Is Genetic Engineering an Answer to Ending Global Hunger - Term Paper Example

Is Genetic Engineering an Answer to Ending Global Hunger? Outline Is genetic engineering an answer to ending global hunger? I. Genetic engineering and global hunger A. Poor human activities lead to reduced crop yield in developing countries B. Genetic engineering produces sustainable crops C. Produces crops in different controlled conditions a. counters drought and adverse weather conditions b. crops are fast growing c. enables double planting seasons D. Produces seeds a. less prone to pesticides and environmental changes b. have increased nutritional value E. Leads to sustained beef production a. increases protein supply II. Genetic engineering and food supply A. Does not always address global hunger needs a. food is used for commercial interests B. Are controlled by few companies, making the products inaccessible to many C. Food produced is meant for animals D. Crops have requirements that cannot be addressed by the majority of farmers a. needs water and pesticides b. have significant technological needs c. seeds cannot be saved for subsequent planting which farmers depend on E. Produces less yield than normal crops F. Not safe for human consumption G. Favors large scale farming a. leads to deforestation b. destroys water catchment areas c. Impairs soil PH III. Genetic engineering does not alleviate world hunger Introduction According to Abah, Wada and Ishaq (2010), the world population has grown tremendously over the last five decades with a project population of about 9 billion by 2050 as the 10 million proportion of the hungry population is anticipated to increase by 40%. In that light, scientists foresee a looming hunger disaster in the next couple of decades with biotechnology considered as the ultimate solution (Castaldo, 2010). This paper however affirms that genetic engineering is not the answer to ending global hunger. Whereas the proponents of genetic engineering purport that hunger is a global crisis caused by shortage in food supply, human surveys ascertained that the hunger experienced in most developing countries is a result of poverty (Robbins, 2007). Moreover, the problem emanated from both economic and social disparities underlying the unbalanced distribution of resources and inaccessibility to food rather than the lack of it. Therefore, the ideals of biotechnology in relation to world hunger is a somewhat a farfetched concept with hidden agenda not based on the need to solve the global hunger problem. On a different note, Turk and Bensel (2011) postulates that the escalating climatic changes including global warming have led to prolonged droughts, unpredicted weather changes, degradation of watersheds, desertification and widespread crop failure. In addition, other anthropogenic activities such as increased clearance of forests to create large space for agriculture, and amplified usage farm chemicals have contributed to significant degeneration of soil fertility. Besides, agribusiness practices inherent in large scale farming and genetic engineering have also affected the natural ecosystem (Tokar, 2001). With respect to these issues, this paper examines the realities of genetic engineering with a view to ascertain whether biotechnology is a real solution to global hunger. The paper unravels the underlying motives of genetic engineering with a critical view of the biotechnology has any potential to improve global food security for human consumption. Besides, this paper evaluates the issues against full-scale implementation of genetic engineering to solve the looming hunger crisis. It thus culminates with an evidence-based opinion as to whether or not genetic engineering is an answer to ending the global hunger problem. Genetic Engineering and Global Hunger Since the Industrial Revolution, a lot has changed in terms of food production and modern approaches in response to the ever growing human population. On one hand, biological scientists have succeeded in developing amicable technologies that can influence the mode of food production on a wider scale. On the other, human activities have rendered much of the once tillable land perpetually infertile leading to reduced yield and escalating malnutrition among the populations in the Africa and other developing nations as observed by Stanford (2007). That notwithstanding, continuous research has revealed that a good proportion of the world population are faced with three major challenges including disease, poverty and hunger. According to Otero (2008), global hunger that the world should be dealing with is more than mere increase in food supply. It goes beyond availability to fill the stomach. The issue encompasses sustainable accessibility to sufficient quantities of food with adequate nutritional requirements without predisposing human health to harmful effect. Looking into the prospects of genetic engineering, one thing is truly eminent. Climatic changes that have affected the production of food have in turn opened a door to manipulated crop production. In that way, scientific knowledge suggests that utilization of genes from different living organism can be engineered to tap specific desired traits with a view to produce drought resistant crops which can also withstand increased application of pesticides and herbicides (Raney &Pingali, 2007). While the idea has been successful in the past and present times, a good proportion of biotechnology concept has not augured well with prospective intentions to produce food meant for human consumption. Nevertheless, Blum, Touhey and Liard (2007) argue that genetic engineering has been at the realm of achieving significant mileage in food production. For one, biotechnology makes it possible to manipulate desired characteristics so as to produce a new product with superior qualities within a few months. In the past, crops cross-pollinated and plants cross-bred as to generate offspring with increased abilities to survive in extreme environmental conditions compared to their parenting genes. The results have seen biotechnology companies such as Monsanto of US, Aventis of France, DuPont and the others produce seeds capable of resisting certain weather, biological and chemical conditions. In 1995, Calgene Corporation which is currently a subsidiary of Monsanto produced the first FlavrSavr tomato and its rebranded substituent McGregor that were engineered for human consumption. At first, this was considered a great success but the product failed to meet the expected longer shelf-life anticipated to keep the genetically modified tomato ripe without losing its firmness. Unfortunately, the product turned out to be a big health risk on the grounds that its genetic makeup would render intestinal bacteria resistant to medicinal antibiotics (Robbins, 2007). Thus, the whole tomato idea did not meet the increase food production agenda. The second perspective revolves around the production of soybeans, canola and genetically modified corn. Technically, these crops are a major catch for most American farmers since they are highly demanded in the market. According to Castaldo (2010), these crops occupied almost 100 million acreage of farmland in the United State, Argentina and Canada. Interestingly, this amount of land could be equated to the entire United Kingdom. If the crops planted thereon were meant for human consumption, then any reasonable person would definitely applaud the efforts of biotechnology industry. However, they were destined for the manufacture of animal feeds. As a result, Monsanto and its counterparts seemed not to have had the global hunger concept in mind (Thompson, 2007). From a different viewpoint, it is imaginable to assume that genetic engineering is a perfect solution to global hunger. Well, that is true to some extent. Through biotechnology for instance, it is possible to produce variety of food products under controlled conditions. This will counter the massive challenges of drought and adverse weather conditions. Besides, specific methods can be utilized to produce food crops and animals that can grow to maturity within months. With regard to that, biotechnology can appropriately match up the short rainy seasons and can also lead to double planting during the long rainy seasons. In addition, it offers a perfect solution to keep up with the pace of population growth (Abah, Wada & Ishaq, 2010). Another area where genetic engineering would be accredited is that of seed production. Biotechnology companies are able to engineer seeds which are less prone to pesticides and can withstand certain environmental changes as illustrated in the Monsanto’s frost-resistant strawberry. On the other hand, genetic engineering is a good platform of incorporating certain nutritional values in the staple foods of various populations as demonstrated with the ‘Golden Rice’ produced in 2000 (Tokar, 2001 p.34). Accordingly, the rice was genetically modified to produce beta-carotene which would eventually supplement vitamin A supply to meet the nutritional needs of children below five years of age. From a different perspective, the ideas propagated by Monsanto, Novartis and the British Astra-Zeneca biotechnology companies have sustained beef production through genetically engineered feeds (Castaldo, 2010). This has been one way of perceiving the whole agenda of Roundup Ready crops grown in large tracks of land in the US, Canada, Argentina and some parts of the United Kingdom. Thus, genetic engineering has formed the basis of protein supply by sustaining the beef production industry. In a recent article, some scientists suggested that meat can be produced in biotechnology laboratories in large scale through modification of certain animal genes that promote rapid proliferation under controlled conditions. This was however criticized on the basis of acceptable ethic (Thompson, 2007). Does GE improve Food Security? Despite the fact that large scale commercial genetic engineering has been in place for nearly two decades, it has not really addressed the hunger needs of the world. Primarily, a lot of debate has arisen as to the motive of biotechnology industry. Whereas the science is driven by positive desire to make the world a better place, Stanford (2007) suggests that much of genetic engineering science has been misused to settle commercial interests other than satisfying global needs for