The Green Revolution was born in 1944 from the hands of Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Prize in 1970 for his attempts to eradicate the problem of starvation in the developing world. Borlaug styled wheat crops with simple techniques of cross-breeding, harvesting, and planting to produce disease-resistant strains of wheat in hopes of countering the effects of stem rust, an infectious fungus that was killing wheat crops in Mexico. His techniques proved to be successful and Borlaug sought to spread this new knowledge to the agricultural sectors of the poverty stricken countries of the developing world. (1)
In the late 20th century the Green Revolution gave birth to the novel technology that extended Borlaug’s work by altering crops at the genetic level—namely GMOs, or genetically modified organisms (2). These crops, styled to meet the needs of the consumer, promised higher yield and ultimately a lower cost of food production. GMOs would make it possible for farmers to grow crops on land formerly viewed as inhospitable. The crops could now be designed to withstand the conditions of the land and improve crop protection.
The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance to herbicides (3). Insect resistance is achieved by incorporating the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) into the plant’s genome. Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses that cause disease in plants, and herbicide tolerance is accomplished through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides (3).
These strategies, though driven by good intentions, gamble with the forces of nature and natural selection. Recent studies have shown that despite the great promise of this technology to benefit quality of life for many people, GM crops pose a potential threat to the environment and to human health (4). The problem of GM crops and their effects on the environment are unlike any problem that has been faced before because they involve the creation of a product that can change and modify itself for survival. Many organizations and governments concerned with these negative effects have raised vocal opposition to GMOs (2). Some countries have not only banned GMO production but also GMO research (2). It is now imperative to weigh the benefits and risks of GM crops and think critically not only about how these crops affect the U.S. but also about how they affect the developing world.
Benefits
By introducing methods to increase crop productivity for farmers—improving resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides, as well as increasing nutrients, yield, and stress tolerance of crops—the most important benefit of GM foods is the increased food security for growing populations around the world. GM supporters say that though the initial costs of creating a GM crop are high due to the number of skilled people and expensive equipment it takes to create a GM crop, the long run profits from money saved on pesticides and the resulting high quality product are clear benefits of GM crops.
Herbicide-resistant crops also present the environmental benefit of introducing less harmful chemicals to the land while providing higher yields. Crops can be sprayed to kill weeds specifically—leaving the crop itself unaffected—and allowing for less herbicide to be used in one season. The herbicides used on GM crops are also weaker than the standard herbicide, Atrazine, and are in this sense better for the environment.
Biotechnology companies are also aiming to create new crops that can be genetically modified to be drought- and salt-tolerant or less reliant on fertilizer, which would lead to the opening of new areas to be farmed (5). GM crops also decrease the potential for the spread of human diseases because they allow growing populations to spread out rather than concentrate in agriculturally-bound locations.
A new transgenic rice designed to fight a common pollen allergy appears to be safe in animals, but it is uncertain if it will have an adverse effect on humans.
GM crops can also be modified to provide better nutrients—another important benefit for areas with high incidence of malnutrition.
Other GM foods that are being considered for approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are GM salmon which are capable of growing 30 times faster than natural salmon, bananas that are free of viruses and worm parasites, cabbage that is resistant to caterpillar attacks, and sunflowers that produce oil with less saturated fat—all of which seem to provide an immediate benefit for human health and the environment.
Risks
Even with the many benefits of GM foods, the amount of risk involved with introducing GM crops into the environment and also into humans. The risks have to be viewed in the long-term perspective beyond the immediate benefits of the products like the ones listed above.
The main concerns about GM crops are their tendency to provoke allergic reactions, (allergenicity) and also their potential for gene transfer (3). The fear of allergic reaction stems from the idea that every protein holds the potential to trigger an allergic reaction (6). In creating a new gene, companies are introducing a new protein into an organism, and it is unknown whether or not these new proteins will cause allergic reactions. An example of the allergen threat that GM foods present is seen in the case of Brazil nuts and soybeans. A protein from Brazil nuts was introduced into soybeans to make them more nutritious, but it was found that individuals who were allergic to Brazil nuts were also severely allergic to the GM soybeans (4). In the last several years researchers have come to better understand allergens, and databases now exist that contain extensive information on a myriad of allergens, demonstrating a benefit that comes with this risk (6). Nonetheless, these examples prove that the fear of GM foods causing allergic reactions is from a sound basis and that no one can be absolutely certain that the new organisms created are not forming new proteins with each successive generation and presenting a higher allergen threat.
Fear of gene transfer is also prominent in the debate surrounding GM foods. When making new genes, antibiotic resistance is coupled with the new genes since gene transfer is only successful in a few cells and a marker is needed to identify successful transfers. The antibiotic resistant cells are selected for further breeding and the resistance stays with the new gene and is incorporated into the crop. The fear of gene transfer comes from the potential of the genes from the GM foods to be taken up by bacteria in the gut during gestation (6). The fact that the new gene can and may interact with existing genes must be taken seriously. If bacteria carrying antibiotic resistance genes cause infection, they can be very difficult for doctors to treat (6). As a precautionary measure, some experts say that antibiotic resistance genes should not be used (6). A gene transfer could also result in the new gene deactivating an existing gene, with dramatic consequences for human health.
The environmental risks involved with GM crops are numerous. They include the GMO’s capability to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations, the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested, the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g. insects which are not pests) to the gene product, the stability of the gene, the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity, and the increased use of chemicals in agriculture (3). The overall outstanding risk is the potential decrease in the biodiversity of crops and their associated insects and animals, shifting the forces of natural selection through direct human intervention. The arms race that now exists between natural species and the chemicals that we spray upon them hold the potential to give rise to newer super-species that we may one day lose control of.
