Genetically Engineered Crops

           Genetically engineering crops is a harmful idea that will not necessarily improve agriculture or solve world hunger; additionally the process has the potential to allow corporations to increase control of the agricultural industry. Therefore, continuation of genetically modifying crops should stop.

           Genetically modifying crops is one form of biotechnology. This process is also known as genetically altering or genetically engineering crops. These terms all refer to "a process that has enabled scientists to splice plant or animal genes with particular traits into the DNA of other organisms" (Consumer Reports, 41). Splicing is similar to reinforcing a pair of jeans with bits of cloth from other sources. The jeans may not need the reinforcing but placing pieces of cloth may make it look better or more colorful as well as strengthening it. In this way, it is possible to "mix and match" genes to achieve a desired result. It is biology combined with technology, resulting in the name biotechnology.

           Imagine a world with no hunger. It would be a noble cause to alleviate the suffering of a small child who has never felt the satisfaction of having eaten enough by providing nutritious food. Imagine a world that when people seek a prettier, tastier, larger, more nutritious fruit, they could get it within a short period of time. In the past, it took many generations of crossbreeding crops (selective breeding and hybridization) to get the desired traits, such as firmer or redder tomatoes. With genetic engineering, or the splicing of genes from one organism to another, this p rocess can be done directly and much more quickly. Furthermore, this allows adding or changing genes to make plants produce their own pesticides and potentially lower the use of pesticide sprayed on crops. Despite the fact that some people claim that this would interfere with God's plans, "is it more unethical to interfere in God's work than to allow death from hunger when it can be prevented?" as Suman Sahsai, convener of Gene campaign in New Delhi asks (qtd. in Levine). Some people certainly do think that feeding people is an important enough cause to interfere. In other words, humans will play God and create what we deem good for our consumption. These are the main reasons why genetically altering crops appears to be a good idea.

           However, the ease of manipulating the genes is the reason why genetic engineering can be harmful. Scientists can mix genes that were never together in nature. Although the term "genetic engineering" may sound scientific and accurate, "the process of inserting genes is quite random and can damage normal genes. Genetic research shows that many weaknesses in plants, animals, and humans have their origin in tiny imperfections in the genetic code" (Fagan). Without much control as to what genes the scientists are tweaking and what the outcome will be, there is a high risk of ending up with an undesired side effect. Also, according to Dennis Keeney, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, "A lot of the early news about biotech crops has just been hype. Most of the progress so far will support the status quo, high input, industrial agriculture" (qtd. in Consumer Reports, 41). So while people have high hopes for the potential that genetic engineering holds, the current use of it is mainly supporting companies in industrial agriculture.

           However, the ease of manipulating the genes is the reason why genetic engineering can be harmful. Scientists can mix genes that were never together in nature. Although the term "genetic engineering" may sound scientific and accurate, "…the process of inserting genes is quite random and can damage normal genes. Genetic research shows that many weaknesses in plants, animals, and humans have their origin in tiny imperfections in the genetic code" (Fagan). Without much control as to what genes the scientists are tweaking and what the outcome will be, there is a high risk of ending up with an undesired side effect. This is quite similar to Dr. Frankenstein and his creation of a monster in the book by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. The doctor's intentions are good, just like the intentions of the scientists who work on genetic engineering. Dr. Frankenstein plays God and creates life with unnatural means. However, the doctor soon realizes that this monster is beyond his control. The crops whose genes are manipulated may also get beyond the control of scientists. Also, according to Dennis Keeney, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, "A lot of the early news about biotech crops has just been hype…. Most of the progress so far will support the status quo, high input, industrial agriculture" (qtd. in Consumer Reports, 41). So while people have high hopes for the potential that genetic engineering holds, the current use of it is mainly supporting companies in industrial agriculture. It is not doing anything to help feed the poor in third world countries. Scientists are just experimenting with different genes in different species more easily.

