Contrary to the 5th of the 13 myths of genetic engineering and agreeing with the FDA article, genetic engineering can increase the nutritional value of food in many ways. By genetically engineering food, scientists can remove allergens such as lactose and gluten. Lactose intolerance is a problem in the small intestine. This problem can be helped by using genetic engineering to remove the lactose in milk, thus allowing lactose intolerant people the ability to benefit from products that would have otherwise contained lactose such as cheese and milk. Gluten is a protien chain found in wheat, rye, and barley. Many people around the world experience an auto- immune reaction to the presence of gluten. Scientist are now working on a way to remove or alter gluten in the before-mentioned plants. The removal of gluten from these plants will allow thousands of people access to these highly nutritional plants. A study conducted by Cornell university confirmed that rice genetically engineered for a higher iron percentage, did in fact have a 20% greater iron percentage than unmodified rice. This is but a sample of the many ways that genetic engineering can increase the nutritional value of food and thus help millions of people across the world.
Genetically engineered crops and produce have the potential to yield and provide healthy and nutritious foods for generations to come. However the present applications of genetically engineered crops and produce are not cost effective and don't reach their full potential in terms of benefiting the farmers and the consumers. Right now, seeds that have been genetically engineered cost more and are normally coupled with a contract forcing you to use a certain pesticide and herbicide. Which brings the price of the final product up past what most consumers and investors are willing to pay; this, in turn, causes farmers to be hesitant about investing in genetically engineered seeds. Thus causing a decline in the use and testing of genetically engineered products, such as seeds, herbicides and pesticides. This causes the technology to dwindle into a state of impracticality, which brings the cycle back to a lack of present applications due to the discrepancies in the process.
According the "13 Genetic Engineering Myths" essay, a prominent myth is that "one can always choose not to eat GE foods", however this is not the case, in fact many outlets exists for consumers to purchase foods free of modification. Many chain supermarkets exist that cater to different markets. The most prevalent tend to stock many processed foods which contain GE ingredients. While others, such as Trader Joe's or Whole Foods, pride themselves on purely natural foods under private labels. These private label foods are sourced from non-genetically modified ingredients. Contrary to the "13 Myths" essay, these markets do exist, and exist quite lucratively, due to the support of the consumer's choice to purchase foods that are natural and GE free. The "13 Myths" essay speculates that such a market could not exist because too many of the foods on the market are genetically engineered or modified. However, the FDA has produced statistics which state that only 70% to 75% of all processed foods contain GE ingredients. The "13 Myths" essay did not take into account specialty or targeted stores, such as Trader Joe's or Whole Foods.
GE food can be beneficial to mankind, growers, and consumers but it is not always a safe idea to trust everything that scientists backing GE foods tell us. If society were to believe such nonsense many drastic and adverse negative side effects would occur. In the field of GE scientists are either funded by biotechnology companies or the government both of these sources of funding have a stake in the success of GE food. Therefore the scientists that are funded by these sources also have a stake in success and likely would not speak out against those that sign their paychecks. While it can be beneficial to listen to those with more experience in a particular field we must also remember to always question their motives.
There is controversy as to whether genetic engineering is precise or not. Some sources believe it can be precise, while others do not. According to Linda Bren from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "By controlling the insertion of one or two genes into a plant, scientists can give it a specific new characteristic without transferring undesirable traits." However, according to Drew Endy from M.I.T., if one has an inverter made out of proteins and DNA, a protein signal meant for one part will also act on any other instance of that inverter anywhere else in the cell. Because genetic engineering has just started to develop, scientists have a limited knowledge as to how it works right now. Therefore, people cannot rely on its precision or its products.
The perspectives presented in both the Thirteen myths of genetic engineering (TMGE) and the paper from the FDA on how precise genetic engineering is, are both bias due to the nature of the special interests of each groups. In the TMGE the authors suggests that modern genetics do not operate in isolation. In contrast the paper released by the FDA does not actually address this anywhere in the text. Both however, fail to provide reference to specific findings in their field. Instead TMGE trusts their range of credibility to name dropping ending the section with a quote from a Harvard Professor which voices opinion rather then proven fact. Both papers fail to find a middle ground on which to rest and the authors of both papers have a very pronounced bias aimed in their own interests. This tends to lead to less fact and more to opinion which makes both papers no matter what the credentials of the author(s) no more useful then the opinions of an everyday person of semi intelligence.
Genetically engineered crops will not benefit farmers. According to Miguel A. Altieri (department of Agricultural Science at UC Berkley), most innovations in agricultural biotechnology are profit driven instead of need driven. Biotech industries are pushing for reliance on genetically modified crops for their own profit. With Biotech companies in possession intellectual property rights of genetically modified crops, farmers are not able to use second generation seeds to reproduce more crops. These new industries have the ability to prohibit farmers from using crops other than the modified ones through contracts and such. Other such troubles to farmers come in the form of insurance.
According to a newspaper The Herald of the UK, farmers will get no insurance for their genetically modified crops. Therefore there is a possibility of them losing their entire profit in inclement weather or public dissatisfaction.
Some say that genetically modified foods will insure farmers that their crops will grow in any weather or conditions. Such technologies for resistance to pesticides will prolong the life span of crops to help them grow in environments that were not previously hospitable for crops( CSA senior editor Deborah B. Whitman). However, the long term profit driven Biotech industries with intellectual property rights and limited insurance from corporate firms places farmers in an interesting predicament.
