically Modified Crops have long been a source of controversy. Around the world, people are inherently afraid of such an "unnatural" idea as genetic modification of plants, with government policies in areas like Europe, where genetically modified foods are closely monitored and regulated, reflecting this fear.
Do Genetically Modified foods deserve their bad reputation? There are certainly legitimate concerns about them. Companies that produce a new type of Genetically modified crop are generally allowed to "patent" the gene. This means that farmers growing crops with the patented gene without the permission of the company holding the patent can be sued for "patent infringement". This is particularly controversial with crops like corn which are pollinated by wind, as patented genetically modified genes can end up in the crops of farmers not intending to grow the genetically modified crops in question. Another concern are the goals of the various genetic improvements. With Monsanto, for example, the primary advantage of its most popular type of genetically modified crop is the ability withstand more pesticides. And as pesticides are harmful for the environment and potentially detrimental to human health, encouraging the use of even more pesticides is a worrying prospect.
On the other hand, genetically modified foods hold great promise in areas like crop yield, pest resistance, and hardiness, while little evidence has emerged to suggest that genetically modified crops are less healthy than "normal" crops. Moreover, big, multinational corporations like Monsanto do not in any way have a monopoly on the development and production of genetically modified foods, with governments in countries like Brazil, China, and India engaged in research into genetically modified foods. Personally, I feel that with a more active role by government in the development of genetically modified foods, reforms regarding the patenting of genetically modified genes, and government imposed incentives against harmful pesticides, genetically modified foods have the potential to increase agricultural efficiency and productivity. What are your thoughts on the matter? Can genetically modified foods improve the food industry, or are they liable to cause more harm than good?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As far as genetically modified crop patents go, I'd be curious to know how many times a farmer has been wrongly sued for patent infringement when his corn was pollinated by a patented gene "accidentally" by the wind.
ReplyDeleteI think the patent system is the best way of handling some of these issues. If we didn't have patents, I think that many companies and people wouldn't see the benefit in working so hard and spending so much money on coming up with a new gene, or a new drug formula, only to enter into a market where competitors can almost immediately sell the same formula without spending the money you spent on research. In this way, patents are a sort of insurance on innovation.
T, A
I wonder the extent of this "unnatural" feeling that people have surround these genetically modified crops. I understand the concern to a certain degree, but i would like to point out that genetic engineering relies on natural processes within plants. Everything that makes up the plant is made in the plant. When one process is tweaked to prevent disease, or increase yield or sugar content, this concerns me very little as we further improve what nature already built.
ReplyDeleteIf it was on the other hand the same as medication being feed to cattle, and other chemical additives that cannot be grown within the plants own cells, i would be the first to show worry. I do not however find fault with mainstream genetic engineering. If a process can be completed within a plant and has no negative effects on the body that its being produced in then sure ill eat it will little regard to its genetic makeup. A E
As long as there is proper testing to ensure that people will not be harmed by consuming genetically modified crops before a crop is made availiable to the public it seems like altered crops could be beneficial in many areas of the world which cannot produce enough food to feed their populations or have infertile soil.
ReplyDeleteI agree that government is going to have to regulate the production of genetically modified crops and pesticides to ensure that something similar to what happened with Monsanto is never allow to occur again.
Genetic modification is based off of things already present in the plant, as mentioned by Evan--that's why genome sequencing is so important in regards to genetic modification. I therefore don't really see genetically modified plants as "unnatural"--they've just been tweaked a bit. After all, if we can make things better by modifying crops, why not? We can breed them to produce food that's more nutritious for human consumption, to last longer in adverse conditions (like drought), and to be less affected by pesticides. I'm not saying that there aren't any problems when it comes to genetic modification--I can just imagine the issues of "super-weeds", plants that are no longer beneficial, but still can resist pesticides and bad conditions--but as a whole, I agree with the concept of genetic modification. I do wish that we could just dispense with the patents as a whole, so everyone could have access to modified plants, but understand that the costs of developing modified plants should be taken into consideration (as mentioned in class and by Alex, it wouldn't be fair if a company put a lot of time and money into developing modified plants, and then didn't gain from it because everyone immediately started selling the same thing). While the technology can be misused, I see genetically modified plants as a way to offer cheaper, more nutritive food to the general populace.
ReplyDeleteI think genetically altered food have the potential and have already begun to help the food industry. They can make crops bigger to feed more and in some cases even healthier. However, they do have to be closely monitered as you said. Just like anything new that contains risks and benefits. They can be good and very beneficial for all but they can also be misused and harmful to many. Making sure this doesnt happen is key to getting the most out of the new technology and new gene creations that come up.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there is too much that we don't know about GMOs to be using them in the large scale that we are. We have no idea about how the changes in DNA could potentially effect ecosystems and their long term affect on human health. It has been suggested that the sudden hive death sickness that many colonies of pollinating bees have succumbed to is triggered by these GMOs. Other countries such as Germany are taking a more tentative measure towards this new innovation, instead of becoming dependent on them.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of dependence GMOs are worsening poverty around the world. For farmers who use GMOs they are caught in a loop of dependence to Monsanto because they are not allowed to save the seeds of one year's harvest and must always buy new ones from the company.
But we are talking about licensing life for goodness sake! And although large corporate america does not want to recognize this, sometimes nature just takes things into her own hands and it cannot be controlled though power and intimidation. Some GMO plants' pollen drifts in the wind and pollinates with non GMO fields...then those fields that did not originally have GMO plants on them do, and monsanto tries to sue them for copyright infringement.
There are an infinite amount of pros and cons when it comes to Monsanto and GMOs. When talking about nutrients and resistance to disease, GM crops are very beneficial, and I support them in that usage. However, when focusing on Monsanto, it is just a big bully company who wants to get as much money as they can. T
ReplyDeleteEven after reading the well-informed comments from Evan and M. Waytes, I still feel a bit weary about GMOs. To quote Michael Matson, "The way I think about it, compare Frankenstein and a human being: who would you rather have as your dad?" It goes without saying that nutritious food is essential to life. Since I'm ingesting fruits, veggies and the like into my body on a daily basis, I'd rather have the original stuff than something genetically modified.
ReplyDeleteA
As for the technology, my stance on GMOs is the same as my stance on nuclear power: extensive research needs to be done to ensure a safe and efficient product. However, research into nuclear power was not pursued by a megacorporation looking for quick and monopolistic control over a market. If we are to properly research the matter, it must be a well-rounded process, looking beyond the immediate effects of the product.
ReplyDeleteAs for the patents, I think U.S. patent law is horribly abused by the pharmaceutical industry and companies like Monsanto. It is entirely untrue that a change to these laws would decrease incentives to create useful new drugs. Outside of the U.S., where the industry is regulated significantly, companies still make scientific progress. Worse, current law allows the repackaging of old drugs as something new with inconsequential changes, ensuring that the patent on a formula will not run out. The reimportation of drugs (created in the U.S., sold internationally at mandated lower prices, and returned to U.S. markets) has been rejected by both the Republicans (citing ludicrous fears about safety) and the Obama administration (citing the dire need to reach bipartisan consensus, while actually just sticking to the deal they made with the industry behind closed doors).
(A, E)
There are so many different sides to this situation, its difficult to just say that genetically modified crops are simply good or bad. I think that there is definitley potential for goods things to come from this kind of research, that being said, I think that there is still lot of research that needs to be done.
ReplyDelete