           Although humans have practiced selective breeding in the past with little side effect, genetically modifying crops introduces health risks. In 1996, "tests proved that soybeans modified with genes from Brazil nuts to produce a nutritious protein found in the nuts also produced proteins that set off a strong, potentially deadly allergic reaction in people sensitive to Brazil nuts" (Leary). In the hopes of transferring a "good" gene to soybeans, scientists inadvertently created a situation where people allergic to Brazil nuts could get the same reactions by eating the modified soybeans. Of course, the genetic engineers had not intended to cause harm to other people. It was merely a side effect, but one that cannot be ignored. These unnatural genes, placed in the same organism, resulted in unpleasant outcomes. Dr. Robert K. Bush of the University of Wisconsin at Madison "…conducted skin prick tests on three subjects allergic to Brazil nuts…. All three had positive reactions to extracts from nuts and the transgenic soybeans but none had any allergic response to regular soybeans… "(Leary). This shows that the transgenic, or the genetically modified, soybeans did indeed carry the genes for the protein that cause the allergic reaction. This can be a problem since many foods, especially the processed ones, include soybeans as an ingredient. If genetically engineering soybeans is the first step, what else could happen if other foods are similarly modified? There could be other, more serious reactions if the food that is modified contains a more common allergen. In addition, the chemical company Monsanto has created crops that can survive its herbicide, Roundup, since Roundup kills all plants indiscriminately. Therefore, farmers who use Roundup need to plant crops that are genetically modified to withstand the herbicide. However, "formulations of glyphosate [Monsanto's Roundup] are the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural workers" (Ho). Clearly, this is a harmful chemical. There are also pesticides that are used for similar purposes. One of them, bromoxynil not only affects the workers but may influence the health of their children too. There have been laboratory tests that show "…some formulations of bromoxynil cause birth defects in animals and may pose developmental risks to the future offspring of people who apply the chemical" (Keehn, 76). While it may be effective for farmers to just spray and know that any possible weed will be killed without the risk of destroying the crop, is the convenience really worth the birth defects of animals or the negative effects on the development of children? Ethical concerns should be equally important as economical ones. Food is produced to give people nourishment, not to cause health problems.

           Not only does genetically engineering crops pose potential health risks, but doing so allows corporations to control more of the agricultural market. According to Consumer Reports, "No environmental worry over genetic modification has elicited as much concern-- even outrage - as "terminator" technology, so called because it makes plants produce sterile seeds." This would allow corporations, such as Monsanto, to create the seeds and the herbicide, then sell them together to farmers. In this manner, they would control more of the agricultural industry. These companies could set the prices and the farmers would have to buy new seeds from the company each year at whatever price the company demands, since the seeds produced by the crops themselves would be sterile. There is also a spin-off, called "traitor" technology, which could be even worse. Consumer Reports explains that "a certain proprietary chemical would be needed to produce a crop, whose plants could yield sterile seeds." This would simply increase the use of chemicals on the fields. Companies would offer not just the seeds of a crop and the accompanying fertilizer or herbicide but also a chemical that the crop would be dependent upon to even grow. Margaret Mellon, who follows biotechnology for the National Wildlife Federation explains that "the big chemical companies know that this is a way for them to maintain their market share…. They'll sell the seeds and the chemical together as package deals" (qtd. In Keehn, 78). If this looks to be a good source of revenue, companies may indeed begin to employ the ideas of "terminator" and "traitor" technology. Perhaps, for some corporations, economic advantages outweigh concerns for the environment. The biotechnology of genetic engineering will simply allow them to increase control on the agricultural industry.

           Moreover, genetically engineering food will not solve world hunger problems. Neither Monsanto nor any other company has created crops able to survive droughts or flooding or to fix nitrogen. What they have created are "varieties of soybeans or canola [that are] able to withstand higher doses of one of [Monsanto's] best selling and most powerful herbicides, Roundup" (Keehn, 77). They are just using biotechnology as a new way to generate revenue. There seems to be more interest in increasing profits on something that the companies are already in business doing than in creating crops that can be used by anyone worldwide. According to one estimate, this "could boost world wide sales of [Roundup]… by $150 million a year" (Keehn, 77). Since the companies are not working on crops becoming more efficient in producing food, the dream of ending world hunger is not being solved anyway. Therefore, genetic engineering is may not be the solution to feeding the world. Another reason why world hunger will not end as a result of biotechnology is because "undernutrition and malnutrition, everywhere in the developing as well as the developed world, stem from poverty" (Ho). Even if a miracle crop was produced and large quantities of it were available, the poorest people would not be able to have it if no one could pay. The laws of supply and demand will still stand. This is the reason why people today burn rice in the fields. There must be more of a demand than a supply to keep the prices up. The producers must destroy any surplus product, even if it means more people will go hungry. As of today, with "the lowest prices on record, more than 800 million people still go hungry… and 82 countries - half of them in Africa - neither grow enough food, nor can afford to import it" (Ho). If we cannot feed the people now, how can we expect to feed them in the future? The laws of supply and demand will still hold firm. Thus, creating more food with genetic engineering is not a solution to world hunger.

           Furthermore, genetically engineered plants can be disruptive to the environment. An insect called the European corn borer destroys much of the corn crop each year and "annual losses average $1.2 billion" (Friedlander). One of the solutions to this problem was to plant corn genetically altered with genes from Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt. The corn is then able to withstand the attacks from the insect from the toxins that it produces by itself and the crop is safe for humans to eat. However, this hybrid does produce "pollen containing crystalline endotoxin from the bacterium genes" (Friedlander). Milkweeds often grow near cornfields and Monarch butterfly caterpillars live on these milkweeds. Thus, pollen blown off the corn could land on the milkweeds. Researchers at Cornell University conducted some tests to see what influence, if any, the Bt-corn pollen had on the caterpillars. The results showed that "…monarchs fed with so-called transformed pollen from a Bt-corn hybrid ate less, grew more slowly, and suffered a higher mortality rate…. Nearly half of the larvae died, while all of the monarch caterpillars fed leaves dusted with nontransformed corn pollen survived the study" (Friedlander). These tests draw attention because of the high mortality rates and are another example of how mixing genes can have adverse effects on other organisms. In the present, the side effects of one genetically engineered crop only affect Monarch butterflies. However, there is no telling what other insects or wildlife may be harmed in the future if genetic engineering is to continue. Linda S. Rayor, a Cornell instructor in entomology says, "Monarchs are considered to be a flagship species for conservation. This is a warning bell…" (qtd. in Friedlander). This is why the results of the Monarch butterfly tests are so important. They show us the dangers of allowing genetically altered organisms to mix with natural organisms. Monsanto's Roundup also poses a risk. According to Joel Keehn, "…some of the so-called inert ingredients in certain versions of glyphosate [Roundup] are toxic to some fish and exotic organisms." If glyphosate can kill these organisms, might it not pose some sort of harm to human beings? Even if it did not, such a chemical does harm the environment. Another danger would be "the spread of transgenes to wild relatives by cross-hybridization, creating superweeds. Herbicide-resistant transgenic oilseed rape, release in Europe, can hybridize with several wild-relatives and produce fertile seeds" (Ho). Mixing these genes with other genes can cause unexpected results. This is because all genes interact with other genes. A certain unnatural combination may result in an undesired mutation. This would especially be a problem should the outcome be a "superweed." Similarly, Dr. Frankenstein's monster had super-human strengths. These plants too could develop supers-strengths and supplant the native benign crops. In these ways, genetic engineering ultimately results in damaging instead of providing for the world.

           Additionally, genetically modifying foods will cut down on bio-diversity by encouraging monoculture crops. Because of that, a new strain of virus or a new breed of insect could simply destroy an entire crop because there will be no variety left. However, there is hope. Dr. Mae Wan Ho says, "The best strategy to guarantee food security is to conserve and develop existing agricultural biological diversity…" This would decrease the likelihood of a major crop wipeout by a new strain of virus, insect, or other pest. Instead of having to genetically alter the crop itself, we can allow natural selection and mutations to take place. With mutations, the crop population can regain previous genetic diversity. Dr. Ho continues, "Many, if not all… countries, still possess the indigenous genetic resources - requiring no further genetic modification - that can guarantee sustainable food supply." Therefore, there would not be any drastic financial concerns for these countries. Sustainable farming can be achieved without genetic engineering. Thus, the need to manipulate genes of crops is actually unnecessary.

           The US government needs to conduct more research and label genetically modified foods since there is much risk involved. Consumer Reports explains that one of the problems is that " no agency has taken responsibility for assessing the genetically modified food with the pesticide in it" but that the assessment is instead divided among three different agencies, each concerned with only a portion of the problem:

The USDA approves the "release" in outdoor test plots of genetically engineered plants and approves crops for production. The FDA oversees the safety of genetically modified food - but not of any pesticides it expresses. And the EPA regulates the pesticide expressed via genetic engineering - but not the genetically modified food itself. (Consumer Reports)

           Genetically modifying crops has the potential to do much damage with little guarantee of the advantages. Although genetic engineering could be useful in the future, in the present, it is not helping to improve agriculture or to solve the problems of hunger. Instead, it is only facilitating industrial agriculture while harming humans and the environment. Governments will need to regulate and label foods that contain genetically modified crops to safeguard human health and to prevent ecological disasters from occurring. If we decide not to heed the warnings of our past mistakes, we may create something we cannot control, just like Dr. Frankenstein and his monster.

Works Cited

"Biotechnology Issues: Dennis J. Kucinich." Congressional Testimony 07 Oct. 1999, npg.           Electric Library.

Fagan, John B. "Genetically Engineered Food - A Serious Health Risk." Genetically           Engineered Foods. URL:http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rone/GE%20 Essays/GE%20           Health%20Risks%20Fagan.htm (07 Oct. 2000).

"Food Biotechnology: Federal Regulations & Labeling." International Food Information           Council Foundation. URL: http://ificinfo.health.org/brochure/bioregs.htm (29 Sept.           2000).

Friedlander Jr., Blaine P. "Cornell News: Engineered Corn Kills Monarch Butterflies."           Cornell News Service. URL:           http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html (07 Oct. 2000).

Ho, Dr. Mae Wan. "Perils Amid Promises of Genetically Modified Foods." Greenpeace.           URL: http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/cbio/geperil.html (02 Oct. 2000).

Keehn, Joel "Genetic Engineering Harms Agriculture." Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic           Engineering. Ed. David Bender, et al., San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. 74-81.

Leary, Warren E. "Genetic Engineering of Food Can Spread Serious Allergies, Study           Says." New York Times. 14 March 1996: A20.

Levine III, Harry. Genetic Engineering. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1999.

"Seeds of Change." Consumer Reports Sept. 1999: 41-46.