Genetic EngineeringGenetic EngineeringGenetic engineering (GE) is a recently developed technology that allows the alteration of the genetic make up of living organisms. This technology allows scientists not only to exchange genes from members of the same species, which is what farmers and nature has been doing through out history, but also the exchange of genes between completely separate species. For example genetic engendering allows scientists to insert the genes from a fish into a tomato, something that can never happen in nature. Many in the biotechnology industry claim that the recent advancements in this field of research will help solve many of the problems developing countries face. These claims have led to a massive increase in commercial growing of genetically modified organisms, (GMOs) from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 58.1 million hectares in 2002 worldwide. 99% of this growth has only been in four countries; Argentina, Canada, China and the USA, the USA being the largest, producing 68%.
Amidst this enthusiasm there has been growing concern that there exist many hidden costs involved with GE technology. Critics of GE technology claim there are known and unknown health, social, ethical and environmental risks involved with the introduction of this technology. There are also claims that this technology has little if any benefits to the developing world and will in fact only benefit the developed world, and multinational biotech corporations such as Monsanto. Critics argue that whatever benefits developing nations gain from GE technology, these are far outweighed by the risks involved.
Proponents’ of genetically modified foods strongest claim is that this technology will benefit farmers in developing countries by allowing those farmers to be more productive and grow a higher yield of crops. Many studies do agree that GE technologies do give farmers a higher yield, but even this is a contested issue. Because many of these studies are sponsored and linked to the very corporations that are developing these technologies, validity of the results are questionable. In fact, there have been certain independent studies that have concluded that genetically modified seeds in fact produce a lower yield than do conventional seeds. For example these is a two-year study by the University of Nebraska, in which Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans yield 6 percent less than their closest relatives and 11 percent less than high-yielding soybean varieties. This study shows that with all things being equal, genetically modified crops may in fact produce a lower yield. Because GE soy is commercially grown more than any other GE crop it will be good to take a look at why.
With Roundup Ready soybeans growing to 81% of the totally soy grown within the United States in 2003 , one must ask why farmers are switching to GE soy. The reason for this is the lower costs of pesticides and herbicides. The advantage of Roundup Ready soybeans is not that they are more productive or that the seeds cost less. In fact the seeds cost about six dollars more per acre than traditional soy seeds. The advantage comes in the form of a more resistant plant. Because Roundup Ready soy has been genetically altered to be more resistant to herbicides and pesticides, specifically a Monsanto produced brand called Roundup. Because these new GE soybeans are able to withstand stronger herbicide and pesticide use at a younger age, without any damage to the crop, farmers are able to kill off weeds and pests earlier and easier. This use of stronger herbicides and pesticides in farming leads to a cleaner crop, with a lower cost of labor.
A 1998 study by Mike Duffy, an economist from Iowa State University shows that all in all the costs and benefits of using GE technologies in soy and corn production do not lead to any sort of significant difference in returns compared to traditional none GE seeds. The main reasons for farmers switching to genetically altered technologies is the lower amount of labor needed for production and the cleaner crop produced with an increase of herbicides.
Clearly the fact that Roundup Ready soy, the most highly used commercial GMO product, has lower yields than traditional soy products we can dismiss the main argument given by the biotech industry that they are trying to help end world hunger. According to the United Nations and many none governmental organizations around the world the problem of world hunger is not one of a scarcity of food; it is in fact a problem of distribution of food. Today the world produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago . The world does not need larger supplies of food; the world needs to address the way in which food is distributed, something that GMO technology has no effects on. The only people that the biotech industry is trying to help are themselves. This is the reason that currently the main commercial implementation
of the herbicides of today are made of glyphosate, the only glyphosate-based herbicide currently being utilized in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready product. The biggest of the companies are Monsanto of America and Dow of America. Monsanto of the USA in 2004 won a contract with Dow of America to do a Roundup Ready crop in 2005. In 2005 the first batch of the Dow seed was produced. Since then the Dow (and Monsanto as a whole) have not only lost money in their attempts to get the patent but also a patent from the USA. If you look at what the patents actually say you would be amazed to learn that Monsanto’s (Nasdaq: MSFTL) technology has already been patented by Dow. In April 2005 the USA also secured the patent on a method of “micro-therapeutics” for the production of synthetic drugs designed to replace chemical or biological drugs.
The problem isn’t of an imbalance of technology but of a “fading technology” that simply fails. What is happening is the world population has a population and a growing economy. For example, the U.S. population is increasing by 100 million in the next decade. The growth rate of food will be a staggering 21% by 2040. The problem with Monsanto’s herbicide is that it destroys crops by killing specific genes and destroying the populations of different organisms. Monsanto’s patented technology is not only extremely inefficient and, as some call it, an impossible product but it is also also designed to get rid of any or all GMOs in favor of a more herbicide-based and herbicidal approach to food.
There is, however, a growing body of evidence for a “solution” to the GMO problem: pesticides are being used to kill insects. However, this solution does not work for everyone. For example: the use of pesticides in agricultural areas have been shown to increase the incidence of insect pest resistance in areas where the pesticide is already being used with increased levels of control. Similarly, in the United States, pesticide use has decreased and the U.S. pesticide industry has received a massive financial boost from the World Economic Forum (WEF), which funded studies that demonstrated glyphosate is more effective as a pesticide than as a chemical. This means that the people that rely on pesticides to maintain their own survival and health are the ones who are most at risk of chemical contamination. This report also offers an important explanation regarding the health impacts of pesticides and this is important because the main reason many of the adverse effects are likely to be the product of their use for years to come. The only issue from this report is whether or not genetically modified organisms (GMO) are capable of destroying the ecological systems of nature. Of course the human population has been adversely affected by those pesticides to the point where the ability of the human population as a whole to tolerate them would be diminished in the absence of such a major change.
Unfortunately, the entire process of glyphosate production is happening at the expense of millions of Americans. It has been estimated that 3.5 million people (5.6 million Americans ) die every year due to the use of glyphosate over the past eight years. The only reason such deaths are happening now lies because an estimated 1.6 million people have been killed by their own government-supplied poisons, which means that there has been a very large loss of life out of billions of dollars in a span of 14 years alone.