Justin Beauchamp
Goshen College
11/28/07
Genetically modified crops have great potential as well as risks and the benefits and risks must be considered carefully for each GM plant to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks.
Genetically modified crops are plants used for farming that have had new genes added to them to give them a new trait or modify and existing trait. Genes from a wide variety of species can be added to the plants to give them a similar trait to that expressed by the source organism of that gene. A variety of commercial plants have been genetically modified and used. Some common examples are Roundup ready soybeans and corn as well as Bt cotton. There are many other traits currently being developed to expand the uses of crops as well as increase crop yields and reduce farming costs.
Genetically modified crops have been a source of much debate, especially among growers in developing countries. In some cases, growing GM plants is not more economical than traditional farming methods. There are many issues associated with GM crops such as dependence on large multinational companies, to issues of gene flow from GM crops to traditional crops. Less developed countries are especially concerned with potential problems from growing GM plants. Seeds for GM crops are usually more expensive than traditional seeds and dependence on buying seeds every year can lead to instable situations for small farmers. Less developed countries have specific needs to be met by the GM plants they grow and seed producers are not interested in developing the specific GM varieties that will benefit those countries.
Genetically modified plants are grown primarily to increase crop yield. Modification causes a variety of beneficial traits that help the plant survive specific harsh conditions. GM plants can be designed to have increased resistance to herbicide, diseases, pests and droughts as well as increased fruit and seed production. Companies that produce GM crop seeds have done a good job on marketing the benefits of using GM crops to farmers.
GM plants have a variety of different forms of disease resistance. Virus resistance is the most common form of disease resistance. Virus resistance is developed by adding a gene from the virus that encodes for a certain section of the virus e.g. the coat (GMO Compass, 2006). Then the plant develops mechanisms that inhibit the production of that section of the virus and therefore inhibits the virus when it attempts to infect the plant (GMO Compass, 2006). This method of instilled resistance is the primary means of developed virus resistance.
Fungal infections are another common disease prevalent in agriculture. Fungal infections often lead to heavy crop losses and can introduce toxic materials into the harvested crop. Traditionally fungal infections have been treated with fungicides or heavy metals. Several methods of GM plants expressing fungal resistance are in development including adding genes from bacteria that produce enzymes that break down fungal cell walls. Adding plant genes from plants that are more resistant to fungi as well as increasing the plants cells ability to recognize fungal infections quickly and carry out programmed cell death. As of 2006, GM crops expressing fungal resistance are not being commercially cultivated (GMO Compass, 2006). When fully developed fungi resistant plants could allow a more environmentally friendly approach to dealing with fungal infections.
Another common form of genetic modification is herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistant GM crops are designed to be resistant to non-selective herbicides in order that all the plants in the field will die except those expressing the resistance gene. Allowing the farmer to have more flexibility in spraying times as well as eliminating the need for tilling, which facilitates no-till farming. Spraying non-selective herbicides has had mixed effects on the biodiversity of the farm, sometimes having a negative effect and in other cases having a positive effect. The two main varieties of non-specific herbicide resistance are Roundup ready and Liberty Link. The use of non-specific herbicide resistant GM plants is common and allows more flexibility to the farmer but may have negative effects on the local biodiversity. (GMO Compass, 2006) One major benefit of this system is that is uses significantly less total herbicide than other methods and is usually a cheaper process for the farmer, especially when combined with no-till farming.
One GM that has been getting some attention is the development of plants expressing Bt toxin. There are several different Bt toxins and they are produced naturally by Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium found in soil (GMO Compass, 2006). Bt toxin is usually a fairly specific toxin, killing specific kinds of insects (GMO Compass, 2006). Bt toxin has no noticeable effect on organisms not specifically targeted, and limited effect on insects targeted by the toxin but that are not pests to the crop expressing Bt (Romeis, et al). Over 100 different varieties of Bt toxin have been found from different strains of Bacillus thuringiensis (GMO Compass, 2006). One variety of Bt toxin kills moth and butterfly caterpillars and is used in GM cotton to protect against the typical cotton pests (GMO Compass, 2006; Caldwell D. 2002). There are many other natural toxins being researched for use in insect resistance but GM plants expressing these traits are still under development (GMO Compass, 2006).
Changing the composition of the fruits and seeds of common farm crops is another important area of GM research. There are many different areas of potential benefits from modifying the content of crops. Increasing the nutrition content of foods could have great benefits for people living in areas where growing only one crop is feasible (GMO Compass, 2006). Oil crops are being developed to produce healthier oils for use as food, as well as varieties that produce other compounds useful to industrial use of natural oils (GMO Compass, 2006). Potato plants are being developed to have different compositions to allow them to be used for making adhesives and paper (GMO Compass, 2006). One notable GM crop that has been developed and could have a great impact on malnutrition is Golden rice, which expresses the precursor to vitamin A, which is present in rice only in very small quantities (GMO Compass, 2006). Growing and eating Golden Rice has potential to drastically reduce vitamin A deficiency common in areas of the world that eat rice as their primary source of food (GMO Compass, 2006). Modifying the make up of the actual harvested crop has great potential. Plants can be designed to have special characteristics to make them suitable to a wide variety of uses, ranging from increased nutrition to higher oil content, expressing chemicals that are useful in many different industrial applications.
GM crops have great potential to solve many of the problems faced by farmers and create more environmentally friendly farming practices and increase potential uses of plants. They can be used to fight viral diseases through programmed resistance. Fungal resistance is under development with great promise. Herbicide resistance has been developed and is being used allowing less total use of herbicide as well as increased flexibility and ability to use no-till farming techniques. Bt varieties of plants have been developed to have specific resistance to pest insects. Creating GM crops with modified seeds and fruit has potential both in solving malnutrition problems and in developing more uses for plants in industrial applications.
Many of these benefits are still waiting to be realized and are just expectations for what the technology can do. There are many cases in which GM crops are not as beneficial as they have been proposed to be or will cause potential problems. In some instances growing GM crops is not actually cheaper, and can even cause problems when grown near an organic farm. The supposed economic benefits from growing GM plants in developing countries have not had the drastic effect that they were supposed to have and in many cases GM plants specific to a local area are not being developed because of low profitability.
For example, in some cases the growing GM crops is not really cheaper than their conventional counterparts. In North Carolina the choice between conventional cotton and Bt cotton is a difficult one, because in some areas other cotton feeding bugs move in and replace the caterpillars killed by the Bt toxin. This requires the farmers to spray their fields with insecticide in spite of it being Bt cotton. Because Bt cotton seeds have an added technology fee, then in some areas traditional cotton is cheaper to grow. This is especially true in areas where the cotton caterpillars are only a moderate problem (Caldwell D. 2002).
Furthermore, GM crops can spread their genetically modified genes to nearby traditional crops. Presenting a particular problem when organic farms are located next to farms growing GM crops. Organic farms need to be able to truthfully sell their products as organic without some GM plants being mixed in. An example of gene transfer taking place is found in Canada where farmers have used GM canola each of which is resistant to a particular herbicide and some plants have been found that are resistant to all three herbicides. Guidelines for who is responsible when gene flow occurs must be set up as well as the standard necessary distance between fields needed in order to maintain purity (Colorado State University, 2004).
Another proposed benefit of GM crops that can be questioned is the reduction of poverty by growing GM crops. This is mainly due to large farms growing monoculture plants and buying up smaller farms as well as farm land being used for export crops instead of growing food crops (Green Peace, 2002). For example, Argentina’s grain exports have increased drastically in the past 10 years, due both to growing GM soybeans as well as devoting more land to the production of soybeans (Surman, 2007). However, Argentina still has 26.9% of their population living bellow the poverty line (Wikipedia, 2007a). Improving a countries poverty level is clearly more complex than simply growing GM crops.
In addition, some critiques of GM farming note that there is currently a surplus of food produced today and that instead of trying to grow more food we need to focus on distributing the food we have to the people that need it (Kennedy, 1999; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999). There are many obstacles associated with creating a better distribution system, mainly the cost of shipping large quantities of food long distances and some political opposition (Kennedy, 1999; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999). Opponents of GM crops say that we should focus on fixing the current system and implementing better distribution systems before we try to fix the problem with GM plants.
Another problem with growing GM crops is that farmers may become dependant on an international companies seeds. GM seeds are primarily only available from large companies like Monsanto, the producer of roundup ready seeds (Wikipedia, 2007b). Monsanto is a huge producer, holding anywhere from 70-100 % market share for different varieties of GM crops (Wikipedia, 2007b). Farmers are encouraged by large seed companies to buy high yield crops designed for export (Meenakshi, 2002). This can lead to problems because, the seeds are expensive and require a large amount of investment to start using and when a harvest is bad the poorer farmers must go into debt in order to be able to plant the next year (Meenakshi, 2002). Farmers have even committed suicide because of despair after a bad season (Meenakshi, 2002). This dependence on the ability to buy seeds is exacerbated by the use of GM plants because they are more expensive and patent laws prevent farmers from saving seed and reusing it. Farmers become dependant on being able to purchase seeds, which can have drastically negative results in cases of crop failure.
A compounding factor especially bad in African countries wanting to use GM crops is that many of the smaller countries with need for specific GM traits do not have access to plants developed specifically for Africa (Thompson, 2004). One crop of particular interest to Africa is plants that are open pollinated, in other words the seeds can be saved and replanted (Thompson, 2004). Some philanthropic organizations are developing open pollinated GM plants, but the major biotech seed corporations are largely ignoring this need because of low potential profits (Thompson, 2004).
The use of GM crops has in some cases not lead to the increase in profit proposed by large seed producers, and in some cases can actually exacerbate farmers poverty. Dependence on large companies for expensive seeds every year for small farms can lead to situations in which a failed crop can cause their farm extreme economic difficulty. Africa especially has need for GM crops, but because of lack of profit seed companies are not developing GM products to meet their need.
