Genetically Engineered Foods

In the twenty first century many remarkable advances have been made possible through growing modern technology. With out a doubt one of the biggest and most controversial creations has come from the convergence of biology and technology to produce genetically engineered produce. Surrounding these new discoveries is a plethora of questions, not only about the safety of genetically altered foods but the ethical issues that will arise if we alter the food chain and ecosystem in our attempt to feed the world. Environmental journalist Michael Pollan has written an article for The New York Times Magazine exposing the process, problems, and unanswered questions revolving around bio-engineered foods. But are these altered foods the solution to the planets problems, like the major life science corporations are hoping for? Or is it a temporary fix that will eventually set us further back as a global community? In the midst of over population and extensive pollution it is no wonder that we are experiencing a lack of natural resources. Take for example the situation in India and the struggle over the Ganges River; this is a great illustration of what happens when people interfere with the balance of nature. Beyond that the organizations that are involved in bio-engineering are unsure of its long term effects and have yet to pass laws that include protection against biological pollution. So in the long run are we just going to be further polluting our planet by trying to feed it? These agencies are still unsure if it is safe for human consumption. Throughout Europe protests have been made against bio-engineered foods, and many countries will not accept trade with the US of genetically altered crops. By using our technology, instead of dedicating time and research to establish a more natural solution we are changing the ecosystem that we live in without knowing the future consequences. So essentially we may be setting ourselves up for a potential disaster by relying on genetically engineered foods.

The exploding planet phenomenon is an issue that is affecting every corner of the world. We are already experiencing problems like global warming, water shortages, and are now at the forefront is lack of sufficient food supply. Let’s revisit the Ganges situation, India has “twenty percent of the worlds peopleâÂ?¦and its future growth could mean mass starvation” (Stille, 546). So a simple solution to the Indian problem could be bio-tech foods, but we have learned that there is no simple solution to a complex problem. Even if we were able to provide India with enough food through technology to sustain its population, what about the water? What happens when their population reaches the billions and we can no longer feed them because of biological pollution and even less water? Water from the Ganges is being polluted by the people yet is still needed for irrigation purposes to try to sustain its considerable population. So bio engineering is not the answer for the people of India who barely have enough water to maintain their crops now much less fields of genetically engineered foods. Our planet was not meant to support this many people and by interfering with nature we may very well be putting our entire planet in danger. The idea of feeding the world and its ramification is something that needs to be looked at very closely before we start to rely on it for the future of our planet.

Biotechnology is supposed to rescue the American food chain by “the replacement of expensive and toxic chemicals inputs with expensive but apparently benign genetic information” (Pollan, 403). But we are leaving biological pollution out of the equation. “Biological pollution will be the environmental nightmare of the 21st century” (Pollan,406). Even though we are no longer dousing our crops in chemicals biological pollution may be even more deadly because we are restructuring our ecosystem. An example of this is the Bt gene and resistance management plants. This particular form of biological pollution deals with insects developing a resistance to the toxin. Monsanto’s plan is to “postpone that eventuality”(Pollan, 407) by having farmers dedicate a portion of their land to non Bt crops. So in either thirty of three to five years depending on who you are talking to their plan will no longer work, then what happens? It has also been discovered that large quantities of Bt that are exuded into soil can kill many soil organisms, “these soil organisms are essential to soil fertility, and therefore to the security of our food supply.”(Schonbeck,1)We can not start to rely on these plants and then risk wide spread biological pollution, which would leave twice as many people hungry, our environment polluted, and a whole new set of problems to solve. So it all boils down to the idea that “you can always intervene and change something in it, but there’s no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be of how it might effect the environment” (Pollan, 405).

The United States has established several organizations to maintain the agricultural and food industries. They all deal within licensing and researching of additives, foods, and pesticides but are completely separate and do not work together even within overlapping areas. But this may need to change because they are all facing the bio-tech food problem. If the government it serious about beginning to depend on genetically engineered foods they need to start drafting strict pollution laws. While we do have pollution laws in place they were “written before the advent of biotechnology…congress has so far passed no environmental law dealing specifically with biotechnology”(Pollan, 406) New and effective laws need to be established immediately to protect the planet from further biological pollution. It is important for these laws to set up specific guidelines regulating the amount of genetically engineered crop is grown in order to prevent Bt gene resistance. The most effective step would be for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to consolidate when it come to the new field of bio-engineered food.

The first issue that these agencies need to tackle is safety. According to the present rules of the FDA genetically engineered products are not required to be labeled or go through mandatory pre-market testing. Therefore the public has no way of knowing whether or not their food has been genetically engineered. This is simply unacceptable, the FDA, a government agency is essentially violating “US citizens’ right to know and to choose what they eat, and it may also constitute a significant threat do public health.”(Schonbeck,1)But with the different agencies operating separately things get even more confusing because “even though the Bt potato is plainly a food, for the purposes of Federal regulation it is not a food but a pesticide and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA”(Pollan, 408). This is a clear example of a relatively overlapping problem being handled by two separate agencies with two different sets of safety standards.

When the EPA was asked if the potatoes had been tested for safety as human food the answer was “not exactly…the EPA works from the assumption that if the original potato is safe and the Bt protein assed to it is safe that the whole New Leaf package is presumed to be safe” (Pollan, 409). This is absolutely ludicrous. First of all Bt is a pesticide, and no one is positive what its long term effects are, so rather than putting forth the time and money to research the potential effects of Bt in humans they are just going to presume it is safe for consumption!

The United States is not the only country facing the bio-tech food decision. Europeans have been resisting genetically engineered crops now too. Austria, Luxembourg, and Norway are going as far as to “risk trade war with the United States…refusing to accept imports of genetically altered crops” (Pollan, 408). Many people including bio-tech giants like Monsanto are quick to defend themselves by pointing out that after the mad cow disease scare many Europeans have become increasingly cautious when it comes to their food choices. They also point out that they do not have the protective agencies such as the FDA, EPA, and USDA to regulate their food and agriculture. But these can not be the only reasons, they are too simple. Is it maybe because the Europeans know something we do not about bio-tech foods. Yes, they do recent studies by Egyptian toxicologists that are posted on the FDA website show “that ingesting foods with the Bt gene may cause cellular changes in the digestive tract that could produce symptoms of “mild food poisoning or intestinal flu.” (Schonbeck,1). Beyond that researchers are worried gene transfer may contribute to the increase of anti-biotic resistance in humans, as well as unexpected allergies. It is for these reasons alone that Bt and other components of genetically engineered food need to be put through vigorous testing and be clearly labeled in the market place.

So let’s take a step back to get the bigger picture. Our planet is tremendously over populated and is being strained for its natural resources. But is technology really the answer to this problem? As human beings we have used technology to create more of us through invetro fertilization was that the right decision? We are beginning to have an even greater understanding of cloning, should we start cloning people too? While all of these things including genetically engineered food seem like positive new ideas, we have gotten so preoccupied with the “can we do it?” that we never stopped to think “should we do this?” We have intervened with nature, the ecosystem, maybe even God to ignore the natural process of population control in order to create more of us, which is further straining our planet.

It seems pretty clear that genetically engineered food is not the answer to the world’s problems. Food is not the simple solution that we seem to searching for. More food means more people. More people means more water which is already in short supply and more food, and more food means further biological pollution which will eventually lead to less food than we had to start with and twice as many people to feed. We have not even established sufficient laws and adequate safety testing for these foods and have already been distributing these foods to the public! A natural solution would be the most practical and in long run economical for our country and for countries around the world.

We can learn from the Ganges situation, there attempts at solving their problems with pure technology failed. But now by using the pond system, a natural solution to their problem hopefully they will be able to reverse the pollution and be able to utilize the water for irrigation as well as religious purposes. Technology is a wonderful thing but it is not the answer to all the world’s problems. In order to sustain natural life we need to find a natural solution or our planet as we know it is going to drastically change possibly for the worse.