Supporters that encourage the advancement of Genetically Modified Organisms without limitations, would most likely agree with the analysis done by Sciencemag. Basically, this paper discusses a small case study done in India with cotton plants. It is very common for small farmers in developing countries to suffer a substantial crop loss because they lack the resources to combat pests and other possible hazards. When the farmers were given the genetically modified plants, their crop yield significantly increased because of how resistant the plants were due to modification. The farmers in this case study experienced greater growth in crop yield than large scale farmers in first world countries. Farmers who have large scale operations already have the resources to protect their plants more efficiently, thus explaining the outcome of this experiment. The total harvest of the two fields were proportional, however the growth of the third world country crop yield was much greater.
The proven success of genetically modified plants increasing the crop yield paves the way for solving major problems such as world hunger. The perfect example of this would be golden rice. Golden rice is a genetically modified plant that can be mass produced and fed to humans lacking vitamin A. Normal rice lacks β-carotene, which is what a human body uses to produce Vitamin A. Vitamin A is important because it helps develop the immune system. Without a developed immune system, the body has a hard time fighting off common and serious illnesses, alike. As of now, it costs about two million dollars to run a golden rice operation, which seems like an unimaginable enterprise for a poor country. Consequently, this steep cost is what causes most countries to opt out of growing it. Supporters hope that now that golden rice is approved and marketable, they can move on to the next step of making it more financially available, especially to third world countries.
Cost is a large worry for the supporters of genetically modified plants because of cases such as Monsanto corn. Monsanto corn is a GMO also created to be immune to pesticides. This allows farmers to spray an entire field of pesticides, instead of focusing on just one area. The pesticide they use is also created by Monsanto, giving the entire monopoly to this one company . To add onto this, farmers aren’t allowed to replant the corn they grow seeing as technically it is Monsanto’s patented product. This can cause huge legal and financial problems for farmers wanting to increase the crop yield by using genetically modified corn created by Monsanto. Not to mention, there are also potential health problems that surround this specific GMO. Unlike Golden Rice, this product was created simply so that it grows more effectively by being immune to the pesticides that the farmers use. Monsanto corn contains no more nutritional value than regular corn. There is evidence that Monsanto corn can actually cause health problems. In a study done with rats, fifty percent of males and seventy percent of females that ate these corn seeds with a resistance to roundup (a pesticide) had a shortened lifespan. To add onto this, the United States does not require companies to label their GMO products as such, but this can be changed on a state level. According to labelgmos.org only forty percent of the world have labels on their genetically modified foods. What is shocking is that two of the biggest countries, the United States and Canada, do not. The study with rats shows why researchers of genetically modified organisms would have differing opinions than humanitarians or nutritionists whose main goal is to develop new ways to feed the hungry and malnourished.
Researchers and developers from the biology field would prefer to take a more risk and benefit approach to genetically modified organisms. Springer has a paper that outlines how someone in this field would feel. In summary, the paper discusses why GMOs have not been fully explored and why there are still lingering questions. Some countries are jumping onto the bandwagon of genetically modified organisms in order to increase crop yield, while others are taking a more cautious route. The countries that are taking a slower path to legalizing GMO’s are weighing out all of their options, first. They are carefully searching for a scale to effectively analyze the risks and benefits of GMOs before making them accessible to the population. However, these “scales” were created long before genetically modified organisms, making them outdated and ineffective. Researchers are on a mission to create an entirely new risk analysis scale that will encompass all aspects of adequately judging GMOs. Some of the things the new scale takes into account is importance of impact, magnitude of change, sensitivity of the environment, and probability of impact on the environment. All of these are given numerical values are based on levels of severity. For example, importance of impact can go all the way to four, while probability of occurrence can only go up to one. This also gives the different categories weights to compare to each other because some categories are clearly far more important than others seeing as reversibility of impact is far more important than the probability of impact. All of these categories are taken into account while looking at information such as, location, biome, and possibility of effect on the biome. They tested their scale by applying it to a study case they conducted in South Africa. In South Africa they already had a GMO act that reviewed genetically modified organisms before allowing them to be raised and consequently sold into the markets- but they wanted to test the effectiveness. Researchers presented the South African Government with their analysis about the risks and benefits during a recent proposal of using genetically modified maize. They wanted to do this because South Africa had traditionally been against using anything that was genetically modified, not limited to plants. The researchers behind this paper are in favor of genetically modified organisms. They just want to make sure the right procedures are in place to protect the environment and the wild species that could potentially be harmed. The eventual goal for these researchers is for their system of evaluation to be implemented across the entire world.
These two disciplines are very complex in terms of relationship. They are both supportive of the use of GMOs, but their approach are completely opposite of each other. Humanitarians who are pushing for better nutrition for the hungry wouldn’t take the time and effort to create a risk analysis system like the researchers from Springer did. They have the best intentions when promoting the use of things such a golden rice, a GMO that has no known possible side effects. Researchers from Springer would never take such a bold approach. They push for the advancement of genetically modified organisms, but have other motivations than just solving world hunger, as well as different standards. Their motivations are mainly the advancement of genetically modified organisms, but with caution. By caution they mean putting a system of standards in place in order to create a universal way to weigh pros and cons of these GMOs. In a perfect world, there wouldn’t be a need for a system of evaluation for anything that is genetically modified, but nothing can be considered completely safe. Monsanto Corn is a prime example of why there needs to be a global risk and evaluation scale for genetically modified organisms. On the other hand, for the medical and nutritional field, golden rice is the perfect example of why someone wanting to combat malnourishment and hunger would push for the advancement of all genetically modified organisms.
The advancement of genetically modified organisms is important to both medical and biological research fields. With genetically modified organisms growing exponentially, there will be massive breakthroughs. These, however, have and will come with many risks. Humanitarians pushing for a cure for worldwide hunger may be blinded with the success of genetically modified plants and other organisms in third world countries. At the same time biologist want to develop GMO’s. The difference, however, is that they want to take a much different approach to it. They want to know for sure that the benefits far outweigh the potential hazards of what could go wrong.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete