GMO Food for Thought

The author talks about a solution to this problem – a genetically modified pig dubbed the Enviropig. Two Canadian biologists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Cecil Forsberg and John Phillips, have constructed a novel DNA molecule that, when inserted into a pig embryo, gives the genetically modified pig the ability to secrete a phosphorus-extracting enzyme in its saliva. The tests so far have shown that the phosphorus content of the Enviropig’s manure was reduced by 75 percent – a dramatic result by industry standards.

So, with these new technologies, one has to wonder what organic food proponents and environmentalists really think about these advancements in biotechnology. Will these individuals remain so vehemently opposed to genetically modified foods at the expense of one of the things they hold so dear in their beliefs, the environment? Still, standing in opposition to these new biotech advancements is the notion that “natural” is good and “synthetic” is bad. Genetic modification, in the organic view, is unacceptable for the mere fact that it is done in a laboratory. What environmentalists and those favoring organic foods can’t accept is the fact that scientists and researchers use what is found in nature to create these genetically modified foods, even if the work may be done in a lab.

The author also points out that organic food doesn’t measure up to their hype. Organic farmers spray their crops with chemicals, including toxic pesticides, which directly goes against the consumer’s belief that organic crops are gown as advertised without chemical pesticides. Natural products can also cause allergic food reactions in people, especially small children, killing hundreds each year. Genetically modified foods can greatly reduce this risk.

In addition, a recent Scottish Crop Research Institute study suggests that the public has mistakenly formed false beliefs about organic agriculture as it relates to the environment. The study noted that scientific evidence (not marketing claims) shows organic methods to be no better and, in many cases, worse for the environment.

While I agree with most of the author’s assertions about genetically modified foods, there are some statements I disagree with. I agree that testing needs to be done to show that genetic modification works and that GM foods are not harmful to humans, but I think the author should have mentioned the countless studies that have already been done that prove that very same thing, including 2005 World Health Organization report that said genetically modified foods have “passed risk assessments and are not likely to, nor have been shown to, present risks for human health.”

I also disagree with the author’s assumption that the most significant GM applications will be ones that alleviate the problem of agriculture. I believe there isn’t a significant problem with this. There is only so much that researchers can do in a lab, greenhouse, or a research facility. Outdoor testing of genetically modified crops in fields needs to be done to see how these crops react in different soils and weather conditions. Field testing is a key part of making GM crops successful.

Despite the opposition to genetically modified foods that environmentalists and the organic lobby continue to impose on the public, advancements in biotechnology will certainly continue. Individuals need to fully support scientists and their efforts in pursuing this research on genetically modified foods, whether these crops help improve the environment or provide much needed and nutritious foods to impoverished nations.