|
The Debate Over Genetically Engineered Crops
by Bradley Conant
Super rice boosts yields to feed up to an additional 450 million people a year.
Improved corn grows on marginal land to feed as many as 50 million people a year.
Bollgard cottonBeliminates the need for 850,000 gallons of insecticide per year.
Yellow rice helps prevent blindness for as many as 124 million children.
(Reynolds 3,5; BBC)
Statistics like these are only part of the reason genetically-engineered crops have captured the attention of an international audience. Distrust of altered taco chips and visions of mutant vegetables have given rise to what some call the Afear of Frankenfood@ (Worcester). As a result, those who support genetically-engineered crops disagree with those who oppose genetically-engineered crops. This is an important conflict because the use of genetic engineering is increasing as technology continues to advance, particularly in agriculture. This essay will explore the fundamental questions and assumptions of both sides of the conflict, discuss the answers that come out of key shared values, and consider future directions in this field.
The term genetically-engineered crops refers to the use of a crop, specifically a seed, that has been altered by scientific means to produce a more desirable result. Among the most widely known examples are Roundup-Ready crops such as soybeans and corn that are resistant to the usually lethal application of the brand-name herbicide Roundup. Other examples include the high oil-yielding corn that is used to create a fuel alternative. These altered products are the result of genetic engineering. Their very alterations or deviations from the Anatural state@ are at the heart of the conflict over genetically-engineered crops. Ominous questions arise about the safety of genetic engineering and concerns about how far humanity will go when seeking solutions to current problems.
The conflict over the use of genetically-engineered crops concerns many fundamental values, or assumptions, that both sides deliberate over. The first of these assumptions, held by both sides, is that science and agriculture should provide the greatest good for the greatest number. This value alone gives rise to many different questions: what is good for human health, what is good for production to meet the demands of a growing population, and what is good financially for agribusiness. The second fundamental assumption, one over which the two sides differ, concerns the locus of authority. Supporters cite a profound belief in science while the opposition draws on religious beliefs. The final assumption is that humans should exercise appropriate levels of control over nature. The two camps share this value but disagree as to what the appropriate level of control is. Supporters focus on the necessity of control, the basic human right to control nature, and the elusiveness of the totally natural world. Critics of genetically-engineered crops worry about the impact that human intervention could bring about, claiming that humans are exercising an inappropriate level of control over nature.
Both as a scientist (biologist) and as someone with first-hand experience in agricultural work (on a family farm), I understand the significance of this issue. As someone preparing for a career in research, I have been taught to examine all aspects of biologically-based conflicts, including genetic engineering. After examining both sides of this conflict over genetically-engineered crops and examining the fundamental values and assumptions associated with it, I have come to the conclusion that the confirmed benefits outweigh potential risks and, thus, I support genetic engineering.
The first fundamental assumption in the debate over genetically-engineered crops is that science and agriculture should provide the greatest good for the greatest number. This basic value raises concerns over human health, production efficiency, and the financial health of agribusiness. The most important component of this value is the concern for health. Specifically, both sides agree that crops should be safe for human consumption. Obviously this is going to be the hot topic of discussion when dealing with a food product that has been scientifically altered. In 1962, Rachel Carson warned that AWe all live under the haunting fear that something may corrupt the environment to the point where man joins the dinosaurs as an obsolete form of life" (Carson 188). However, in 2001, most sources demonstrate that genetically-engineered crops are safe. In an in-depth review of contemporary research in the Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Holly Saigo describes in great detail seed companies= internal protocols to help prevent the release of products that have been proven unfit for human consumption (Saigo 6). She also states that the FDA regulates the amount of genetically-engineered products and has found many of them to be "chemically and nutritionally equivalent to existing products@ (6). Therefore, any long-term problem would be hard to distinguish from other problems that could arise naturally and independently. In addition, committees have been organized to oversee international trading of genetically-engineered crops, enforcing stringent testing and regulation of these types of products. To date, there have not been any significant health problems associated with genetically-engineered crops. Of course, this is where the opposition points toward the future. The effect of genetically- engineered crops on human health looks promising, as scientists have been unable to foresee any complications. However, this does not absolutely preclude any future problems because "the absence of an immediate negative effect does not ensure that no effect will ever occur" (Tiedje 305) but it does suggest that the impact will be minimal.
