Tag: GMO plants

Issues associated with GMO plants

Introduction
It is within the mission set for 2017 that genetically modified crops have negative impacts on the ecosystem and the entire biodiversity. However, it is quite sad that most of the multinational organizations such as Monsanto do not have the best interests of humankind at heart. It is important to take note that other bodies such as the FDA ensure that the safety of the GM plants and the foods produced from them are safe for human consumption. This means that the foods that are generated from GMO plants have to possess a high standard of safety equal or greater than that we obtain from plants that are bred using the traditional techniques. However, despite all these efforts that have been put in place by safety bodies, there are still concerns involving GMO plants. These include:

– Contamination of farmlands and natural habitats
Genetically engineered plants have been reported to play a crucial role in threatening contamination of the surrounding farming areas as well as natural plant home. This is the central reason why there is low biodiversity among crops that are bred for food as well as the reason for monoculture. Genetically engineered plants often have the ability to adapt better to the environmental conditions and thus increasing their capacity to outcompete plants that occur naturally. The central mandate is not to contribute to loss but rather offer significant support to guided land and climate analysis to ensure that GMO plants are prevented with buffer zones across fields.

– Seed patenting
The issue of seed patenting of genetically modified plants is a growing problem in research as well as agriculture as a whole. This is because when a given formula is obtained for GMO plants, it is the multinational companies that patent and make this commercial. For example, when the strain of Bacillus thuringiensis cotton was produced, Monsanto patented this, and they had control over 95 % of the cotton marketed in India. This sort of monopoly has contributed to the dramatic increase in the prices of cotton leaving the farmers in debt and thus unsustainability of their livelihoods.

– Cross-contamination
This patenting and commercialization of the GMO plants has been the main reason for cross contamination of seeds and thus this problem is passed on to the farmers by selling those contaminated seeds. This means that if the farmer has the GMO plant in their possession and has not planted it but for some reason their field is contaminated, then the lawsuit will be on those that have the patent. However, in case the farmer steals the GMO crop patented, then they are subject to facing a lawsuit. This means that farmers have to be sensitized on aspects that relate to the cross-contamination of GMO plants. However, the current problem is that the multinational companies that are marketing the seeds ensure that the farmers do not keep the seeds for the following year, and this renders the farmers in debt. This is because they have to constantly increase their yield to afford the seeds for planting. A case study in India reveals that most farmers each year find themselves taking loans to provide the seeds that are sold at exorbitantly high prices.

– Destruction of seeds that once existed
The fact that most of the laws have illegalized farmers having seeds from their companies through the seed patenting and commercialization aspect, there is a significant issue of gradual destruction of the naturally occurring seeds. This is through the competition and cross-contamination of GM plants sold by the multinational companies. This is based on the fact that in case the crops that are of one genetic makeup are subjected to failure in a given agricultural year, then the yield goes down, and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers is threatened.

– Political and economic structures
The issues that I have discussed above concerning the GM plants are often influenced by political and economic problems that are linked to the creation, production and distribution of GM plants. Today, genetically engineered plants have not been very useful to small holder farmers. This is because the pressure that is exerted by biotechnological companies, as well as agribusinesses, is quickly killing the existence of small farms. This is because there is a threat that small farms produce more foods than large farms. Additionally, it is the small farms that have the ability of successfully introducing sustainable practices as opposed to the case of industrial farms. This is the reason why the mission set for 2017 is in support of biotech downscaling. This is geared towards encouraging the production as well as the distribution of a wide range of GMO plants that meets the needs of farmers across different ecosystems.

Conclusion
We require a healthy agricultural system that integrates GM plants, and laws have to be streamlined by the government to regulate the activities that are carried out by biotechnological companies. It is these regulations that serve as the hope hindering monopolies and abuse of farmers that are not to blame for issues of cross contaminations. Additionally, there is a need to alter legislations that are in support of industrial farming. For example, the New Deal made in the 1930s gave rise to a set of programs in the US that guaranteed fair pricing of corn instead of permitting free market pricing. This means that the poor farmers that have labored in the farm for their produce did not have the continually increase their yield to stay out of debt like the case today. This means that the system made sure that there was fairness in the pricing of their crops to encourage small farmers as well as promote biodiversity. If this political and economic structure were to be adopted today, then farmers would be encouraged to increase crop biodiversity. This will prevent farming practices that promote planting of a single strain of GMO plants in a huge truck of land. It is these policies that promise to benefit developing countries that rely on agriculture for the most parts of their economy and livelihoods.

Sugar Beets- The Cautionary Tale of GMO Acceptance

    Sugar beets seem to be an innocuous crop, not spoken of as much as other modified plants. However, the story of the rise and fall of the modified sugar beet gives a possible outlook to how the mass adoption of genetically modified foods can backfire when the public perceptions and political forces change to go against such adoptions.

    According to the Reuters article “GMO backlash threatens beet farmers as foodmakers swap sugars”, the problem occurred when all American beet growers, located in agrarian states like Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho, had all switched their crop production to genetically modified variants. The farmers had done this in an effort to stay competitive in the world sugar marketplace where importation of sugars such as cane sugar had begun to eat into American market share. The hope was that the genetically modified various would benefit farmers two-fold, giving American producers an increased yield as well as a decreased cost in maintaining the seed and growth. Uniquely among any other farming segment in America, while there is contention between growers and their switch from all natural to gmo crops (and the unintentional spread of gmo seeds during pollination to non-gmo farms), the seeming success of the beet crop had a 100% conversion rate. Soon all American beet farmers were growing only the genetically modified versions of the crop.

    However, this success couldn’t last forever. Eventually the sentiments against the gmo community grew to a fever pitch and both consumers and distributors stopped buying the modified crop. With this boycott also came the rising imports of cane sugar from abroad. These two factors led to disastrous result for the beet growing community- the U.S. of beets in satisfying the sugar demands of the American public fell to just 41%, the Reuters article reported, which was a record low.

    One of the biggest economic blows that effects gmo growers is when large, established businesses refuse to use the modified ingredients in their products. Beet producers felt the sting of this type of decision when the Hershey Corporation announced that it would stop using the modified sugar crops in the production of its popular chocolates. Hershey announced this move was to better connect with the target market of health conscious millennials. But what are they afraid of?

      Again, the article gives some clues. It states that some of the biggest worries regarding genetically modified plants was whether the use of gmo seed has led to a greater industrialization of the farming sector, where it has becoming harder for mom and pop farms to keep operating amongst billion dollar companies. While the loss of one of the oldest types of American dream is hard to deal with, the other problem is that many contend that there isn’t enough research yet to prove that genetically modified crops are safe for the ecosystem or consumption. Both arguments are ones that are used often in the controversy surrounding the gmo movement, and there are voices on both sides.

     But the modified beet farmers are holding tough, because many can’t afford to go back to non-altered seed given the investment they’ve already made into the modified variety. So instead they are trying numerous efforts, from lobbying the government and surviving off of federal quota systems that pay the difference of a shortfall crop year to social media campaigns where they are trying to promote the idea of using beet sugar as beneficial to the modern consumer. In an uncertain economy, beet growers are doing all they can to keep their genetically modified businesses running.

Source:
Prentice, C. (2015). GMO backlash threatens beet farmers as foodmakers swap sugars. Reuters. Retrieved on May 5, 2015 from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sugar-gmo-insight-idUSKCN0SN0C720151029

Bt Cotton and the promise of Toxic Pest Protection

    One of the biggest threats to a growing, successful farm of any kind of crop is the unstoppable hunger of pests. In biblical days this was represented by locusts devastating entire fields of crops, leaving thousands hungry. The article “Cotton” on “GMO compass” states that in the modern day, cotton- an especially valuable crop due to its varied uses in textiles, animal feed, and processed food ingredients- struggles against destruction from pest populations, including a few types of caterpillar that bore into the bolls of the cotton ruining quality of harvest and reducing the yields of that harvest. One answer that farmers had been using to deal with the insect threats had been the use of pesticide poisons to try and eradicate the populations as they came, but the introduction of bt cotton offers another line of defense for the crop: the cotton itself.

     The way bt cotton works is similar to other types of genetically modified plants that protect themselves from insects. A gene was inserted into the cotton that allows the plant to produce a toxin that kills the attackers. When the insects (in this case most often the caterpillars mentioned) start to nibble into the plant, the toxin enters the insects causing an enzyme reaction in them that halts the attack and ends in their death. Now, this inborn defense is very important because one of the largest producers of cotton in the world is China, and before the modified bt cotton was introduced into their agricultural system, the main way they combatted their pest problems was through heavy use of pesticides. While spraying tons of poisons over the plants can have a few questionable consequences- such as killing helpful insects in the vicinity, and the thought of poisons dripping all over food that is to be eaten- the biggest problem of this method of cultivation was that the way evolution worked it resulted in the flourishing of resistant pests. Because they could withstand the normal amounts of pesticides being sprayed, the farmers would have to spend more money on spraying even more pesticides, which would still result in more resistant pests down the line.

      But, as the “cotton” article states, now more than 68% of cotton grown in China is of the genetically modified variant, and because of this Chinese farmers have been able to reduce their use of pesticides on their crop drastically. With the successful use of the crop shown in China, there is hope that the bt cotton will be used in many more places too- it already accounts for most cotton growth in other countries such as India, the U.S., Chile, Mexico, Australia, and South Africa.

       However, while bt cotton is grown in many places, there are still a number of countries that refuse to grow the crop. The chief holdout is the European Union, where many applications have been submitted for review but the process and decision is still pending. However, there is hope on the horizon as the EU does allow for lines of genetically modified cotton to be imported into their territory for use as food and feed. Given the expansive list of uses for cotton other than in textiles, including as cooking oil, food additives, animal feeds and milks, and even margarine, there are a lot of reasons for the EU to seriously consider bt cotton into their farming community as another alternative to using greater amounts of pesticides to protect their yields of crops. As with any genetically modified crop there are stigmas to be overcome, and time will only tell.

Source:
Gmo-compass. (2016). Cotton. Gmo-compass. Retrieved on May 5, 2016 from http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/161.genetically_modified_cotton.html