“Beggars can’t be choosers.” This is one of the many attitudes of Americans in regards to starving nations and Genetically Modified Oragnisms (GMOs). It was said by an unnamed and unsaid spokesman when the U.S. tried to force food aid on India. This is the outlook that is making the U.S. and other economically strong nations become diplomatic terrorists. Though this is only one view, and no doubt an extreme out of many regarding GMOs, it is a common idea that GMOs are the best solution to the problem of famine in third world nations. Providing food that could potentially do more harm than good, and that nations do not want to begin with, is unjustified. Current GMOs are not the solution to the problem of famine in third world nations because of poor regulation and distrust of them.
Genetically engineered foods are organisms in which the DNA has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. It is also the process by which desirable genes from one organism are inserted into another. One example of this is the transfer of the gene that keeps fish from getting cold into a potato to keep it from dying in the winter. Undoubtedly, this process is extremely controversial and raises some moral and ethical questions. But this paper is not designed to delve into the ethics of GMOs, rather to discuss why they should not be distributed to other nations.
In his article Regulation Must Be Revolutionized, Ingo Potrykus argues that over regulation is preventing miraculous GMOs, such as golden rice, from saving millions of starving children. Potrykus chairs the Golden Rice Humanitarian Project and is one of the co-inventors of golden rice. Golden rice is a genetically engineered rice which contains 35 micrograms of vitamin A per grain. This rice, Potrykus claims, could prevent the death of 6,000 per day suffering from vitamin A deficiency, as well as save the sight of several hundred thousand people per year. He believes discrimination the rice receives is scientifically unjustified and that genetically engineered crops, on the whole, are benign (Potrykus).
Introducing Western technologically in which some crops become resistant to antibiotics, into already unstable environments without a strong form of health care is not a good idea. GMOs pose threats to nations where people are already sick with diseases such has HIV/Aids, deficient immune systems, widespread bacterial diseases, and outdated antibiotics. Next, these new crops come with a whole list of risks associated with them, which Potrykus fails to mention in his argument. They include, but are not limited to, causing toxins and allergens in foods, effects associated with unnatural foods, contamination of the already existing water and food supply, creation of resistant weeds, the potential outbreak of diseases such as Mad Cow Disease, the loss of biodiversity within crops, a disturbance in the ecological balance, and lingering side-effects which are passed down from generation to generation. Moreover, scientifically proven facts point to the following about created toxins in foods: the introduced gene may act differently upon the host gene than what was originally expected, the host’s genetic intelligence will be disrupted, the interaction between the introduced gene and the host gene are unpredictable, and therefore there is no way of knowing the overall effect of GMOs on people who consume them.
So why do we think that GMOs will solve the problem of hunger? In reality, they are causing a second problem that may be worse than the original! One article argues the risks associated with GMOs are overstated, and that researchers are taking the utmost precaution in their production. Though it may be true that researchers are careful, it does not change the fact that the effects of these foods on those who are eating them, are unknown and have been researched to be harmful. Besides just the physical risks associated, ethical risks come with the introduction of GMOs to poorer countries. For example, maize syrup versus sugar cane syrup. Maize is now used to produce syrup for soft drinks and other sweeteners. The maize syrup replaces traditional sweeteners that come from sugar cane. The end result is sugar farmers being put out of business which only further devastates the economy. Essentially, we are giving countries an even bigger problem as our solution to their problem, and people pick up on this.
Not only are GMOs an unsafe solution for third world nations, these nations don’t want anything to do with them. A recent article divulged the truth that many of these nations face hardships in rejecting GMOs that the U.S. and other economically strong countries force on them. Just a few of the many countries include: Sri Lanka, Mexico, Thailand, China, the Philippines, and India. On the 1st of May 2000, Sri Lanka banned the imports of GMOs due to the untested nature of them. Upon the discovery of imported chocolates, soups, and oils found to contain GMOs, the government renewed the ban one year later. The U.S. used the World Trade Organization to threaten sanctions tend days later. The president of Sri Lanka sent a strongly-worded letter to President Bush demanding they stop exporting. Peasants started rebelling and many letters were sent to the U.S. by groups asking them to stop. Their pleas were ignored and Sri Lanka surrendered to threats by the U.S. In November 2000, Mexico’s senate unanimously passed a law for GMO labeling on foods. Three months later, the U.S. had already started imposing threats via the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. Thailand, China, and the Phillipines have all experienced the same types of threats from the U.S. government, especially in the early part of the second millennium. Clearly, these nations are intelligent and know they do not want aid from the U.S. in terms of GMOs. The real question will be, are we intelligent enough to listen?
Untested and potentially dangerous GMOs should not be exported to third world nations. Ingo Potrykus, along with others argue that genetically modified rice and other crops will solve the problem of world famine. The reality is, they have not been helping, and these nations want nothing to do with them. In time, GMOs could become a safe and reliable option for distribution. However, many of the problems associated with GMOs must be worked out and approved by the nations receiving them, before the mass dispersal of this unnatural phenomenon.
Genetically engineered foods are organisms in which the DNA has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. It is also the process by which desirable genes from one organism are inserted into another. One example of this is the transfer of the gene that keeps fish from getting cold into a potato to keep it from dying in the winter. Undoubtedly, this process is extremely controversial and raises some moral and ethical questions. But this paper is not designed to delve into the ethics of GMOs, rather to discuss why they should not be distributed to other nations.
In his article Regulation Must Be Revolutionized, Ingo Potrykus argues that over regulation is preventing miraculous GMOs, such as golden rice, from saving millions of starving children. Potrykus chairs the Golden Rice Humanitarian Project and is one of the co-inventors of golden rice. Golden rice is a genetically engineered rice which contains 35 micrograms of vitamin A per grain. This rice, Potrykus claims, could prevent the death of 6,000 per day suffering from vitamin A deficiency, as well as save the sight of several hundred thousand people per year. He believes discrimination the rice receives is scientifically unjustified and that genetically engineered crops, on the whole, are benign (Potrykus).
Introducing Western technologically in which some crops become resistant to antibiotics, into already unstable environments without a strong form of health care is not a good idea. GMOs pose threats to nations where people are already sick with diseases such has HIV/Aids, deficient immune systems, widespread bacterial diseases, and outdated antibiotics. Next, these new crops come with a whole list of risks associated with them, which Potrykus fails to mention in his argument. They include, but are not limited to, causing toxins and allergens in foods, effects associated with unnatural foods, contamination of the already existing water and food supply, creation of resistant weeds, the potential outbreak of diseases such as Mad Cow Disease, the loss of biodiversity within crops, a disturbance in the ecological balance, and lingering side-effects which are passed down from generation to generation. Moreover, scientifically proven facts point to the following about created toxins in foods: the introduced gene may act differently upon the host gene than what was originally expected, the host’s genetic intelligence will be disrupted, the interaction between the introduced gene and the host gene are unpredictable, and therefore there is no way of knowing the overall effect of GMOs on people who consume them.
So why do we think that GMOs will solve the problem of hunger? In reality, they are causing a second problem that may be worse than the original! One article argues the risks associated with GMOs are overstated, and that researchers are taking the utmost precaution in their production. Though it may be true that researchers are careful, it does not change the fact that the effects of these foods on those who are eating them, are unknown and have been researched to be harmful. Besides just the physical risks associated, ethical risks come with the introduction of GMOs to poorer countries. For example, maize syrup versus sugar cane syrup. Maize is now used to produce syrup for soft drinks and other sweeteners. The maize syrup replaces traditional sweeteners that come from sugar cane. The end result is sugar farmers being put out of business which only further devastates the economy. Essentially, we are giving countries an even bigger problem as our solution to their problem, and people pick up on this.
Not only are GMOs an unsafe solution for third world nations, these nations don’t want anything to do with them. A recent article divulged the truth that many of these nations face hardships in rejecting GMOs that the U.S. and other economically strong countries force on them. Just a few of the many countries include: Sri Lanka, Mexico, Thailand, China, the Philippines, and India. On the 1st of May 2000, Sri Lanka banned the imports of GMOs due to the untested nature of them. Upon the discovery of imported chocolates, soups, and oils found to contain GMOs, the government renewed the ban one year later. The U.S. used the World Trade Organization to threaten sanctions tend days later. The president of Sri Lanka sent a strongly-worded letter to President Bush demanding they stop exporting. Peasants started rebelling and many letters were sent to the U.S. by groups asking them to stop. Their pleas were ignored and Sri Lanka surrendered to threats by the U.S. In November 2000, Mexico’s senate unanimously passed a law for GMO labeling on foods. Three months later, the U.S. had already started imposing threats via the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. Thailand, China, and the Phillipines have all experienced the same types of threats from the U.S. government, especially in the early part of the second millennium. Clearly, these nations are intelligent and know they do not want aid from the U.S. in terms of GMOs. The real question will be, are we intelligent enough to listen?
Untested and potentially dangerous GMOs should not be exported to third world nations. Ingo Potrykus, along with others argue that genetically modified rice and other crops will solve the problem of world famine. The reality is, they have not been helping, and these nations want nothing to do with them. In time, GMOs could become a safe and reliable option for distribution. However, many of the problems associated with GMOs must be worked out and approved by the nations receiving them, before the mass dispersal of this unnatural phenomenon.
"New Type of Rice to Help Third World Countries." GMO Food for Thought. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2005/07/new_type_of_rice_to_help_third.html>.
Potrykus, Ingo. "Access : Regulation Must Be Revolutionized : Nature." Nature Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. 28 July 2010. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html>.
Rangarirai, By. "GMOs A Bomb Waiting to Explode - SEATINI." SEATINI Website STRENGTHENING AFRICA IN WORLD TRADE. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.seatini.org/publications/factsheets/gmo.htm>.
"Say No To GMOs! - Global South 2." Say No To GMOs! - Getting Started. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.saynotogmos.org/global_south2.htm>.
"WHO | 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods." Web. 29 Sept. 2010. <http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment