The Predominant Environmental Concerns - Essay Example

Genetically modified food In the debate over genetically modified (GM) food, both nationally and internationally,sorting out truth from fantasy is a difficult task. The primary issues of dispute include its effects on health, environment, economies, supremacy and democracy; other factors that join the debate are famine, latent risks, morality and creed (Cook, Pieri and Robbins, 434). Partakers of the debate include a plethora of authoritative and non-professional groups and individuals, including environmentalists, scientists, farmers, anti-globalization groups, lawyers and doctors, parents, and everyday citizens and consumers (Cook et al, 434) each bringing their own argument, concern or viewpoint to the table. The risks and benefits, the rights and wrongs, or the pros and cons of genetically modified food and science are global concerns in both public and private arenas (Adolphs, Hamilton and Nerlich, 58). In today’s technological world however, GM crops and products play an important role in driving modernization and as such they are here to stay; as long as focus is not placed on future technological advancement instead of today’s risks and disadvantages, and if research, assessment, controls and policies are adequately and stringently evidenced then the benefits, will eventually negate the risks. Martin Teitel, in his article entitled ‘Unsafe at any Seed?’ argues against GM food claiming the argument that GM foods are better for the environment, farmers and consumers “should be taken with a grain of salt” (1). He further purports that this new technology has grown too quickly with insufficient testing, has entered supermarket shelves too soon, and necessitates further research and an objective commission to verify and validate the safety of such foods prior to entering the market. This paper will argue in agreement of Teitel’s paper in some respects but will not concur with others. Although Teitel has put forward some pertinent points that are significant if biotechnology is to continue and develop, his argument falls short in that he fails to consider the debate from two perspectives – that of the opponent and that of the advocate of GM foods – and has remained steadfast on the side of opponents at the risk of sounding dogmatic and ill informed. The situation is not as black and white as Teitel paints it; within the developed world scientists are at odds in their convictions on measurement of risk, both for health and the environment. Many are convinced that assessments are not necessary or are too harsh, while others contend they are not adequate in their scope; what is apparent however, is that proponents of GM technology in their pursuit of dampening concerns of risk may in fact be hindering its progress and adding to the distrust of the public by asserting that it is safe and not in need of justification (Chetty and Viljoen 200). Research has proven that risk assessments are imperative as the impacts of putting genes into plants is not really known, particularly long-term effects, and there is the chance that with the introduction of a gene into a plant unknown food allergies maybe encountered (Biotechnology Institute 7) by the induced protein. In order to prove whether a derived protein is allergen or not is to test it on a number of humans which, of course, is not permissible on ethical grounds; testing therefore has to be undertaken on rats or other surrogates. Teitel on the other hand, seems to negate the necessity for such testing on either animals or plants because of the inevitable failures, but provides no other means of determining its safety. The predominant environmental concerns about GM crops that are resistant to herbicides, are their potential to pollinate natural weeds and develop a strong and invasive strain that is impervious to herbicides, which in turn would require new and even stronger chemicals to eradicate them. Another concern is the potential of cross-pollination with other crops that are not genetically modified, thus creating ecological problems and/or disasters. Research proves however, that while there are very few authoritative or independent reports and studies in terms of environmental harm caused by GM crops, what are available are at odds (Hilbeck, Meier and Benzler 904), rather than being able to provide only negative findings as proposed by Teitel. Teitel moves on from the health issues of GM foods to the impacts on farmers in developing countries and paints a picture of doom and gloom. It is acknowledged that GM crops raise specific issues in relation to the conveyance of information and knowledge and the regulation of seed supply, as well as giving autonomy to farmers. Governments of developing countries therefore, need to determine whether farmers in differing contexts, particularly those with small amounts of land for farming, will be benefited by planting GM crops, whether they can afford the seeds and how information will be disseminated. One of the primary benefits of GM crops for example, is their reduced need for pesticides which can result in monetary savings on labor and production, but more importantly less harm on the environment in terms of chemical use. For the small farmers in developing countries priority for GM crops would more likely focus on the supply of much needed food and monetary gain and not on the environment, so dissemination of information on how to appropriately use pesticides is paramount. Research undertaken by Bennett, Ismael and Morse found that in South Africa, with the introduction of Bt cotton, farmers were using smaller amounts of pesticides than farmers growing natural cotton crops but reduced insecticide necessary for the control of bollworm. They claim that this was “perhaps due to misunderstanding about the technology” (37). It is evident that effective strategies must be found by developing countries with assistance from those that are deemed developed, to ensure food productivity particularly in subsistent areas where food is vital and yields from crops are low; crop yields are mainly lost because of factors such as disease, pests and poor soil, as well as insufficient money to buy seed, fertilizers and pesticides; in fact pests account for the destruction of more than half the world’s crop yields, with most being destroyed in developing countries (Herrera-Estrella 923). GM crops could well be the answer if appropriate strategies are put in place. Teitel’s answer is to place an “immediate moratorium on the introduction of new genetically engineered crops” and on their marketing in developing countries, amongst other suggestions. It seems more appropriate for developing countries to consider measurements of others who are far more stringent than those of the US, such as the EU and other countries and make more informed decision. In the US, biotech companies only need to show that a GMO is comparable to its non-GM counterpart for it to be ruled as safe and therefore able to be sold. If a GM crop involves protein to do with pesticides, such as Bt toxin then they need to undergo allergen tests; the process for regulation of other GMOs is voluntary and more a means of giving advice than assessment. This process is undertaken by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in consultation with the company who provides the required data and information – no scientific assessment is undertaken (Then 6). Opponents of GM purport that such testing is not adequate even though the biotech companies are responsible and accountable for health risks. In Europe however, the European Union via the European Commission commands proof of given data and information and most times undertake their own risk assessments. Also, in March 2010, generated by disapproval and critique on their 2006 proposal, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) presented a new paper on environmental risk that included the assessment of long-term effects of GM products (Then 6). GM technology however, if it is to increase food productivity in developing countries, needs to be modified to account for local crops, not only in terms of their type and organic elements but also because many have religious or social significance to the culture of those growing the crops; thus a known crop modified by genetics is more likely to be accepted by local farmers than the offering of a new and unknown type. In summary therefore, it is evident that people are inundated with information provided by scientists, governments, businesses and NGOs, thrown from all directions from all avenues of media; they have the choice whether or not to use, plant or consume GM foods. The development of such foods will not cease or be halted, as Teitel would prefer, but if the correct checks and measures are maintained and further developed, the risks will gradually dissolve and the global benefits acclaimed. Works cited Adolphs, S., Hamilton, C. and B. Nerlich. “The Meaning of Genetics.” International Journal of English Studies 3.1, 2003 : 57–75. Bennett, R., Y. Ismael, and S. Morse. “Explaining contradictory evidence regarding impacts of genetically modified crops in developing countries: Varietal performance of transgenic cotton in India”. Journal of Agricultural Science 143.1 2005: 35–41. Biotechnology Institute. “Your World.” Biotechnology and You. 10.1. 22 November, 2010. http://www.biotechinstitute.org/resources/pdf/yw10_1.pdf Chetty, L. and C.D. Viljooen. GM biotechnology: friend and foe? South African Journal of Science. 103. July/August, 2007 : 269-271. 22 November, 2010. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&hid=5&sid=3ae1aca0-ff5c-407d-8e5d-11de6446e029%40sessionmgr12. Cook, G., Pieri, E. and P.T. Robbins. “The scientists think and the public feels: expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food.” Discourse Society 15.4, 2004 : 433-449. 24 November, 2010 http://das.sagepub.com/content/15/4/433.refs.html. Herrera-Estrella, L.R. “Genetically modified crops and developing countries”. Plant Physiology 124, 2000 : 923-925. 25 November, 2010. http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/124/3/923 Hilbeck, A., Meier, M. and A. Benzler. “Identifying indicator species for post-release monitoring of genetically modified, herbicide resistant crops.” Euphytica 164, 2008 : 903–912. 22 November, 2010. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&hid=119&sid=606e6093-6102-41e6-9a19-4d1ac0f23f22%40sessionmgr110. Teitel, M. “Unsafe at Any Seed?” Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. 15. 3: 2000. 23 November, 2010. http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.113-a526. Then, Christopher. “Agro-biotechnology: Testbiotech opinion on EFSA’s draft guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants.” Test Biotech. July, 2010. 25 November, 2010. http://www.testbiotech.org/en/taxonomy/term/123 Read More