|
|
Genetically Modified Crops
Taisia Karaseva
Humans have always tried to improve things. We domesticated wolves and plants, breeding the ones we liked, to make them better. Now we found a way to do it faster and more accurately: through genetic modification. Genetically modified crops are better for wildlife, for you, and for the poor around the world than unmodified crops. Accepting them and supporting further research would improve the planet.
Many people don't think that biotechnology has an impact on their life. However, over 65 million acres are planted each year in the US alone, according to Time Magazine. By 2001, 75% of crops in the US were genetically modified. According to Time, over 80% of soybeans, 68% of cotton, and 26% of corn is modified, along with over 40 other plant varieties.
People who oppose genetic modification say that these crops are bad for wildlife, being something not found in nature. In fact, they are more eco-friendly than unmodified crops. Since these crops can produce more food on the same amount of land, the extra land can be given to conservation. And since they produce sterile seeds, they can't spread and overtake the environment. Also, because these plants are resistant to many diseases and bacteria, they can be sprayed with 40% less herbicides and 80% less insecticides, which also cuts harmful emissions made during the making of these chemicals, according to the book Genetics and Genetic Engineering. Further research can reduce spraying to zero. Since pesticides kill both pests and good native insects, modified crops in essence save natural life. The US Environmental Protection Agency concluded that birds, fish, honeybees, and ladybugs are not harmed by genetically modified fields. In fact, the population of monarch butterflies started increasing when more genetically modified corn was planted. Destroying wildlife when there is a way to protect it is immoral. Modified crops protect it without drawbacks to us, so expanding this technology is crucial.
Those against genetic modification also claim that these crops are bad for human health. They point to Dr Arpad Pusztai's famous experiment, where he fed lab rats a certain brand of modified potato and observed a few bad side-effects. Protestors fail to mention that over half the rats were starving by the middle of the experiment because rats to not like raw potatoes. Plus, no one can reproduce his results. Even if the particular potatoes were bad, labeling all modified food unhealthy is unfair. If modified crops were bad, most of us would be dead by now. Nearly 1 billion people have been eating genetically modified food for over 10 years, according to the Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. The National Research Council panel, which studied the effects of modified plants, said in At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering that "over 30 million hectares of transgenic crops have been grown and no human health problems associated specifically with the ingestion of transgenic crops or their products have been identified. Genetic engineering poses no more risks to human health or to the natural environment than does conventional plant breeding" (from Gale). Since modified crops must pass stricter government regulation, they are actually safer to eat. They are routinely checked for allergies and other harmful effects, while conventional crops are not. Martina McGloughlin, a biologist at the University of California at Davis, said at the June 2000 Congressional Hunger Center seminar, and quoted in At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, that the "genetically modified foods on our plates have been put through more thorough testing than conventional food ever has been subjected to. No product of conventional plant breeding could meet the data requirements imposed on biotechnology" (from Gale). If you want to risk your health eating unregulated crops, go ahead, but I would rather eat what passed high quality standards and is sure to be safe.
Lastly, opponents of modified food say that there is already enough food production. After all, you don't see the US or Europe starving. They are right, only the food is in the wrong place. As we speak, 800 million people around the world are undernourished, according to Time. Over 400 million women of childbearing age don't eat enough iron, causing birth defects. In Asia, 100 million children don't get enough vitamin A, needed for vision, resulting in ý million becoming blind, according to UNICEF. A genetically modified rice, called golden rice, makes large amounts of vitamin A, saving the eyes of thousands. As Deborah Whitman, CSA senior editor of life sciences, said in her article Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? on ProQuest, "if rice could be genetically engineered to contain even more vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated" (ProQuest). Modified crops can grow and neutralize acidic soil, increasing harvest by 80%, produce vaccines, and resist droughts, as well as providing food where it is needed. As a well-fed nation, we can't watch less fortunate people suffer when we have a cure developed. It is our duty to help those in need.
If you found a cure for cancer, wouldn't you be obliged to share it with those whose life depends on it? In the same way modified food is a cure for the environment, your health, and lives of millions, a cure that can't be put off. Accepting and expanding this technology is key. We've always tried to improve things, so why stop now?
Author Site
5/17/2008
|
|
