Genetically modified organisms, also known as GMO’s are a paradox humans have been working with for centuries. However, it has only become a major issue recently because scientists have developed the technology to modify genes directly instead of spending a lifetime performing natural crosses. Humans have modified plant genes in order to develop crops best suited for food, fiber, feed, and energy production but have been producing these products much slower, but “agricultural biotechnology can employ modern genetic engineering to reduce uncertainty and breeding time and to transfer traits from more distantly related plants” ( Barrows et al. 99). On one side, critics express concerns that the technology imposes negative environmental effects and jeopardizes the health of those who consume these modified foods. On the other side, supporters note the potential gains from boosting output and lowering food prices for consumers. These gains also include lessoning agrochemical usage and soil erosion. These arguments have hardly changed since the 1980’s when the first generation of GMO’s were created, but GMO’s have become rapidly adopted in agricultural innovation.
In the 21st century, Agriculture is challenged to feed, clothe, and fuel the world population which is growing in size and wealth. The first generation of agricultural biotechnology introduced insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant traits to corn, cotton, and soybeans. These crops were designed to produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is toxic to common agricultural pests, but harmless to humans and the environment. The herbicide-tolerant crops were designed to express a tolerance to glyphosates, which is a low-toxicity herbicide that includes Roundup, a common Monsanto product. If farmers were to choose not to use herbicide-tolerant varieties, then they must rely on controlling weeds by repeatedly tilling the soil which could lead to erosion or apply more toxic chemicals that target weeds without affecting the crops.
By 2010, the majority of genetically engineered crop area was concentrated to the United States, Brazil, Argentina, India, China and Canada (Barrows et al. 101). With the ability to use GMO’s, farmers can practice double cropping. Double cropping is when farmers produce two crops per growing season instead of just one. They are able to do so because the GMO plants are able to control the weeds after the crop has emerged from the ground. Double cropping reflects increased annual productivity for a given plot of land, enabling increased agricultural output without increasing the footprint of agriculture ( Barrow et al. 102). Genetically engineered seeds also increase crop yields especially in places with high pest pressure and little access to alternative damage control--mainly developing countries. However, this can be viewed positively or negatively.
Critics claim that biotech industries are not producing the results they are saying GMOs would do. For example it is stated, “ Despite biotech industry promises, there is no evidence that any of the GMOs currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.”(GMOWebsite). This is a major issue because a major argument for the use of GMO is to increase our crop production and to be more sustainable for the growing of our populations. If the industries can not produce what they are promising, then essentially we are altering organisms for no reasons. This is becoming a major concern for many organizations who believe genetically modifying organisms is morally wrong.
Developing countries will have increased produce therefore consumers will have more access to these crops. However, in developed countries like the United States, increased yield leads to lower prices for the consumer, but will ultimately hurt farmers. “The share of overall gains accruing to farmers is estimated to be between 5-40 percent. Seed developers capture between 10 to 70 percent of the benefits, and the share of benefits flowing to US consumers is estimated to be between 6 and 60 percent. Consumers in the rest of the world capture 6-30 percent of total benefit” (Barrows et al 106).
Critics are also concerned about the adverse impacts GMO’s could have on ecosystems and environmental quality. These qualms include risks of gene flow to non-GMO plants, loss of agricultural biodiversity and pesticide resistance buildup. For instance, what if “le, a gene that makes a certain crop heartier might spread to a related weed species and make that weed more invasive” (Barrow et al. 107). Organic farmers are especially worried about this because accidental transfer means jeopardizing their ability to partake in the organic market. Thankfully, there are no weedy relatives of corn and soybeans in the United States. In areas where wild cotton populations exist, production of GMO cotton is forbidden to prevent gene flow in the United States. However, it has been reported that herbicide tolerant traits have spread to wild relatives (Barrow et al. 108).
Upon analyzing the many positive and negative issues with the use of GMOs, we must take a look at the consequential approach to the use of these organisms. Using a consequential approach we must access all of the positives and negatives, and then choose whether they produce a morally right decision for the greater good of society. The use of GMOs has increased crops yield, lowered the cost of produce for consumers, and led to ridding the use of over overtilling and toxic pesticides being used. These positives alone have helped society immensely by making agriculture products more accessible and affordable to thousandse in developing countries and lower income families. As far as the negatives, some GMOs have not produced the results they have promised and, also, affecting gene flow in which could hurt farmers and ecosystems who want to remain organic. On top of these issues, they can eventually have the adverse side effect of pesticide resistance causing more use of GMOs or alternative ways. Overall, looking at the consequential approach, it would be morally right to use the GMOs because it helps so many individuals and leads to a more sustainable approach for our future. Many humans and farmers with livestock, will be able to afford feed their families and livestock. This is an issue in today’s society, so being able to combat this issue is morally right for society
rojv0q
GMO.docx
0