Oversight
To maintain the balance between benefit and risk of GM foods, it is critical that there is enough oversight to keep the risks listed above in check. When evaluating the safety of novel GM foods, many precautions are taken to assess the safety of the new proteins. Several criteria need to be met to show that the new food is allergen safe, and the safety of a particular protein regarding toxicity is assessed using animal feeding tests (6).
Though there are many precautionary measures in place, there are many shortcomings with these measures, and new problems are arising daily.
In the United States, three main groups are involved in the oversight of GM foods: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The FDA does voluntary consultation with companies who want to release new GM foods into the market and acts to work with companies to let safer foods into the market. However, since consultation is voluntary, companies are not required to approach the FDA to check their products, and the FDA has no way of stopping the release of GM foods into the market. In addition, the FDA does not have the power to label, sample, or inspect the food without the company’s consent. The FDA also views GM foods to be no more dangerous than traditional foods, so the testing standards for GM foods and traditional foods are the same.
The EPA also works to prevent problems but is unable to do so efficiently. The EPA regulates crops with pesticide or herbicide properties and is good at imposing controls on companies regulating chemical use. What the EPA fails to do is communicate directly with the farmers who grow the crops. The companies are supposedly responsible for making sure that the farmers follow through with the wishes of the EPA, but in the case of Starlink Corn, this assumption was not met.
Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the United States. Here, “Ht” refers to crops that have been engineered to be herbicide-tolerant, and “Bt” refers to crops that were given a gene to make a pesticide, making them pest-resistant.
The EPA approved Starlink Corn to be sold only for animal feed since more studies still had to be done on whether or not the new crop posed an allergen threat for people. Shortly afterwards, an independent watcher took some corn products off of market shelves and tested for BT toxin and found that a large number of taco shells and other corn products had Starlight BT toxin in them. After investigation, it was shown that many farmers had never been told not to sell the Starlight Corn to food mills. The companies withheld the information from the farmers assuming that by the time that the crop was harvested, the crop would be approved. Though Starlight Corn has never been proven to provoke any allergens, the events surrounding it demonstrate the hole in US food security.
The USDA carries out field tests and acts to make ensure that the new crops are not plant pests that will spread throughout the country. Like the EPA, the main problem of the USDA is that there is no direct dialogue between the organization and the farmers who grow the crops.
The largest problem in oversight is that of all of these organizations, none focus on conducting long-term studies so no one really knows what the long term cumulative effects of GMOs are. There is, therefore, also no oversight in checking whether or not the claims that the companies make about using fewer herbicides on GM crops is accurate or not. Recent studies have shown that for the Roundup Ready crop, which is resistant to the herbicide Roundup and supposedly requires less herbicide due to fewer weeds, in fact requires two to nine times more herbicide per acre than conventional strains (4). Both the GM plant and the Roundup herbicide are sold by agricultural giant Monsanto. Of course, some of this increased quantity of herbicide has to do with the decrease in strength of the Roundup herbicide as opposed to Atrazine, which is a harsher chemical. Even so, many Roundup resistant weeds are emerging and in effect, farmers have to use more Atrazine to kill off the resistant strains, resulting in no true environmental benefit of growing the GM crop. Studies have also shown that the use of pesticides for the GM crop is not decreased but remains the same. The pesticides have been designed to kill off certain pests but not others, so farmers have had to use the traditional pesticides in addition to those designed for the crop.
The oversight checks on companies are weak and inefficient in reducing the risk of GM crops for the environment and for human health.
The Developing World
Of the many gaping holes in the oversight of GM crops, the most profound failure is in checking whether the main promise of GM crops is being kept: are these crops really eradicating starvation in the developing world? No, they are not. GM crops have not solved the problem of poverty—and some may say that they have made the problem worse. Introducing GM crops into the developing world brings about a counterintuitive situation in which the farmers who grow the crops are starving because they are not able to buy the food that they grow. GM seeds have to be imported into these developing countries, in addition to the pesticides and herbicides designed for the seeds. This makes the cost of growing the crop very high, and rather than finding a means to lower the cost of food to make it available for the consumers within the country, the farm owners of the developing world look to sell these crops to the markets in the developed world, like the U.S., because consumers will pay a higher price for the food.
Conclusions
With all of the issues surrounding the production of GM foods, it is now imperative that we look at GM crops with a wary eye and consider the long-term consequences of our actions as consumers supporting these crops. Without a pool of consumers who are willing to buy GM food products, GM foods would not exist. Consumers need to realize that they are the ultimate check placed on the companies. If there is no profit, there is no product. With each GM food product that we buy or choose not to buy, consumers are voicing our own opinions about what we think is right for our own health and for the world. Each individual needs to consider where he or she stands in the debate about GM crops and take the initiative to voice his or her opinion with our purchasing power.
References
1. N. E. Borlaug, “The Green Revolution Revisited and The Road Ahead” (1999). Speech delivered at the Nobel Peace Prize laureate lecture, Oslo, Norway, 1999.
2. Spotlight on GMOs (2010). Available at http://www.nature.com/scitable/spotlight/GMOs-6978241 (7 January 2010).
GM Foods (2010). Available at http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/ (9 January 2010).
3. A. Goddaard, J. West, S. de Vries, “Science in the News: Genetically Modified Foods” (2006). Delivered at Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2006.
4. K. Sakko, The Debate Over Genetically Modified Foods (2002). Available at http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/sakko.html (9 January 2010).
5. GMO Compass (2006). Available at http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/environmental_safety/ (10 January 2010).
What is WHO doing to improve the evaluation of GM foods?