The world’s growing population and the millions of people living in poverty could be the perfect setup for the biotech industry to take over and turn our food into genetically modified organisms, in fact, it has.
But, the advertisements are deceiving. They show mother and daughter contentedly savoring a steaming bowl of genetically modified rice. Everyone is happier and healthier because of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
What’s not shared, and understandably so because these companies have a lot of money at stake, are the risks of GMOs that outweigh the benefits. At this point not enough time has been put into determining the overall environmental and health impact of altering the natural makeup of crops.
Genetic modification involves putting specific genes into host organisms so the hosts can do things they couldn’t do unaided. This technology has the potential to really shake up nature.
Most crops today have herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. Already in development since the early ’90s is “terminator” gene technology, the suicide gene. This involves a gene switching mechanism that prevents a seed from germinating if saved after harvest. A gene like this will take away any power a farmer has in developing and from industrialized countries who save seeds and give them to major biotechnology companies.
There are six companies currently dominating the biotechnology market.
One of those companies, Monsanto, is lobbying Congress to prevent labeling of GMOs. Soon we could have no choice in consuming food that allows these companies to collect millions under the disguise of feeding the world. And Monsanto is already embedded in Washington. Eighty percent of the company’s $3 million in campaign funds went to Republicans and Bush appointed a Monsanto lobbyist to be the second official at the Environmental Protection Agency.
The concept of feeding the world through genetic modification is not a reality. Already we produce enough worldwide to feed the hungry.
GMOs will not solve the poverty problem. Poor farmers and poor countries cannot afford the expenses of adopting modern technologies.
What is needed are cheap alternatives that use the resources already available and do not promote the spread of GMOs that directly alter the DNA of our food and have not been tested for long-term effects on humans and our ecosystem.
For how many billions of years has nature been able to provide for us? Maybe it is time, in the midst of an expanding populous and shrinking natural world, to give nature some help. Instead of tinkering too much with the system that has worked since before Charles Darwin put a name to it, why not find a real solution to our problems instead of stacking more on the plate?
A system of sustainable agriculture is a viable alternative to current practices and the looming engulfment by GMOs. It works to integrate natural processes into the food production process using nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and natural enemies of pests, thus minimizing the use of pesticides and fertilizers that damage the environment and harm the health people. This would better fit these ads showing a happier, healthier relationship between people and nature.
Bailey Porter, a junior journalism major, is LV Life editor of the Campus Times. She can be reached by e-mail at porterb@ulv.edu.
