Genetically-Modified Food: Many Drawbacks, Benefits Uncertain

A frighteningly large percentage of corn and soybeans grown in the US today is genetically modified – a fact that escapes much of the populace. GM foods have been on the market in America since the “FlavrSavr” tomato was released in 1994. Created by a company called Calgene, it was generally thought to be bad tasting and was eventually removed from store shelves. 1 However since that time, genetic engineering of our foodstuff has continued on, unabated. When I speak of genetically modified foods, I mean to say food that has had its genetic makeup altered intentionally to bring out a beneficial attribute.

Today’s star GM crops are Monsanto’s “Roundup ready” soybeans and “Bt” corn, which make up 80% and 40% of their respective markets. What distinguishes these two crops as ‘genetically modified’ is what Monsanto has done to them – in the case of the soybeans, made them resistant to the herbicide Roundup. This allows the farmer to only spray Roundup, killing the weeds and not the crop. The Bt corn has a toxin, Bacillus thuringiensis, in it to ward off pests. 1

At face value, the benefits of using genetic engineering on our crops seem to outweigh any negatives. The proponents of GM foods say that it allows us to grow more food on less land with less pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers – indeed, less effort all around. They say that genetically modified foods will feed the burgeoning global population and lead to more environmentally-friendly farming, in previously inhospitable conditions. The case for GM crops has been overstated, however.

Jonathan Rauch in his essay entitled “Can Frankenfood Save the Planet” makes the case for genetically-modified foods. His first argument involves the fact that some in the US who now grow GM crops have been able to do away with ploughing their fields altogether. The benefits of no-tilling farming are varied: it lessens soil erosion and runoff, which means less pesticides and herbicides seeping off of the field; it allows the soil ecosystem to remain fully developed, with worms and benign insects and strong root systems; it is simpler for the farmer and ultimately more cost efficient; in sum it’s a less-invasive way to farm, with a multitude of benefits. 2 These benefits are real and rather indisputable. However the topic of my paper is not on no-till farming, it’s on GM foods. And it’s disingenuous to give GM foods the credit for any of this. One can just as readily employ no-till farming techniques with ordinary crops.

Another benefit of genetically modified foods, or so the story goes, is that we are able to make them hardier and more resistant to disease and pests. This in turn should result in a decrease in the use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. However this is oftentimes not the case. In fact, a US Department of Agriculture study found rising usage of herbicides and pesticides with GM crops. Comparing Roundup Ready soybeans to conventional soybean crops found that more herbicide per acre was used on the Roundup Ready crops. And the amount needed is rising every year as weeds move and become more resistant. Roundup Ready corn is also sprayed more. And the use of pesticides on Bt-corn has increased, not decreased as proponents claimed. 3 Thus, although counter-intuitive, it seems that GM crops which purport to thrive with fewer pesticides and herbicides actually require more.

Another purported benefit of GM crops is increased yield. However all indicators seem to point to the contrary. A US Department of Agriculture report released in 2002 concluded that the net yields of herbicide-tolerant soya bean were the same as the conventional soya crops – and the net yields of pesticide-resistant corn were actually substantially lower than their non-GM counterparts. And some genetically-engineered products are much weaker, reducing yields even further. Genetically-modified soya bean is more brittle than conventional soya – which means that it fairs even worse in unexpected heat waves. 4

Jonathan Rauch also trumpets genetically modified food because he believes it is the answer to feeding the worlds population as it continues to dramatically increase. However this is an overly simplistic view. Even if GM foods had substantially higher yields than conventional crops, it would still not solve the problem of global hunger. We already produce enough food for the worlds population. The reason people still go hungry is politics and economics, not agriculture. One could contend that by putting high yield GM crops in impoverished nations, that they would be able to begin to sustain themselves, even in poor growing conditions. But is it realistic to expect large conglomerates like Monsanto to donate their stocks out of the goodness of their heart? These nations largely cannot afford GM seeds. US farmers pay on average of 40% more for GM seeds than conventional seeds. It seems to be largely a matter of convenience, which is something that the third world can’t afford.

Genetically-modified crops also have many drawbacks that the proponents of GM seem to largely ignore. Introducing GM crops into a country oftentimes contaminates the entire system. The pollen and seeds of a GM crop can be dispersed far and wide, meaning non-GM fields are contaminated – regardless of so-called “buffer zones” which are meant to separate GM and non-GM crops. Further along the process, GM and non-GM foods are oftentimes processed together, even unintentionally.

Cross contamination leads me to my next point, which is possible allergic reactions to the genetically-modified food. This was showcased when “Starlink” corn was found in taco shells across America. The USDA had approved Starlink corn for only livestock consumption because of the real possibility that some humans might be allergic to a certain protein in the GM corn. To adequately make sure that GM food does not mix with non-GM food would be incredibly costly under the current system. And if there are allergic reactions to a genetically-engineered crop, it would be nearly impossible to find the culprit. Not only does it take a long period of time to identify new allergens in the food supply, but it is also difficult to track down where a certain foodstuff came from.

Genetically-modifying foods also lowers genetic diversity among those crops. This opens the door to widespread crop failures. Genetically-modified foods are not an end all solution, especially when it comes to weeds and pests. Both will eventually adapt to the GM crops, leading to even hardier, more resistant foes. The World Bank estimates that insects can adapt to Bt within a year or two. 4 This will start us on a path of continually re-engineering our crops, which will compound all of the problems I’ve already noted.

Ultimately, the core benefits of genetically-modified foods have been discredited. Yields are not greater, pesticide and herbicide use is not lower. At the same time, the dangers of GM foods, like food allergies, increasingly hardier weeds and pests and lower genetic diversity have remained large concerns. Genetic engineering could very well be a viable solution for many of our food problems. However it is being done entirely wrong. Research into genetically-modified foods should be done with the strictest of government oversight. Research into salt-resistant plants and other solutions to poor growing conditions should trump extraneous pesticide- and herbicide-resistant endeavors, which have been proven ineffective. Finally, the utmost care should be taken when GM foods are finally introduced into the market, to closely monitor where they go and where they end up. This is the only way we can both make sure that allergens are found early, and that those who choose not to, don’t have to consume genetically-modified food. Finally, to this end, we need to clearly label food indicating whether or not its ingredients have been genetically-modified. Haphazardly releasing GM food into the market as we have done thus far is a dangerous game – we need to be more careful when the stakes are so high.

———

Works Cited

1. “Genetically Modified Food.” Wikipedia. 3/24/2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food (4/03/2005)
2. Rauch, Jonathan. “Can Frankenfoon Save the Planet?” Environmental Ethics: 4th Edition Canada: Thompson / Wadsworth. 442-448
3. “Monsanto’s Bogus Claims on Benefits of GE Soybeans.” Organic Consumers Association. 07/13/2003. http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/monsanto_soybeans.cfm (4/03/2005)
4. “Five Reasons to Keep Britain GM-free.” The Ecologist. http://www.theecologist.org/article.html?article=432 (03/24/2005)