L
Lambada
Guest
A dull thud echoes hollowly in the still air, sounding agonizingly loud in the tranquil night. With each sound, the wraith-like figures pause in their tasks, glancing nervously towards the distant house. Working methodically, they cross the entire field; the figures spare no plant from their attentions. One by one the corn stalks fold and collapse to the earth, brought down one after another by precise machete blows. Within hours over 1000 corn plants have been destroyed, leaving only bare stumps where the crops once grew. Slipping silently away, the figures leave only a few rows of corn on the sides of the plot untouched to conceal the deed: they have accomplished their mission.
It is the middle of August in Maine, 1999, and in an act of ‘ecoterrorism’ a group of activists has destroyed half-an acre of genetically modified crops sown by the University of Maine in their experimental test plot. The experiment, which was a cooperative investigation between University professors John Jemison and Michael Vayda to determine the susceptibility of regular crops to pollen from the modified corn breed ‘Roundup Ready’, has been seriously set back. "It's a shame,'' Jemison comments as he looks over the mutilated plot of corn, “We're not trying to hide anything here. We're just trying to provide Maine farmers with some practical research...”
This incident highlights the controversy surrounding genetically modified food, and the extreme measures some are willing to take to safeguard what they view as the sanctity of evolution. The moral and scientific debate has raged for years in the courtrooms and streets of the world: both in and out of view of the public eye. Regardless of what any company CEO or Greenpeace activist would have you believe, the fact remains that genetically modified foods have become a part of everyday life, even if we the consumers are unaware of it. In the United States for example, 68% of soybeans, 70% of cotton, 26% of corn and 55% of canola is GE (genetically engineered). 32% of the commercial seed market, the very seeds that grow the crops we eat, create the clothes we wear, that feed the animals we raise…are genetically engineered. To simply argue in favor or against genetic modification is difficult because a basic knowledge of the concepts involved is needed to take it beyond the realm of media headlines.
Every year an estimated 12 million children die from hunger, and another 700 million people are severely malnourished. As the human population increases and additional farmland becomes increasingly scarce, we are forced to seek a new solution to our problems. Genetically modified foods may hold the answer to one of the oldest problems humanity has faced: global hunger. New super crops being developed by companies worldwide can provide us with more food and at a much faster rate. These new innovations may be a godsend to the Third World: crops modified to grow with less water, more resistant to inclement weather and capable of producing their own pesticide have the potential to lift millions from famine.
Genetic modification in the form of evolution has existed for millions of years. When organisms develop advantageous traits, they are able to reproduce more efficiently, ensuring a higher percentage of their offspring will survive to mate and continue the cycle. As those organisms who posses the trait live, and those organisms who do not die off, the trait eventually spreads to the entire species. According to the Darwinian school of thought, this process, known as selective breeding, is how all life has evolved on earth. This technique has by no means been limited to the natural world. Farmers and breeders have worked thousands of years to create grafted plants and crossbred animals. Biotechnology companies point to these examples to justify their methods, claiming they are simply ‘building on the principles’ of age-old techniques. What they are doing is merely ‘natural’…
While much of the above is true, there are a number of flaws in the argument. To begin with, genetic modification involves taking the cells of one organism and inserting them into another completely unrelated one. Even crossbreeding is limited by the fact that breeders cannot pass the barrier that differentiates species. Genetic engineers can actually circumvent these barriers, giving them unrestricted access to the very building blocks of life: DNA. Some examples of this technique include placing fish genes into tomatoes to make them frost resistant, breeding crops with toxin from bacteria to allow them to create their own pesticide, and even developing plants that can use heavily contaminated municipal sewage as fertilizer. Thus those who advocate the use of GE food can hardly call it ‘natural’ or an extension of an old technique.
Proponents of GE may claim that it poses no real threat to society, and indeed all deaths up until this point believed to have been caused by GE have actually been discovered to be due to toxins accidentally introduced in the food making process. However, scientific studies indicate that genetically modified crops may pose a number of risks, both to the environment and to their consumers.
Allergies in human beings are caused by particular proteins, and genetic engineering involves adding and removing proteins from DNA. Thus, there is a concern that GE may cause allergic reactions in consumers. For instance, it was once discovered that a crop of soybeans had been genetically modified in such a way that they contained proteins from Brazil nuts. The University of Nebraska conducted tests on the blood serum of 9 subjects allergic to Brazil nuts and found that 7 experienced allergic reactions to the soybean hybrid. Thankfully the shipment was stopped before it reached the global market, but in the future oversights such as these may not be caught in time. An estimated 8% of children have allergic reactions to commonly eaten foods, and the number is rising. In light of such facts, it seems prudent to investigate GE foods more closely.
GE Mega-corporations such as Monsanto (the creators of Agent Orange and the Bovine Growth Hormone) have quickly scrambled to protect the intellectual properties to their products, claiming they have the right to patent the genetic strains they have created. Some of these patents, however, throw the motives of these companies into question. The so-called ‘Terminator’ gene developed by one of Monsanto’s companies prevents crops from reproducing. While the company ostensibly claims this prevents GE and non-GE crops from reproducing, they fail to mention it forces farmers to buy new seeds each time they sow a new crop. Thus the farmers are trapped, forced to buy new seeds each year in order to meet the demand of consumers.
Last and perhaps most disturbingly of all: we truly are what we eat; a study in Germany found that DNA from a GE crop fed to a mouse penetrated the cells of its body and replaced some of its own DNA. A single mouthful of food could very well change the fate of an entire species, perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse. The very things we eat become part us, thus we are inescapably connected with nature. If we play God with nature, are we in turn playing God with ourselves?
