Genetically modified organisms have been an extremely hot-button topic. There has been no conclusive evidence that they are extremely good or extremely bad. A new 600 page report was published hoping to shed some light on the situation. According to the report conducted by the prestigious National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, genetically engineered crops (GE) have been shown to successfully increase yields.. These new organisms made in a lab have also been shown to be resistant to disease and certain pesticides applied by the farmer. These two coupled together show the newfound significance and importance of GE crop varieties. Furthermore, based on their conclusive analysis of a multitude of different, previously conducted studies it has been determined these new crops do not present health risks to those humans and animals who consume them. This information was not formulated blindly. The National Academies Press is a non-profit tasked with researching and reporting on special issues for the government. Their reports are subject to rigorous standards and peer-review. This was no different for this report. They “examined more than 1,000 studies, heard testimony from 80 witnesses in a series of public meetings and webinars, and analyzed 700 comments submitted by the public” (Pollack B2). These positives of the report are certainly significant but there are two sides to the coin.
A common argument for the widespread use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has included “the doctrine of substantial equivalence” but that’s been quickly refuted by the possible unintended changes in genetic makeup (Ujj 83). In a journal article by Orsoyla Ujj, a political scientist from Hungary, writing for The New Atlantis, substantial equivalence is explained, emphasizing the fact that this doctrine has been widely used to explain the benefit of GMOs. He quickly transitions to the idea that this simply is not true. Substantial equivalence does not take into account the possibility for incidental changes to the entire organism. This claim is furthered with additional evidence explaining these inadvertent changes “may affect the safety or performance” of GE crops and the typical “risk assessments” of these crops fail to effectively address the possible genetic detriment to these crops and other varieties (Ujj 84). The unavoidable moral debate is also brought into question. Are the new crops actually a much needed breakthrough or just a way to increase profits? Is it worth disturbing evolution and the traditional feedback loops the environment provides? Sometimes these questions are rather easy to brush over. As technology advances, it is considered to advance the world around us for the better and these concerns are quickly minimized to only temporary roadblocks. The great political scientist Niccolo Machiavelli was adamant that “the end justifies the means”. Is that the case here? In the vastly evolving technological landscape anything sacrificed is simply considered “collateral damage” rectified by the “gain in efficiency and profit” (Ujj 91). Ujj emphasizes these vital debates are no small matter and to just push them aside would be irresponsible and unethical. Knowledge is not about something or about how to do something but knowing what to do “where success is not measured in any exact or fore-envisaged goal, but in the harmony of the result with our human needs and interests” (Scranton 220). What to do with this knowledge is the burning question.
GMOs are a culmination of different things we have done in class. In order for GMOs to work the DNA has to be changed. This process is normally completed through the use of restriction enzymes. The restriction enzymes are able to cut specific sequences out of the DNA so new nucleotides can be added. In order to find these particular stretches, first the DNA is sequenced using dideoxynucleotides and then located through the process of Southern Blotting. After the new genes of interest are successfully inserted, DNA replication takes place to pass all of the new information to every cell. With the DNA consistent, transcription takes place producing all of the proteins to make the plant express the intended modified qualities. All of this information has been part of our learning process within the class. From our gel electrophoresis lab to the K’nex replication/transcription lab to the lectures and paper activities we have done, they have all been in preparation for understanding the necessary basis of GMOs to produce informed opinions.
All of the information on GMOs is pertinent for the public to be knowledgeable about. The world of science and research is a quickly changing place with new information being produced daily. In order for society to formulate educated viewpoints, it is imperative for both sides of the argument to be heard and understood. Too often nowadays, people restrict themselves to only acknowledging evidence that corresponds with their position, effectively locking themselves in their own “echo chamber”. This societal norm needs to be broken, especially for an issue like GMOs. In 2018 “upwards of 75% of processed foods on supermarket shelves contain genetically modified ingredients” (Center for Food Safety). That means the ratio of GMOs to non-GMOs is now 3:1. This affects the daily lives of everyone and it is more important than ever it is well-known. Without widespread knowledge, the uniformed citizen will simply fall in line with the majority which could have potentially catastrophic effects.
Overall, taking all of this information into account, GMOs are acceptable for overarching commercial use. At the current juncture, the benefits outweigh the costs. GMOs have been used for over twenty years now and no issues have been discovered on a large scale. With the world population increasing at an exponential rate and expected to reach 9.8 billion by 2050, we will need a new process to increase food production to match this. The demand for food is expected to increase 60% but at the same time the amount of farmable land is expected to decline due to climate change and urbanization (Hincks). GMOs could be an appropriate solution. In this case, the end does justify the means. With no significant physical side-effects known today, GMOs could be a worthwhile solution for a growing problem.
Works Cited
- Center for Food Safety. “About Genetically Engineered Foods.” Center for Food Safety, www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/about-ge-foods. Accessed 19 Oct. 2018.
- Hincks, Joseph. “The World Is Headed for a Food Security Crisis. Here’s How We Can Avert It.” Time, 28 Mar. 2018, www.time.com/5216532/global-food-security-richard-deverell/. Accessed 19 Oct. 2018.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. www.doi.org/10.17226/23395.
- Pollack, Andrew. “Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Finds.” The New York Times, New York ed., 17 May 2016, p. B2. The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-analysis-finds.html?module=inline. Accessed 15 Oct. 2018.
- Scruton, Roger. How to Think Seriously about the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism. New York, Oxford UP, 2015 Accessed 19 Oct. 2018.
- Ujj, Orsolya. “European and American Views on Genetically Modified Foods.” The New Atlantis, no. 49, 2016, pp. 77–92. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43893406.