Not only are these crops not dangerous, there have been many advances where genetic engineering might produce crops potentially beneficial to human health. Saigo explains how "plant viruses can be engineered to stimulate the human immune system when consumed, thus creating a food that acts in a manner similar to a vaccination" (4). By using biotechnology, scientists can develop health-beneficial crops with such traits as helping prevent infection. A startling example of health-related engineering currently being tested is Agenetically modifying plants to produce human blood proteins and tissue growth agents@ to treat hemophiliacs, AIDS patients, and others (Pacific Northwest). When looking at it from this standpoint, genetic engineering seems more like a blessing than a monster. As long as the genetic engineering is done in a respectful and professional manner, there should be no health problems. Therefore, when weighing both the positives and negatives concerning genetically-engineered crops= health impacts, it seems that genetically-engineered crops can do the greatest good for the greatest number.
Another utilitarian aspect of this conflict is the goal of being efficient and meeting the demands of a growing population. Few would argue that we should allow populations to starve in order to preserve a natural world free of genetic engineering. The opposition to genetically-engineered crops avoids this issue because there are very few arguments that justify the death of another human being. Feeding the growing world population justifies deviation from the natural world. The need for more efficient means of production is one stepping stone to meeting that demand. Of the world's nearly 5,800,000,000 people, a staggering 800,000,000 are estimated to be chronically undernourished (Reynolds 1). Since most of the opponents of genetically-engineered crops would not care to be part of that statistic, they are unwilling to claim that this demand should not be met although they question the means necessary to meet the demands. These means include altering species of crops to maximize beneficial attributes that increase yields, such as being resistant to pesticides and herbicides. For example, according to Robert W. Reynolds, there are varieties of corn that could increase yields by up to 40% which, if widely used, could feed an additional 50,000,000 people per year (Reynolds 3). By doing so, farmers gain the ability to produce more crops with less land, money, and time in order to help feed the masses. As Technology Overview states, "we are not going to allow land unsuitable for farming to be converted, destroying wildlife, or use land currently devoted to other ventures because of a growing population; it is then necessary to use the land we currently are using and increase the production while being cost efficient (2). If we are not willing to give up other land for the pursuit of farming, then there is no alternative for meeting demands other than using genetically-engineered crops and, thus, doing the greatest good for the greatest number.
The final question associated with a utilitarian approach to genetic engineering is making money. If using genetically-engineered crops can make money for the majority, while not harming health, why not use them? Money is a driving force in today's world. The multi-billion dollar industry of biotechnology includes genetically-engineered crops (Jackson and Piper 1592). If farmers can gain a profit from the use of genetically-engineered crops, they should have access to them. The price of farming equipment, fuel, labor, and land have increased almost exponentially, while the market price for the product has only varied by a few dollars at most over the past few decades. In order to justify staying in the business of producing the world=s food supply, the agricultural industry has to maximize the use of what they currently have. For example, genetically-engineered corn and soybeans are being developed that could double yield while reducing stress on the land thus providing clear economic incentives for the grower (Purdue 1). In addition, not only does the use of genetically-engineered crops help the farmers and agribusiness financially, consumers benefit as well. The use of genetically-engineered crops lowers the production costs to farmers because of the increased yields, thus lowering the cost to the consumer. It is to everyone=s good to enhance the financial well-being of those who supply the world with the food that we eat and, as a result, minimize consumer costs.
The second fundamental concern associated with the use of genetically-engineered crops is the locus of authority. Those who support the use of genetically-engineered crops are committed to the authority of science and a belief that advancements through science are inevitably good. As a science major, I have a profound belief in the capabilities of science. I believe in what I can see and what is tangible. Science relies on truths that can be shown through study and experimentation. By believing in science, humans are believing in themselves and all that the human mind is capable of understanding. Henry Ford suggested that "thinking is the hardest work anyone can do" (42) and the "better we do our work, the better off we shall be@ (27). By believing in science, humans are thinking and are progressing to being "better off@(27). Using science as the authority makes us "someone who can accomplish things" (42). Charles Darwin, who both believed in science and has himself become a scientific authority on whom others rely, used scientific exploration to shed light on the mysteries of lifeBits creation and progression. By relying on science as the authority he sought to give humans "hope for a higher destiny in the distant future" (Darwin 366). Contemporary genetic engineering researchers are relying on the authority of science to help solve the problems of hunger and growing world demand (Reynolds 1). These sources do not believe we should wait for natural means to balance things out, but rather believe that science must be utilized, for example with genetically-engineered crops, in order to meet new challenges.
The critics of genetically-engineered crops draw on religious beliefs for authority and explicitly pit faith against the authority of science. They believe that having a profound belief in science is a defiant act against God. For example, Jackson and Piper of the Land Institute state that science is only necessary because of the interference of humans from the beginning of their history. Humans have a sense that "human cleverness" is better than "nature's wisdom" (Jackson and Piper 1591). This tension between science and religion is not new. Galileo Galilei, who obviously valued the authority of science, argued how religious beliefs, what he labeled the "authority of scriptural passages,@ had trouble explaining physical problems (Galilei 44). He believed that if God had intended everything to be explained through religion alone, he would have explained it through scripture. Instead, Galileo claimed, God intended us to use our ingenuity and intellect to explain the physical world, separate from the spiritual world, on our own. Galileo even stated: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them" (44). Galileo presented the idea that we should leave the spiritual realm to God and scripture; the rest God gave us the gifts to decipher on our own through science and "sense-experiences" (44). Pico della Mirandola extended Galileo=s position with his claim that God gave us the ability to reason which separated us from the beasts (253). In sum, rather than wishing humans to deny science, God gave us the ability to study and examine the created world.
Not only do critics of genetic engineering endorse religious authority, they also argue that science is not an authority. Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that humans needed to return to a more natural world and abandon the views of science as the more natural state was "best for man" (Rousseau 139). However, what is natural? Is not everything natural? Everything that science uses to create new and wonderful things comes from somewhere. Science may develop new things that would have otherwise never have been naturally created, but they were in essence naturally created as the original components were found in nature. Science has given us the ability to break down natural things and rearrange them into practically anything imaginable. This is the case with genetically-engineered crops. Scientists are taking traits from natural plants or organisms and incorporating them into new varieties of crops. However, science cannot create something from nothing. In essence, we are still in a natural world. Science has just enhanced the natural with the endless imagination of humanity (which is itself also natural). Science has become an authority and it will remain an authority as humankind continues to challenge its boundaries, stretching itself towards the authority of God him/herself.
The final fundamental assumption associated with the use of genetically-engineered crops is that humans should exercise appropriate levels of control over nature. This value is where a substantial part of the debate over the use of genetic engineering comes into play. However, control over nature is not new. It was practiced by early farmers as they realized they could have better yields if they selected the seed of their best crops (ATechnology Overview@ 1). Very early on, farmers were intervening in nature and introducing a form of artificial selection. Taking control has become necessary and, some might argue, our right. Pico della Mirandola stated that Athe nature of all other beings is limited and constrained within the bounds of laws prescribed by us@ (254). Jackson and Piper explain that the use of genetically-engineered crops has become a necessity because of our "struggle to stay ahead of famine" and this Anew biotechnology . . . is simply an extension of the old biotechnology of plant and animal breeding with an emphasis on production@ (1591, 1592). Humans have control of the environment and should be free to control it as they see fit. The problem with allowing nature to carry on without interference is that traditional breeding takes too long, there are no guarantees, and undesirable traits can be passed along with the desirable ones. By introducing control, in the form of genetic engineering, scientists have the ability to produce crops with only beneficial traits while deleting undesirable traits.
Justification of human control takes us back to the numerous wonderful things that genetic engineering offers. For example, genetically-engineered crops can cause one plant to have multiple beneficial traits. A farmer can simply select a product that is "tailored for specific market niches and needs" (ANew Gene-Stack@ 1). This allows producers to meet demands of consumers and make a profit, something that nature alone could not do without the help of science. Furthermore, by increasing yields scientists are helping feed additional people (Reynolds 3). By developing resistance to a wide variety of things such as drought, herbicides, pesticides, disease, etc., science is helping humanity forge forward. When looking at human control over nature with a benefit/risk assessment, the benefits significantly outweigh the risks (American Phytopathological 2). Human nature has the inherent desire to try and improve things as quickly as possible, and allowing mother nature to take its course simply is not an option.