sustainable food security as subsequently discussed in hereafter. First and foremost, no one can evade the fact that climate change is a reality of the day caused by human activities. Secondly, it is evident that continued environmental degradation is already professing doom for the future generations as put forward by Turk and Bensel (2011). Therefore, the need to invest in appropriate technology that is environmentally friendly cannot be overlooked when the world is craving for sustainable solutions to global hunger problem. On the contrary, biotechnology proponents have since suggested genetic engineering as the best solution at hand (Cokinos, 2010). An in-depth look at the trails of present genetic engineering practices presents a rather indifferent opinion. To begin with, biotechnology industry has assured wide range production on canola, soybeans, corn and BXT cotton. In addition, some species of fast-growing potatoes and an array of spices have also been produced through genetic engineering for commercial market consumption (Castaldo, 2010). For that reason, it is important to acknowledge that biotechnology holds a great potential in meeting both domestic and commercial food demand. Secondly, genetic engineering makes it possible to plant crops that will easily survive in large field by simply application of only one type of herbicide. Therefore, the need to deploy manual labour in weeding and crop tendering is greatly reduced. This goes along the fact that most developing countries especially in Africa depend on manual labour in crop production. As a result, biotechnology envisions possible solutions to the ongoing tillage of small pieces of land, low food production and insufficient supply (Blum, Touhey & Liard, 2007). Whereas the idea sound good, critical analysis finds such proclamations to be misplaced and ethically unfounded due to the fact that most genetic engineered products are industrially controlled, patented and monopolized by about five companies worldwide. How does one expect a poor peasant in the middle of Sub-Saharan Africa to access expensive genetically engineered seeds most of which are supplied with conditional terms? For instance, Monsanto is the patented producer and sole supplier of Roundup ready crops for which the company demands a contract with the farmer to only depend on Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Stanford, 2007). It beats logic if at all the motive was endeared to address global hunger problem. Experience also tells us that modern genetic engineering companies are motivated by the financial prospects and not the escalating global hunger. Other than the golden rice, no biotechnology company has produced so far any crop that can easily be accessed by the poor small scale farmers. Moreover, all genetically modified products have either been intended for livestock consumption or disputed by human food control agencies. In any case, it takes about 10 calories of corn to produce one calorie of meat (Tokar, 2001). Therefore, the equation is not commensurate in answering global hunger needs. Another lens of concern is that genetic engineering can indeed address the issue of hunger if well tailored with precise safety properties. However, studies indicate that genetically modified crops can only grow in certain preconditioned soils with a lot of water needs and application of chemical herbicides. While the former property rules out the viability of biotechnology farming in marginal soils found in most parts of the world, the latter renders GE inapplicable in water scarce regions such as the hunger stricken Sub-Saharan Africa as affirmed by Turk and Bensel (2011). Similarly, genetically engineered crop farming require modern technology and use of heavy machinery with considerable amounts of fertilizer and other farm chemicals so as to produce substantial amounts of food. Furthermore, recent strategies deployed by genetic engineering companies have lead to the production of sterile seeds that cannot be saved for subsequent plantings. Conversely, studies show that over 80% of food crop farmers depend on saved-harvest seed. Thus, the ‘terminator seed’ technology renders the worst affected populations of small scale farmers vulnerable to commercial prospects of seed producing companies such as Monsanto and the rest (Tokar, 2001 p33). It is also imperative to take into account that genetic engineering does not improve yield in a practical situation. Research conducted by the University of Nebraska in 2000 revealed that the annual yield of genetically modified soybeans was less than the native conventional breeds by about 11%. The findings confirmed the observations of Professor Ed Oplinger of Wisconsin University in a cohort study spanning through 20 years. Oplinger’s research ascertained that genetically modified soybean produced an average yield of at least 4% less compared to native soy varieties in spite of the high cost input (Otero, 2008; Abah, Wada & Ishaq, 2010). From a different angle, current global hunger situation calls for rapid response, availability of freely accessible seeds and high-protein rich crops. Nonetheless, genetic engineering firms have revolved to patent their