A major component of a free market is that money talks, that consumers can express their choice with their purchase. This process requires an informed consumer, and at a basic level labeled products. While information may be available for a specific product, such as a bottle of soybean frying oil, its near impossible to decide on the genetic purity of the 4th ingredient in you cereal listed simply as "soybean oil". Both of the essays used as source material note that most genetically engineered components are not required to be labeled. The FDA's stance is that all unlabeled GE foods are tested and confirmed to have no significant differences in nutritional properties, allergens, or any property requiring different handling, storage, cooking, or preservation. This leaves the consumer unable to apply their opinion of GE food on the market.
Genetic Engineering can create a tomato that is bigger and lasts longer on the shelf, but it's not better. The major proponents of GE say that it benefits the consumer and small farmers, but the truth is the exact opposite. A large majority of GE foods are altered only to affect their shelf-life or make them resistant to insects and/or herbicides/pesticides. These major 'benefits' are more driven by profit for the major companies than by consumer need. And as for small farmers, GE crops end up placing formerly independent farmers too much at the mercy of the major pharmaceutical companies who own the patents for the GE crops. Another alleged benefit is that GE crops will help curb pesticide use, but just the opposite occurs. Farmers use more since they don't have to worry about affecting the plant, but not everything is resistant to herbicides.
Genetic engineering has been around for hundreds of years. In the past, genetic engineering was used to create plant breeds with specific traits. Now genetic engineering deals with more than simple cross-pollination of plants. Scientists are now trying to remove the genes in foods which cause allergic reactions. However, is the removal of all genes from foods which cause allergic reactions possible? The idea of removing the genes which cause allergies is a good one, but not very plausible. The removal of a single gene from the DNA chain is a relatively easy operation. However, the placement of the gene within another DNA chain has an effect on the other genes within the chain. In this way, the insertion of one gene into another chain can produce unexpected and unwanted results. Also, several genes exist within foods which cause allergies. If all the genes which cause allergies are removed what is going to be left over? If all the genes are removed the foods will be removed of all nutritional value and what is left will no longer be food. Overall, neither paper gives a neutral view of this information, because of their opposite opinions neither paper has completely accurate information.
Genetic Engineering is able to modify certain fruits and vegetables DNA structure in order to give them desired traits such as resistance to herbicide, resistance to pesticides, and resistance to rotting. So your able to make a fruit that won't be eaten by bugs, or strangled by weeds, or be decomposed by microbes on a store shelf or in a consumers house. These are huge benefits to a man named Farmer Bob. No longer will Farmer Bob have to worry about spraying too much pesticides to kill a few bugs, because he bought super fruit. The seeds for these super fruits were much more expensive then normal seeds however. A small price to pay to keep bugs off his fruits using round-up thinks Bob. Bob usually buys a cheaper pesticide, but due to the binding contract the genetics company has with roundup he is forced to spend the extra cash. Mr. Bob is willing to make these sacrifices though because he knows that when harvest comes he will have much higher yields then the chumps who just bought normal seeds. Unfortunately for Farmer Bob farmers in the UK and US report that yields are no higher then normal seeds. ?Oh well.? saids Farmer Bob, ?They will certainly sell for a higher cost because they're enhanced super fruits.?. Well unfortunately for Farmer Bob again those same farmers reported the enhanced seeds are less reliable and less profitable. Due to the fear of the unknown long term effects of genetically enhanced fruits and vegetables the consumers are willing to pay more for all natural organic fruits. ?Well shucks!? exclaims Farmer Bob, ?I guess I'll just gather my seeds and replant and wait until the public warms up to my super fruits.?. Once again the curses of super fruits rains on Bob's parade. It is not possible to save seeds for the next season. Every season you must buy whole new genetically modified seeds from the genetic companies. It seems as though using modified seeds has cost Bob more money then the traditional ways of farming. Genetic engineering has some great promises for the future in both food and medicine, but I think Bob will wait until more research has been done on the effects of genetic engineering before incorporating it so much in our everyday lives.
Producing food using genetic engineering won’t help feed Third World Countries. The issue facing these people is not a lack of food in the world, but rather a lack of access to food, often at the hands of their leaders. The people in power either withhold the food or make it too expensive for the average citizen to purchase. This means that having more food could actually be worse, because there would soon be an excess of food which would go to waste. Even if genetic engineering could increase shelf life, the food would still go uneaten. If, hypothetically, there were no restrictions on what these people had access to, the problem still wouldn’t be solved. Genetically engineered food is more expensive than the original product it tries to replace, so when money is tight, it’s not an affordable option. However, growing your own food is cheaper, right? If a farmer in a Third World County was given enough genetically altered seeds to grow a field of wheat which is resistant to bacteria, then he would surely benefit more than if he grew bacteria susceptible wheat. Superficially, this sounds like a very good deal, but in reality genetically altered crops haven’t proved to supply any more successful harvest than the original and in some cases has even been less successful. Another drawback of the genetically altered crops is that the seeds often cannot be harvested and used to coming year due to a gene which causes the seed to die. The idea of helping the inhabitants of Third World Countries through genetically engineered food sheds hope on people, but there is ample evidence that proves it is false.