Nonetheless, critics of control over nature raise issues that warrant discussion. The fundamental opposition argument is that this could all backfire. Mary Shelly gave us a warning of how taking control of nature could create a "monster" that could come back to haunt us. Rachel Carson demonstrated four decades ago that "nature is capable of striking back in unexpected ways" (297). Critics warn that something catastrophic could be a result of all this genetic manipulation. However, there is no immediate indication of this occurring and researchers are taking precautions. For instance, some concerns have been raised that engineered traits might pass to non-target organisms by cross-pollination (Saigo 4). Solutions have already been developed to combat this. One method is producing sterile plants which can't reproduce and spread the traits (5). Another is to insert "suicide" genes into the plants that prevent the trait from surviving if it gets out of the host plant (5). Another concern is that human control will harm the bio-diversity of the environment. In essence, science is controlling the varieties of crops in nature but, the almost endless diversity of varieties has not been drastically constrained. Holly Saigo illustrated the problems of the past, for example, during the U.S. corn crop failure of 1970 one billion bushels of corn were lost as a result of Southern Corn Leaf Blight (8). During this time few varieties were resistant to this plague and the result was devastating. Critics worry that something like this could happen again and jeopardize our food supply. However, without genetically-engineered crops we would not have an adequate food supply to begin with. Nature alone would not be able to supply for the masses. A final argument regarding human control is that the natural world is already gone. Rousseau argued that as soon as "man needed the help of another" the natural world was gone (Rousseau 140). There are two possible responses to this concern. First, what is a completely natural world anyway? Are we supposed to go back to wearing the fur of animals and eat what we can catch or grow? This is not a feasible option and it is doubtful that it would have many supporters. By going back to a completely natural world we would be shutting the door on some aspects of humanity itself. Second, the natural world is not gone, it has just been altered. Everything in the world is natural in its most primitive forms. Jackson and Piper observed, AWe have really changed the face of the earth@ (1591). Scientists, farmers, and biotechnologists would argue humans have altered the makeup of things to create something better. Carson wanted to go back to a more primitive natural world. What she did not anticipate was that the use of genetically-engineered crops could help achieve the balance she sought. For example, by using crops that require less pesticide or fertilizer, the science community is being very environmentally conscious. As Reynolds concluded, Abioengineered plants . . . can contribute to the global struggle to reduce negative environmental impacts [of pesticides]@ (55). In sum, humans have adjusted to the natural world as our controls have shaped it and few would give up all the adaptations easily. As long as human control does not exceed necessity and is always done with health as the highest priority, it is part of the natural world as we have it today.
Although I side with the supporters of genetically-engineered crops, it is easy to understand what the critics are seeing. The health concerns are natural. For example, it seems as though everything has the potential to cause cancer, and for that reason there will always be the sub-conscious concern for health, regardless of how safe something has been tested to be. The unknown is always feared and it seems as though the unknown is being pushed farther with every scientific advance that is made. This is why I could see a middle ground. Carson proposed a balance between science and "biological control" or nature (278). Finding an educated use of genetically-engineered crops may be the best answer. Using a balance of science and nature together to attack current problems in agriculture could draw support from both sides. This is why all of the contemporary sources examine both sides of the issue so thoroughly. They see that there is a compromise that may someday be made. However, it is hard to get both sides to come together on this issue, as both find it hard to abandon some of their fundamental assumptions. Ideally, it seems that an appropriate balance would be the overall best solution, which is why I feel that it is important to include this middle ground. However, with or without true balance, the future of genetically-engineered crops is bright.
In conclusion, those who support genetically-engineered crops disagree with those who oppose genetically-engineered crops. The two sides both have valid arguments that apply to their side of the conflict. After defining the conflict and presenting the assumptions and questions on both sides of the argument, as well as explaining the underlying values of each side of the conflict, I have come to my original conclusion that the use of genetically engineered crops is not only appropriate, but essential to the advancement both of individuals and the world as a whole. Maybe someday the balance between biological-scientific and natural means that Carson was hinting at will be realized. Although my support may be swayed to the middle ground when and if it happens, until such agreement is reached and progress is made, I believe that genetically-engineered crops are the answer to the many problems that we are faced with today. I realize that genetic engineering is not a perfect science and that there are always consequences, but every choice or conflict has its consequences. It is essential to understand these consequences and realize that the positive attributes outweigh the problems associated with the conflict. As with any decision you have to look at both sides before drawing conclusions. Some may say that we need to return to a more natural world, but I do not foresee those people ready to endure everything that the more natural world would encompass.
Works Cited:
American Phytopathological Society. "Threats to Health Reduced with Bt Corn Hybrids." Science Daily Magazine. October 1999. 1-3.
BBC News. AYellow Rice Gives Dietary Boost.@ 14 January 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_602000/602112.stm
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Rpt. 1994.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. In Classics of Western Thought: The Modern World. Vol.111. 4th ed. Edgar E. Knoebel, ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988. 350-366.
Ford, Henry. My Life and Work. Ideas 311: Supplemental Reading Booklet. MacMurray College, Spring 1999. 26-43.
Galilei, Galileo. To the Most Serene Grand Duchess Mother. Ideas 310: Supplementary Readings. MacMurray College. Fall 1998. 40-52.
Jackson, Wes and Jon Piper. AThe Necessary Marriage Between Ecology and Agriculture." Ecology. Vol.70, Issue 6 (Dec., 1989), 1591-1593. Jstor. Henry Pfeiffer Library, Jacksonville, Illinois. 11 September, 2001.
Lucretius. On the Nature of the Universe. R.E. Latham, trans. London: Penguin, 1994.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. In Classics of Western Thought: The Modern World. Vol.111. 4th ed. Edgar E. Knoebel, ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988. 332-337.
Mirandola, Giovanni Pico della. Oration on the Dignity of Man. In Classics of Western Thought: Middle Ages Renaissance and Reformation. Vol.11.4th ed. Karl F. Thompson, ed. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988. 252-262. "New Gene-Stack Corn Hybrids Represent Giant Technology Leap."
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. AMaybe You Can Get Blood From a Turnip After All.@ 12 July 1999. http://biotech.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnl.gov%2Fnews%2F1999%2F99?29.htm
Purdue University. ADouble Crops, Cut the Acreage by 2010, Predicts Scientist.@ Science Daily Magazine. July 2000. 1-3.
Reynolds, Robert W. "Agricultural Biotechnology: Opportunities and Risks." USA Today. v.128 no2650 (July 1999): 54-56. OCLC First Search. Henry Pfeiffer Library, Jacksonville, Illinois. 11 September, 2001.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. On the Origin and Inequality Among Men. In Classics of Western Thought: The Modern World. Vol.111. 4th ed. Edgar E. Knoebel, ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988. 131-140.
Saigo, Holly. "Agricultural Biotechnology and the Negotiation of the Biosafety Protocol." Georgetown International Environmental Law Review. (Spring 2000): 779-816. OCLC First Search. Henry Pfeiffer Library, Jacksonville, Illinois. 11 September, 2001.
Shelly, Mary. Frankenstein: Or the Modern Prometheus. New York: NAL (Signet), 1963.
"Technology Overview." 1-7.
Tiedje, James M., Robert K. Coiwell, Yaffa L. Grossman, Robert E. Hodson, Richard E.
Lenski, Richard N. Mack, and Phillip J. Regal. "The Planned Introduction of Genetically-Engineered Organisms: Ecological Considerations and Recommendations." Ecology. Vol.70, Issue 2 (April, 1989), 298-315. Jstor. Henry Pfeiffer Library, Jacksonville, Illinois: 11 September, 2001.
University of California-Davis. AGenetically Engineered Tomato Plant Grows in Salty Water.@ Science Daily Magazine. August 2001. 1-3.
Worcester Polytechnic Institute. AIs Fear of Frankenfood Holding Back Progress for the World=s Food Supply?@ Science Daily Magazine. October 2000. 1-3.
Related Links:
Back to the Interdisciplinary Research Conference homepage
Conference Schedule
|