With numerous benefits to offer, genetically modified foods have become an invaluable asset to the human race, and promise to become infinitely more useful in the future. Yet before we take the final step and throw ourselves wholeheartedly into such a future, we should pause and consider the consequences.
I invite one and all to respond to this mini-essay
It is the middle of August in Maine, 1999, and in an act of ‘ecoterrorism’ a group of activists has destroyed half-an acre of genetically modified crops sown by the University of Maine in their experimental test plot. The experiment, which was a cooperative investigation between University professors John Jemison and Michael Vayda to determine the susceptibility of regular crops to pollen from the modified corn breed ‘Roundup Ready’, has been seriously set back. "It's a shame,'' Jemison comments as he looks over the mutilated plot of corn, “We're not trying to hide anything here. We're just trying to provide Maine farmers with some practical research...”
This incident highlights the controversy surrounding genetically modified food, and the extreme measures some are willing to take to safeguard what they view as the sanctity of evolution. The moral and scientific debate has raged for years in the courtrooms and streets of the world: both in and out of view of the public eye. Regardless of what any company CEO or Greenpeace activist would have you believe, the fact remains that genetically modified foods have become a part of everyday life, even if we the consumers are unaware of it. In the United States for example, 68% of soybeans, 70% of cotton, 26% of corn and 55% of canola is GE (genetically engineered). 32% of the commercial seed market, the very seeds that grow the crops we eat, create the clothes we wear, that feed the animals we raise…are genetically engineered. To simply argue in favor or against genetic modification is difficult because a basic knowledge of the concepts involved is needed to take it beyond the realm of media headlines.
Every year an estimated 12 million children die from hunger, and another 700 million people are severely malnourished. As the human population increases and additional farmland becomes increasingly scarce, we are forced to seek a new solution to our problems. Genetically modified foods may hold the answer to one of the oldest problems humanity has faced: global hunger. New super crops being developed by companies worldwide can provide us with more food and at a much faster rate. These new innovations may be a godsend to the Third World: crops modified to grow with less water, more resistant to inclement weather and capable of producing their own pesticide have the potential to lift millions from famine.
Genetic modification in the form of evolution has existed for millions of years. When organisms develop advantageous traits, they are able to reproduce more efficiently, ensuring a higher percentage of their offspring will survive to mate and continue the cycle. As those organisms who posses the trait live, and those organisms who do not die off, the trait eventually spreads to the entire species. According to the Darwinian school of thought, this process, known as selective breeding, is how all life has evolved on earth. This technique has by no means been limited to the natural world. Farmers and breeders have worked thousands of years to create grafted plants and crossbred animals. Biotechnology companies point to these examples to justify their methods, claiming they are simply ‘building on the principles’ of age-old techniques. What they are doing is merely ‘natural’…
While much of the above is true, there are a number of flaws in the argument. To begin with, genetic modification involves taking the cells of one organism and inserting them into another completely unrelated one. Even crossbreeding is limited by the fact that breeders cannot pass the barrier that differentiates species. Genetic engineers can actually circumvent these barriers, giving them unrestricted access to the very building blocks of life: DNA. Some examples of this technique include placing fish genes into tomatoes to make them frost resistant, breeding crops with toxin from bacteria to allow them to create their own pesticide, and even developing plants that can use heavily contaminated municipal sewage as fertilizer. Thus those who advocate the use of GE food can hardly call it ‘natural’ or an extension of an old technique.
Proponents of GE may claim that it poses no real threat to society, and indeed all deaths up until this point believed to have been caused by GE have actually been discovered to be due to toxins accidentally introduced in the food making process. However, scientific studies indicate that genetically modified crops may pose a number of risks, both to the environment and to their consumers.
Allergies in human beings are caused by particular proteins, and genetic engineering involves adding and removing proteins from DNA. Thus, there is a concern that GE may cause allergic reactions in consumers. For instance, it was once discovered that a crop of soybeans had been genetically modified in such a way that they contained proteins from Brazil nuts. The University of Nebraska conducted tests on the blood serum of 9 subjects allergic to Brazil nuts and found that 7 experienced allergic reactions to the soybean hybrid. Thankfully the shipment was stopped before it reached the global market, but in the future oversights such as these may not be caught in time. An estimated 8% of children have allergic reactions to commonly eaten foods, and the number is rising. In light of such facts, it seems prudent to investigate GE foods more closely.
GE Mega-corporations such as Monsanto (the creators of Agent Orange and the Bovine Growth Hormone) have quickly scrambled to protect the intellectual properties to their products, claiming they have the right to patent the genetic strains they have created. Some of these patents, however, throw the motives of these companies into question. The so-called ‘Terminator’ gene developed by one of Monsanto’s companies prevents crops from reproducing. While the company ostensibly claims this prevents GE and non-GE crops from reproducing, they fail to mention it forces farmers to buy new seeds each time they sow a new crop. Thus the farmers are trapped, forced to buy new seeds each year in order to meet the demand of consumers.
Last and perhaps most disturbingly of all: we truly are what we eat; a study in Germany found that DNA from a GE crop fed to a mouse penetrated the cells of its body and replaced some of its own DNA. A single mouthful of food could very well change the fate of an entire species, perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse. The very things we eat become part us, thus we are inescapably connected with nature. If we play God with nature, are we in turn playing God with ourselves?
With numerous benefits to offer, genetically modified foods have become an invaluable asset to the human race, and promise to become infinitely more useful in the future. Yet before we take the final step and throw ourselves wholeheartedly into such a future, we should pause and consider the consequences.
I invite one and all to respond to this mini-essay