GM plants have great potential to help less developed countries improve farming conditions and increase crop yields as well as decreasing the environmental impact of farming. Many of the possible new traits for farm crops are still being developed and offer great future potential. The potential efficiency that can be realized through use of GM crops cannot go ignored. Somehow the concerns of those opposed to the use of GM crops need to be addressed by proponents of GM crops.
A new way of looking at GM technology needs to be taken in order to develop a solution. A cost benefit analysis method needs to be adopted, considering the potential costs of taking action to start or stop using GM crops. The potential benefits of using a GM crop need to be compared to the potential dangers. An extreme view of either being completely against or completely for GM crops is not very helpful. Both are blind to the other side, a certain crop may have risks but it can also have great potential benefit. Only when the risks clearly outweigh the benefits should a new GM plant be excluded from use (Kennedy, 1999; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999). Many different methods for looking at costs and benefits from specific aspects of GM crops need to be explored.
In order to address the concerns of gene spread, each crop should be considered individually (Kennedy, 1999; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999). In cases that gene spread has been shown to cause major potential problems and that control efforts are not adequate, then the plant should be restricted (Kennedy, 1999; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999). However, if gene spread is slow, or does not create dangerous recombinants then perhaps it should be accepted (Kennedy, 1999; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999). A small amount of gene flow that does not cause threatening recombinants can easily be lived with in the face of great potential benefits from the GM plant (Kennedy, 1999; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999).
A diverse view of solutions is important when looking at every situation. In the case of poverty in Argentina, there are most likely more factors affecting the amount of people living in poverty than just farming. The governmental system and welfare systems of the country can have drastic effects on the amount of people living in poverty. The people living under the poverty line have most likely been unaffected by the introduction of GM crops because they are not being helped by their government. Finding ways of getting those people help may have no bearing on whether GM plants should be grown. In areas of the world like Africa and India, where many of the people living bellow the poverty line are farmers could be affected by GM crops more than Argentina.
The issues associated with domination of the seed business by multinational companies also need to be addressed. In many cases the farmers are already dependant on big business for their seeds and using new GM varieties will not increase their dependence (Thompson, 2006). Furthermore this problem can be addressed by increasing the amount of GM research being done by smaller institutions and government agencies (Kennedy, 1999; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999). Increased involvement of other organizations that are not affiliated with the huge seed companies has potential to bring new beneficial GM plants to poor farmers without them depending on large companies (Kennedy, 1999; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999). Some problems with this are that meeting regulatory requirements takes a long time and doing enough research to show that a crop is not harmful is expensive (Thomson, 2004).
The use of GM crops has great potential and risk, potential to drastically lower the amount of pesticides used and increase food production. They may increase the potential uses of crops in many industrial applications. On the other side, they have the risk of driving poor farmers even poorer and creating a dependence on purchasing seed. They could spread their genes to other plants and contaminate organic farms. GM crops are in a sense a risky investment, however, the riskiest investments also usually have the greatest potential. In order to develop GM plants for use, accessing their great potential and minimizing their risks is necessary. A middle ground needs to be reached in which the concerns of opponents are addressed and the benefits are shown to outweigh the risks, satisfying the skeptical as well as using the potential of this technology.
Caldwell D. ( 2002). A Cotton Conundrum Perspectives Online. The Magazine of the college of agriculture and life sciences. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/magazine/winter02/cotton.htm
Colorado State University. (2004). Concerns about Current Farming Practices, Crop-to- crop gene flow: Genetic trespass. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/croptocrop.html
Dively, G. P., Rose, R., Sears, M. K. Hellmich, R. L., Stanley-Horn, D. E., Calvin, D. D. et al. (2004). Effects on monarch butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) after continuous exposure to Cry1Ab-expressing corn during anthesis. Environmental Entomology 33(4), 1116-1125.
GMO Compass. (2006). Breeding aims. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_aims/
Green Peace. (2002). Record harvest record hunger: starving in GE argentina. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/record-harvest- record-hunger.pdf
Kennedy, I. (1999). Genetically Modified crops: The Ethical and Social Issues.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/gmcrop.pdf
Meenakshi, G. (2002). Seeds of self-reliance. Time 160(9), 34.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (1999). The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries: a guide to the discussion paper. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/GM_Crops_short_version_FINA L.pdf
Romeis, j., Dutton, A., Bigler, F. (2004). Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect of larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens)(Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Journal of Insect Physiology 50, 175-183.
Surman, W. (2007). GM crops in Argentina. New Agriculturist. Retrieved November 4, 2007 from http://www.new-agri.co.uk/07/02/develop/dev2.php
Thompson, J. A. (2006). GM crops: the impact and potential. Collingwood Victoria, Austrailia: CSIRO Publishing.
Thomson, J.A. (2004). The status of plant biotechnology in Africa. AgBioForum, 7(1&2), 9-12. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n12/v7n12a02-thomson.htm#R1
Wikipedia. (2007a). List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty. Retrieved November 4, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/
Wikipedia (2007b). Monsanto. Retrieved November 4, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/