GM Foods Genetic Engineering - Essay Example

? GM Foods GM Foods Introduction The area of research was food for the new final paper and it was settled on genetically modified food out of all theother categories described in detail by Brooke Rollins and Lee Bauknight in ‘Food’(p.87). The project deals with the different aspects of genetically modified food, its benefits and impacts all over the world. Also known as biotech food, genetically modified foods are derived from genetically modified animals and plants. Michael Pollan (p.35) said in ‘In Defense of Food’ that genetic engineering techniques are used to introduce changes in their DNA and give them specific advantages over conventional stuff. It also describes that how the overall process is conducted. The following write up describes the different pros and cons of genetically engineered food products along with the technologies used for the formation of the same. We also witness that how the pioneer company of genetically modified food production called Monsanto effects the market globally though the consequences are not always positive (Marie- Monique Robin in The World According to Monsanto, p.46). It will be noted that the difference in the response of the developed and the developing countries towards these advancements by mainly focusing on US, which provides the largest market for GM food products, and China, which is still a developed country. It will also be studied that the arrival and establishment of Monsanto in China and the overall responses of the country to Monsanto and all the other multinational companies as such (Michael Moss in The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food, p.129). Other books consulted for this proposal include Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food, Story of Stuff, Food essays and Food, Inc. Genetic Engineering : Pros and Cons There are certain limitations to traditional breeding processes. It takes almost a decade to produce plant with the desired traits. Genetic engineering makes this process much faster as well as effective in the most precise way possible. This is done by separating the desired gene from the plant and inserting it directly into the DNA of the other plant by different electrical and chemical processes (John L Seitz, p.49). Genetic modification has broken the natural existing boundaries between different species. For example a frog and a mango can never breed naturally. But genetic modification can make this possible by inserting the genes of frog into the DNA of mango plant creating a new organism. Genetic modification is not only possible for plants and animals but also for humans (Michael Moss, p.125). Many biotechnology companies suggest that genetic engineering is the modification of same breeding process which has been used by the farmers since thousands of years. Plants and animals of different species have crossbred to create new species signifying that gene manipulation is completely natural. The only difference is that nature takes millions of years where as genetics can accomplish the same results in months. Long term effects of environment on genetically modified organisms are yet to be studied deeply (Michael Pollan, p.38). It is claimed that genetically modified crops provide a higher yield to the farmers in comparison to the conventional crop. GM crops are more economical as well. Genetic modification in the crops increases their resistance reducing the expense on herbicides and consequently decreasing the cost per acre (Francis Harris, p.165). However, farmers are required to purchase genetically modified seeds each year due to technology agreements adding to their expenses. Some critics claim that GM crops might cause damage to small scale farmers as they will become indentured to agribusiness companies (Michael Moss, p.129). As a result cost per acre will also increase along with the yield. There are no issues regarding the safety of the food items already present in the market. But this does not mean that they are completely safe. Biotechnology advocates that there are no reasons for concern when they say that there are no reports of harmful effects so far. Though FDA agrees that genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, they also said that genetically modified foods are substantially equivalent to conventionally produced food product and therefore tests are not required. However, doctors clarified that genetic food can cause unanticipated changes in our body which might take years to emerge(Michael Pollan, p.38). Antibiotic resistant marker genes are also added to the plants in order to tell that which one carried the modified genes. It evolved a concern that these markers, which are generally bacteria, could alter the genetic composition of naturally existing bacteria in our stomach which could reduce the affects of antibiotics medicines on them. Genetic modification can also transfer allergies unexpectedly, It can also increase the level of toxins in food. Use of antibiotic resistant genes by the genetic engineers can make the antibiotics useless. Currently, biotechnological industries are trying to counter these problems (Michael Pollan, p.38). Growth of herbicide resistant crops decrease the amount of herbicide administered to the fields leading to a reduction in amount of residue left on the crop and in the soil. According to some environmentalists, cross pollination between the genetically engineered crops can result in the formation of superweeds that are resistant to herbicides. Eventually this might make the insects capable of resisting pesticides. 70 percent of genetically modified crops can withstand high doses of farm poisons. Application of toxic chemicals is actually a necessity with these crops, while techniques that truly move farmers away from chemical use fall to wayside. According to an analysis of more than 8,200 university field trials, 2-5 times more herbicides are used by the farmers growing GM soybeans than the farmers who grow conventional soybeans. Moreover, crops such as Bt cotton, which are capable of producing their own insecticides are not considered a very safe or effective alternate of spraying. It can also cause undermine health risks since it’s the integral part of the food product. The US market has already highlighted their concern about genetically engineered wheat (Michael Pollan, p.39). The countries located in Europe and Asia have their own regulatory system that does not allow a product in the market until it has been determined safe for human consumption. United States exports half of the wheat to Europe and Japan. Products containing modified genes have not been approved by the European Union since 1998. Moreover, a moratorium on further approval has also been in effect since 1998. Japan has its strict set of rules and regulations for the same. There are several methods such as buffer zones between crops which are helpful in preventing cross – contamination of genetically engineered crops. Still there are some uncontrollable and impractical factors which remain unaffected even by separation in transfer and storage facilities (Michael Pollan, p.39). There is no surety regarding the area needed for the buffer zone. There are other influential factors such as wind and weather which cannot be controlled. The organizations such as Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not done any long term tests on genetically modified products or their effects. There are no any specific rules regarding this technology. However, Food and Drug Administration decided in the year 1992 that GM food can be marketed without the labeling for any long term safety since it is standard for any food additive (Brooke Rollins and Lee Bauknight, p.234). Though lack of food production is considered the reason behind poverty, the real factors are poverty, poor distribution system and less availability of resources. Monsanto co. Monsanto is a leading American company in terms of production of genetically engineered crops. It was one of the first companies to genetically modify a plant cell along with three academic teams. Monsanto produces agricultural and vegetable seeds. These glyphosate and other herbicides resistance seeds are sold under the brand name ‘Roundup’. This product allowed the farmers to plant the rows closer to one another increasing their overall production. This technology was widely adopted by the farmers. For instance, more than 90 percent of canola, sugarcane and soybean planted in the United States are glyphosate resistant described as GM crops (Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, p. 4). Monsanto also developed ‘Roundup Ready’ wheat. Seeds with multiple modifications were also produced by this company. For example cotton with the capability of producing one or more Bt proteins and is resistant to glyphosate. Monsanto has also been working to develop drought resistant GM crops along with other ag-biotech companies (Brooke Rollins and Lee Bauknight, p.37). Monsanto was pioneer in applying the biotechnology industry system in the production of agricultural produce. Application of this model to agriculture along with the movement to create a uniform system of plant breeders right came in direct conflict with the conventional methods of farmers such as saving, reusing, sharing and developing the plant varieties. The seed patenting model used by the company has been pointed out as biopiracy and a threat to biodiversity. Still the company plays a major role in the field of agriculture in terms of its litigation and its seed commercialization processes (Walmsley, Dimaranan and McDougall, p.256). The company also claims that genetically altered seed are the only solution to the ever growing problem of hunger and poverty. As the products of the company are able to withstand herbicides than the conventional crops, this might result in increase in the amount of production per acre (Van Meijl and van Tongeren, p.245). Though the company has played an important role in the publicity of the genetically engineered crops and seeds worldwide, it also had its share of criticism and conflicts. An angry rebuke was written against it by 24 African scientists in 1998 United Nations conference for using the photos of starving African children under the headline “Let the Harvest Begin” in one of the advertisements of the company. The delegates in their statements wrote: “We… strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporation to push technology that is neither safe, environment friendly, nor economically beneficial to use. We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.” (Pray, Huang and Rozelle, p.425) According to some of the development experts genetic modification can lead to hunger and starvation. Biotech companies including Monsanto are eagerly trying to develop a technique known as ‘terminator’ technology that would turn a fertile crop seed into sterile, thus making it impossible for the farmers to save seeds for replanting. Director of Institute for Food and Development Policy, Peter Rosset explains that almost half of the farmers all over the world depend on saved seeds to produce food that 1.4 billion people rely on for their daily nutritional needs. Such people are more vulnerable to hunger and starvation from genetic engineering (Van Meijl et al, 2002, p.234). A study by USDA Economic Research Service showed that genetically modified corn, soybeans and cotton did not have significant increase in yields when compared with conventional crops. Tested in more than 8,000 field trials, soybeans actually produced less bushels per acre than their conventionally grown counterparts (Huang et al, p. 675). GM in China The use of genetic engineering is allowing us to alter our agricultural production in ways that were believed to be impossible even by the specialists who took part in green revolution decades ago. Genetic engineering has given a way to China to decrease the impact of industrialization as industrialization is decreasing the land availability for agriculture. However, GM has also attracted criticism in China due to safety and environmental reasons. Champions of biotechnological companies such as Monsanto and the Biotechnology Industry Organization consider it as a tool to fight hunger and excessive use of pesticides. Developing countries like China who have still not decided whether or not to allow the wide use of GM crops, need to pay special attention to these controversies. China has allowed the wide plantation of Bt cotton which is not an edible crop (Huang et al, p.98). Wide use of pesticides certainly helped China in increasing its production but it also had its large negative impacts. Acknowledging the negative impacts China’s government called of the excessive use of pesticides and switched to alternative approaches such as the adoption of the host-plant resistant varieties. As a result China started developing genetically engineered crops like all the other developed countries such as United States (Qaim and Davis, p.900). Since the early 1980s, China has led 130 projects focused on GMOs, covering more than one hundred kinds of genes, including 47 kinds of plants, four kinds of animals and 31 kinds of micro organisms (Pray et al, p.821). Presently China accounts for more than half of the world’s investment in biotechnology. Unlike other countries where these projects are privately financed, China receives its funding legally from the government which makes it relatively cheap. China has the highest number of research staffs in this area among all the developing countries. About one hundred and fifty laboratories at the national and local level are located all over the country. Rice, being the main food crop, was modified on a large scale affecting the market greatly (Hicks, p.37). Small scale experiments have been done to increase the lysine contents in the corns and make them pest resistant. The transgenic soybean and soybean – moth resistant transgenic Bt soybean have also been developed and approved for environmental release. Out of respect to applying GMO research achievements in agriculture from 1997 to 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture approved ten genetically modified plants for field environment release which included cotton rice, corn, rape, soybean, potato and a popular tree (Zhang, p.58). 45 improved varieties of cotton was approved for environmental release as Bt cotton is the largest cultivated GM crop. Bt cotton reduced the use of pesticides to 6.6 times per season from 20 times per season. It also increased the income of the farmers largely (Hertel et al, p.112). China tends to restrict the import of GMO products due to growing health related issues, even though it has been planting GM cotton for the past five years. This is because Bt cotton is a fibrous crop and thus do not pose a direct potential threat to human health since it is not used for consumption (Hertel, p. 86). Monsanto and China Fearing the saturation of the market of United States initiated with North America, Monsanto has largely explored the outside market. Currently, Brazil and Argentina are serving as the major international market for the company. However, massive opportunity is seen is China as well since the company generates small amount of revenue from Chinese seed market. But the market is indeed intriguing, many questions remain (Guo and Cui, p.12). According to the data from the US Department of Agriculture, China is the second largest corn producer in the world with a production of 177 million metric tons while US produces 316 metric tons of corn leading the statistics. Monsanto projects that corn yield per acre is far lower in China as compared to US as China plants about 70 million acres of land with hybrid corn whereas US uses 90 million acres (Huang, Rozelle and Pray, p.675). This gave the company to introduce their technology in china as well. Chinese farmers do not use as much potash fertilizer per corn acre as their US counterparts. They often plant corn in more extreme conditions leaving the favorable land for the growth of rice and vegetables (Paarlberg, p.38). Being the world’s fourth largest producer of soybeans, China presented ample opportunities to Monsanto’s oil seed business to flourish in the country. The company analyzed that Chinese market will take another seven or eight years to reach to the points where the markets of Brazil (Tu, et al, p.1101) The main difference between the Chinese and the Brazilian market is the size of the farms. The average area of a Brazilian farm is much larger than that of a Chinese farm. Super farms have come to dominate the agricultural landscape in South America. Monsanto’s ability to target individual farms in South America has led to an accelerated penetration (Marie- Monique Robin). The rate of market penetration in China could be lower as the firm tries to change the seed buying decisions of many more farmers (Huang et al, p.55). The Chinese corn seed market is quite fragmented including over 8,000 local and regional players. However, government of China has made efforts to encourage the consolidation within the industry in order to form large agribusiness companies that could give a tough competition to the companies like Monsanto and other international players. Monsanto is also facing the problem of counterfeit seeds in Chinese market as small enterprises are copying the packages (Anderson and Yao, p. 65). It is a matter of when and not if when the Chinese government will approve the large scale commercialization of genetically modified food products within their country. China is under constant pressure to increase its food supply and at the same time it also needs to retain control on the supply (Lester Brown, Michael Renner and Christopher Flavin, p.35). Companies like Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta can gain a considerable amount of advantage by entering the Chinese market at this point of time (Marie- Monique Robin). Chinese have been developing their own biotech traits in order to catch up on the biotechnology front. But still the country’s companies and institutions are well behind the technologies used by Monsanto (James, p.11). While China is taking time to let the international companies dominate the genetically modified seed market, Monsanto and its competitors have also had lingering concerns about intellectual property protection in China (Huang and Rozelle, p.65). The state council of China released new guidelines which stressed the importance of independent intellectual property rights and the introduction of international seed germplasm resources by foreign funding enterprises for the development of the country. With the enforcement of the new guidelines, Monsanto’s top executives spent a lot of time with Chinese ministers and officials to become more comfortable competing on a much larger scale. Monsanto has also made efforts to work first hand with Chinese farmers to get agreement in place so the company can get paid for its newest soyabean technology (Biotechnology Research Institute (BRI), p.35). Chinese government is trying to play biotech catch up by investigating millions in research and development which is further delaying the mass commercialization of biotech corn several years away. Monsanto is setting up necessary infrastructure and deepening ties with its joint venture partner in order to sell more of its conventional hybrids in the country (Huang et al, p.671).. As the country grapples with more mouths to feed, Chinese government would not be able to ignore the enticement of higher yielding biotech traits for too long (Josh Sevin, p.54). Even if the Chinese markets allow the commercialization of genetically engineered food in the market, companies like Monsanto will share in the value created for farmers but the level will be lower as compared to the US. Whatever might be the outcome based on varying intellectual property protection, meaningful contribution from China is still years away for Monsanto (Chen, p.45). Conclusion The project offered a deep study of the genetically modified food products and the other global factors associated with it. The whole study shows that it is not necessary that genetically modified food is always advantageous over the conventional ones. Though it meets many of our needs in much more lesser time as compared to the general products, it has some of the safety issues associated with it as well which is affecting its commercialization and popularity in many of the countries. The other thing which was observed was that genetically engineered crops or seeds are not necessarily always cheap for the farmers. They need to buy these costly seeds every season adding up to their expenses. Again, the reluctance of