technology as well as monopolise unsustainable seed supply much of which is geared toward profit maximization as opposed to addressing the current hunger situation. According to Otero (2008, p74), “… most companies only work on crops that are deemed to have some commercial value with less consideration to nutritional qualities such as protein and energy-rich foods for human consumption”. If the industry is genuinely concerned about the need to alleviate hunger, it would develop cheaper and high-quality seeds which are not sterile and can be preserved for subsequent planting. Additionally, genetically engineered crops should be drought resistant with little water needs if they have to counter the encroaching impact of climate change (Turk & Bensel, 2011). Unfortunately, this is not the case. Genetic engineering has left a vast majority with no option but to continue in their own struggle to produce safer human foods with less environmental threats. Besides, adoption of biotechnology farming has posed a lot of threats to the ecosystem, human life, biodiversity and the environment at large (Thompson, 2007; Turk, & Bensel, 2011). For instance, the New Leaf Potato engineered by Monsanto can synthesise its own pesticide capable of killing aphids and beetles that feed on it (Robbins, 2007). If that is the case, how safe is the potato for human beings? In addition, the excessive use of herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup is both carcinogenic and environmental unfriendly. While the herbicide causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma cancer, it kills all perceived weeds and other living organisms in the soil most of which constitute the vital ecosystem (Thompson, 2007). To make matters worse, it is still debatable whether these genetically modified crops have been tested beyond any reasonable doubt to confirm that they are indeed safe as human food. In spite of scanty evidence pointing to the harmful effects of genetically modified foods, the risk is still out there. Thus, scientists of responsible genetics claim that it is more honourable to die of hunger than scientific food poisoning even if the impact will take years to show (Robbins, 2007). In the same light, genetic engineering favors large-scale farming which means that large tracks of land must be cleared to allow easy movement of machinery and pest control manoeuvres. That has resulted in advancement of deforestation, destruction of water catchment areas and impaired soil pH as reiterated by Turk and Bensel (2011). Particularly, the Glufosinate herbicide manufactured by AgrEvo was recently declared environmentally hazardous by EPA since the chemical has a prolonged residual time with strong capable of leaching into the underground water (Raney & Pingali, 2007). With these considerations, it is still uncertain that the benefits of genetic engineering would make life better, solve hunger needs and not worsen the already compromised environment. Conclusion Based on the facts presented, it is vivid that genetic engineering is a good science except that it is significantly biased in favour of commercial interest rather than human obligation to alleviate global hunger. Besides, the industry provides more evidence suggesting that genetic engineering is better placed to sustain animal feed production while debates till obscure its global acceptance as a viable solution to the production of human food. Whereas its implantation has threatened biodiversity and posed several uncertain health risks, current motives by patented companies are more inclined to controlling the food chain as opposed to improving food security. Therefore, genetic engineering is not an answer to ending global hunger. References Abah, J., Wada, C., & Ishaq, M. (2010). The role of biotechnology in ensuring food security and sustainable agriculture. African Journal of Biotechnology 9 (52), 8896-8900. Blum, P. Touhey, M., & Liard, L (2007). Is Biotechnology the Answer to Africa's Hunger Crisis? Retrieved February 28, 2012 from: Castaldo, J. (2010). The Future of Food: The DNA solution. Canadian Business, 83(4/5), 37-40. Cokinos, C. (2010). Prozac for the planet: Can geoengineering make the climate happy again. American Scholar, 79(4), 20-33. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com Otero, G. (2008). Food for the Few: Neoliberal globalism and the science of biotechnology in Latin America. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Raney, T., & Pingali, P. (2007). Sowing a Gene Revolution. Scientific American, 297(3), 104-111. Robbins, J. (2007). Food Devolution: Genetic engineering Part I. Retrieved February 28, 2012 from: < http://www.celsias.com/article/the-food-revolution-genetic-engineering-part-i/> Stanford, C. (2007). World Hunger: Current issues and debates on the viability of GMOs. 5th Edn. New York, NY: H Wilson Publishing Company. Thompson, P. (2007). Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Springer. Tokar, B. (2001). Redesigning Life: The worldwide challenge to genetic engineering. London: Zed Books. Turk, J., & Bensel, T. (2011). Contemporary Environmental Issues. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education. Read More