When faced with the term Genetically Engineered Food what comes to mind? As a person who has been told on more than one occasion that I let my imagination have too long of a leash, I first envisioned a monstrous battalion of Franken-food that would viciously terrorize a small farm town. Since this introduction to the subject, I have shed my B-movie logic and am now a great deal more educated in the actual qualifications for a food to be considered genetically modified. Most modifications to crops take place on a microscopic level, and involve the alteration of usually only a few genes. This process has garnered varying arrays of reactions from across the public spectrum. Much in favor of the further development of genetically modified crops, or GMCs, is writer Ingo Potryus who maintains that if freed from excessive regulation, GMCs could save millions from starvation. Opposing arguments from Paul Roberts however strongly maintain that GMCs are not ready to save the world and that more lenient restrictions will not change that issue.
In his article Regulation Must Be Revolutionized, Ingo Potryus states his firm belief that unjustified laws are crippling GMC production and has in turn kept thousands of people from using GMCs to prevent malnutrition worldwide. His outrage centers on the length of time that many GMC’s are stalled from distribution to the consumer market, which is generally years longer than the unmodified counterpart. Yet many feel that this extra amount of testing truly needs to be done on these new altered crops. Paul Roberts presents his counter to Potryus’ accusation in his article Food Fight by high-lighting how GMCs are far from being “world saving” and that easier laws on GMC production would not change the current drawbacks of the concept. Roberts seems to challenge Potryus’s high touting of the GMC named “golden rice” in saying that the major producers of GMCs are not even focusing on the nutrition-fortified rice, or any crop that is relevant to food security. Even as both authors have probably never read the others pieces in many points they seem to be taking stances against one another’s points. The advantages of GMCs are certainly impressive as they have the ability to “increase yield by protecting…crops from pests and diseases” (Potryus, 2 of 3), and can fortify normally deficient foods with vitamins. However, it is also known that the corporations that report the largest GMC production numbers are not benefitting from better or more revolutionary seeds; they are simply using better soils, fertilizers and overall harvesting practices. These are factors not influenced by genetics and that could cause elevated production in regular crops as well.
Further both articles address the topic of money. The fact that roughly ten times the amount of money is spent testing altered crops than non-modified foods infuriates Potryus as he reasons that it would be much wiser for funding to be spent on directly feeding the malnourished than on repetitive testing on hypothesized risks. The tests seem to be simply presenting hoops for the GMC producer to jump through as no substantial cases have shown harm to the environment or human through the altered crops. While these cases have not shown pertinent harm, Roberts argues that they have not been followed through a long term period as GMCs as a whole are relatively new in the scientific community. It is also pressed that if large GM companies can use the promise of a solution to the food crisis to garner acceptance and legal flexibility, they will readily exploit this loophole. If granted the desired freedom, GM companies are very likely to quickly ditch the appropriate regional crops, such as cassava and chickpeas, “to keep making the same big-money cash crops they always have”(Roberts, 5 of 5).
In the end I believe that both writers passionately believe in their cause, and that their concern is evident in their work. While they clash on almost every subject their care for the poor, rather monopolized, farmers may be a link of unity. But that unity ends where Potrykus believes looser regulations would allow the regional farmers to more easily obtain the valuable GMC seeds, as Roberts believes the loosening would just allow the already giant GM corporations to further grip seeds as their property. I must say that after reading both opinions with an open mind, that I for one stand beside Mr. Roberts. His argument seemed to hold more grounded reasoning and less of a bias than that of Mr. Potrykus, who is the head of a Golden Rice board. So give it a thought the next time you set down to a mountainous plate of food at the cafeteria (Don’t pretend it isn’t mountainous, I am a college student too!). Would you change your mind about that scrumptious pilaf or gooey cookie if you knew that the rice or flour that went into making it had been genetically altered?
*Cue Twilight Zone music*
In his article Regulation Must Be Revolutionized, Ingo Potryus states his firm belief that unjustified laws are crippling GMC production and has in turn kept thousands of people from using GMCs to prevent malnutrition worldwide. His outrage centers on the length of time that many GMC’s are stalled from distribution to the consumer market, which is generally years longer than the unmodified counterpart. Yet many feel that this extra amount of testing truly needs to be done on these new altered crops. Paul Roberts presents his counter to Potryus’ accusation in his article Food Fight by high-lighting how GMCs are far from being “world saving” and that easier laws on GMC production would not change the current drawbacks of the concept. Roberts seems to challenge Potryus’s high touting of the GMC named “golden rice” in saying that the major producers of GMCs are not even focusing on the nutrition-fortified rice, or any crop that is relevant to food security. Even as both authors have probably never read the others pieces in many points they seem to be taking stances against one another’s points. The advantages of GMCs are certainly impressive as they have the ability to “increase yield by protecting…crops from pests and diseases” (Potryus, 2 of 3), and can fortify normally deficient foods with vitamins. However, it is also known that the corporations that report the largest GMC production numbers are not benefitting from better or more revolutionary seeds; they are simply using better soils, fertilizers and overall harvesting practices. These are factors not influenced by genetics and that could cause elevated production in regular crops as well.
Further both articles address the topic of money. The fact that roughly ten times the amount of money is spent testing altered crops than non-modified foods infuriates Potryus as he reasons that it would be much wiser for funding to be spent on directly feeding the malnourished than on repetitive testing on hypothesized risks. The tests seem to be simply presenting hoops for the GMC producer to jump through as no substantial cases have shown harm to the environment or human through the altered crops. While these cases have not shown pertinent harm, Roberts argues that they have not been followed through a long term period as GMCs as a whole are relatively new in the scientific community. It is also pressed that if large GM companies can use the promise of a solution to the food crisis to garner acceptance and legal flexibility, they will readily exploit this loophole. If granted the desired freedom, GM companies are very likely to quickly ditch the appropriate regional crops, such as cassava and chickpeas, “to keep making the same big-money cash crops they always have”(Roberts, 5 of 5).
In the end I believe that both writers passionately believe in their cause, and that their concern is evident in their work. While they clash on almost every subject their care for the poor, rather monopolized, farmers may be a link of unity. But that unity ends where Potrykus believes looser regulations would allow the regional farmers to more easily obtain the valuable GMC seeds, as Roberts believes the loosening would just allow the already giant GM corporations to further grip seeds as their property. I must say that after reading both opinions with an open mind, that I for one stand beside Mr. Roberts. His argument seemed to hold more grounded reasoning and less of a bias than that of Mr. Potrykus, who is the head of a Golden Rice board. So give it a thought the next time you set down to a mountainous plate of food at the cafeteria (Don’t pretend it isn’t mountainous, I am a college student too!). Would you change your mind about that scrumptious pilaf or gooey cookie if you knew that the rice or flour that went into making it had been genetically altered?
*Cue Twilight Zone music*
Happy eating!!
Potrykus, Ingo. "Regulation Must Be Revolutionized." Nature 466. (2010): 561-562. Web. 6 Sep 2010.
Roberts, Paul. "Food Fight." Slate. Washington Post Interactive, 08 Aug 2008. Web. 6 Sep 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment