Food shopping is somewhat more inconvenient and particularly more expensive for those who opt for organic food over conventionally-grown foods (grown using pesticides). For those who don’t demand organic, they are advised to at least wash their produce thoroughly before eating to prevent ingestion of the pesticides on the surface of the food. It is unknown whether ingesting pesticides from food is dangerous in the long-term, but it is known that their application during growing can cause damage to both the environment and workers. The question for many of those who cannot afford organic comes down to this: Is there another way? Can food grown safely and environmentally-friendly also be plentiful and affordable?
Biotechnology, an area of science that uses natural processes found in living organisms in innovative ways, seeks to make more options available not only to relatively wealthy consumers in first-world countries, but also to the hungriest, poorest people in third-world countries. What changes in the food-growing process can biotechnology implement to increase the affordability of food? One of biotechnology’s major innovations is the process of genetic engineering. Developed in the 1970s, genetic engineering is the process of locating useful genes in one organism, such as a species of bacteria, and inserting these genes into other organisms that do not have them naturally to transform their biological activity. A gene that has been added to a new organism in such a way is called a transgene, and an organism that has been genetically engineered is called a genetically modified organism (GMO). Agricultural biotechnology is one of the most significant applications of genetic engineering, in which crops grown for mass consumption, such as soy, maize, cotton, and rice, are genetically modified (GM) to exhibit traits that are agriculturally useful. Such traits include the ability to resist the relatively safe and environmentally-friendly herbicide Roundup®, produce toxins that act as insecticides to harmful insect pests, and produce vitamin A.
Another GM crop that can be extremely beneficial to human health is Golden Rice, still under development. In Golden Rice, the b-carotene metabolic pathway is altered to cause the rice to produce vitamin A, which is frequently deficient in the populations of many poor countries. Vitamin A deficiency leads to blindness and sometimes even death, so its intake is essential. Decreased use of harmful herbicides, decreased pesticide use, a reduction in the number of people suffering from vitamin A deficiency, and the promise of many more possibilities to come— all of these biotechnological innovations sound great, right.
Maybe. Since GM crops are relatively new and their commercial cultivation only began in the mid-1990, there is much concern and skepticism over unknown consequences, especially on humans. Some of the questions that plague researchers include whether GM crops have sufficient nutritional quality and are truly safe to consume. Scientists also wonder whether Roundup® is indeed safer than other herbicides and if insect-resistant crops may unintentionally harm unintended populations of species. Most importantly, there is a possibility that GM crops can hybridize uncontrollably with wild-type varieties to form invincible “super weeds” which can lead to the production of “super bugs”, thus altering species and potentially the delicate ecological balance.
War wages in the scientific community among those studying GMOs. While most research has found little cause for concern, some studies have shown GM crops to have negative effects on species that consume them or on the environment around them. Some long-term or multi-generational studies have shown differences between animals fed GM crops and those not fed GM crops and include differences in cell morphology, biochemical composition and activity, nutritional consumption, and organ size. Other studies demonstrated harmful effects on non-target insects by insect-resistant GM crops. Due to these serious concerns about the side effects of GM crops, more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and most European countries, place significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on scientific studies, many of which are conducted by the corporations that created GMOS and profit from their sale. Furthermore, in the U.S. as much as 80% of conventional processed foods contain GMOs. Therefore, Americans are becoming cautious about the consumption of GMOs and petitioning for mandatory labeling, and stronger regulations.
Most scientists seem to be in favor of GM produce, finding scientifically insignificant differences between the nutritional quality and toxicology of GM versus non-GM crops. Overall, these studies have been widely criticized by the scientific community as having faulty methodology not up to industry standards, and proponents of GM products feel that it is unfair to stigmatize them when they can be a tremendous force for good, based on a few poor studies. On the other hand, are the voices of those researchers who may have found genuine concerns being silenced due to the biases of most scientists? Or rather, the biases of the billion dollar companies, like Monsanto, which finance GM produce.
One reason that agricultural biotechnology stirs up so much controversy is that nature as we know it will never be the same. Hybridization of GM plants with non-GM plants cannot truly be controlled, and as a result, transgenes will continue to increase and spread. In 30 years, we may find ourselves living on an alien planet, a planet whose fruits and vegetables are so unrecognizable, it almost seems unnatural.