developing countries including China towards commercialization of genetically engineered food crops is widely affecting the decisions of pioneer companies such as Monsanto. These companies always look for their market expansions mainly in the developing countries as they observe a demand for their technologies. Lastly, most of the arguments that genetically modified food crops and seeds can be an answer to the problem of world growing hunger and starvation are mainly based on the notion that the root of the problem is shortage of food. However, the reality seems a bit different. Today, the world is producing more food per person than ever before. With the current production, 4.3 pounds of food can be given to each person every day. The problem of hunger does not lie in quantity but on unequal distribution and accessibility to all the stages of society. References 1. Anderson, K. and Yao, S., China, GMOs and world trade in agricultural and textile products, paper presented at the International Workshop on Plant Biotechnology Policy in China, CCAP, CAS, Beijing. 2001. 2. Biotechnology Research Institute (BRI), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Research achievements of Biotechnology Research Institute, Review of China Agricultural Science and Technology, 2000. 2(2):37-38. 3. Brooke Rollins and Lee Bauknight, ed. Food, Fountainhead Press, V Series. 4. C. James. Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2002 (ISAAA Brief No. 27, January 2003) http://www.isaaa.org. 2002. 5. Chen, Z.,. Review of R&D on plant genetic engineering in China,. A paper presented in China- ASEAN Workshop on Transgenic Plants, July 30-August 5, Beijing, China. 2000. 6. Francis Harris, Global Environmental Issues, 2004 7. Guo, S., Cui, H.. New research progress on insect-resistant transgenic cotton. Chinese Agricultural Science, Vol.6 No., 1998, pp: 7-13. 8. Hertel, T.W. (ed)., Global Trade Analysis: Modelling and Applications, Cambridge University Press. 1997. 9. Hertel, T. W., Anderson, K., Hoekman, B., Francois, J. F., and Martin, W., Agriculture and nonagricultural liberalization in the millennium round, paper presented at the Agriculture and New Trade Agenda, Geneva, Switzerland. 1999. 10. Hicks, J.R., The Theory of Wages, London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd. 2002. 11. Huang, J., Wang, Q., Zhang, Y., and Falck-Zepeta, J.B.,. Agricultural biotechnology development and research capacity in China, Discussion Paper, International Service for National Agricultural Service, Hague, The Netherlands. 2001. 12. Huang, J., Rozelle, S., Pray, C., and Wang, Q.,. Plant biotechnology in China. Science, Vol. 295, 25, 674-677. 2002a. 13. Huang, J., Hu, R., Pray, C., Rozelle, S., and Qiao, F., Small holders, transgenic varieties, and production efficiency: the case of cotton farmers in China. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2002b, 46(3):1-21. 14. Huang, J., Rozelle, S.. China.s Grain Economy Toward the 21st Century. China.s Agricultural Press, Beijing. 1998. 15. J. Tu, G. Zhang, K. Datta, C. Xu, Y. He, Q. Zhang, G.S. Khush, and S.K.Datta. Field performance of transgenic elite commercial hybrid rice expressing Bacillus thuringiensisendotoxin, Nature Biotechnology. 2000, p. 18, 1101. 16. J. Huang, R. Hu, C. Pray, F. Qiao, S. Rozelle. Biotechnology as an Alternative to Chemical Pesticides: A Case Study of Bt Cotton in China, Agricultural Economics, 2003, 29, 55. 17. Josh Sevin, GRIST, 2000 18. John L Seitz, Global Issues: An Introduction, 2001 19. Lester Brown, Michael Renner and Christopher Flavin, Vital Signs 1998, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC., n.d. 20. Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food, An Eater’s Manual, New York 21. Michael Moss, The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food, The New York Times, 2013. 22. Marie- Monique Robin, The World According to Monsanto, Pollution, Corruption and the Control of Our Food Supply, An Investigation into the World’s Most Controversial Company 23. Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, Little Brown and Company, 1999, p. 4 24. Pray, C., Ma, D., Huang, J. and Qiao, F.,. Impact of Bt cotton in China. World Development. Vo1. 29, 2001,813-825. 25. Pray, C., Huang, J., and Rozelle, S., Five years of Bt cotton in China: the benifts continued, The Plant Journal, 31(4): 2002. 423-430. 26. Qaim and Davis, Z. Yield Effects of Genetically Modifi ed Crops in Developing Countries, Science 299, 900. 2001. 27. R. Paarlberg. Reinvigorating Genetically Modified Crops, Issues in Science and Technology, Online. 2003. 28. Van Meijl, H., van Tongeren, F., Huang, J. and Li. N.,. A baseline projection for China.s agriculture and global trade: 2001.2020. LEI/CCAP.s working paper. 2002. 29. Van Meijl, H., van Tongeren, F.,. International diffusion of gains from biotechnology and the European, 2002. 30. Walmsley, T. L., Dimaranan, B., and McDougall, R. A.,. A base case scenario for the dynamic GTAP model, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, West Lafayette (IN), 2000. 31. Zhang, C.. The development of transgenic hybird rice resistant to stem borer. Biotechnology Information, Vol. 15(6): 1999, p. 58. Read More