8/13/2019 Since the Beginning of Agriculture

1/4

Since the beginning of agriculture, farmers and scientists (perhaps not categorized so at the

time) have worked to improve crops by cross breeding. With the advancement of technology, the

process of changing seeds for agriculture has been taken down a radical new path into the territory of

genetic modification.

With the creation of these new miracle crops, the world has been given false hope. Governments and groups under great American influence have begun looking towards genetically

modified rice, soybeans, corn, etc. as the future cure to world hunger. Yet, no significant role is

found for crop genetics in determining hunger, productivity, or poverty, casting doubt on the ability

of new transgenic crop varieties produced by genetic engineering to address these problems. There

are several reasons as to why this engineering and growth of genetically modified organisms is not

the route food producers should be taking.

Genetically modified food may also have an adverse effect on our health. We constantly

hear government officials; companies, such as Monsanto; and scientists, who are in support of

GMFs, say that there are no negative side effects of consuming them. We ask, however, if GMFs

are not labeled, how can scientists even remotely begin to trace health problems to the consumption

of them? Also, many consumer groups say that it is too early to dismiss the possibility of

unforeseen long-term impacts. Similarly, many scientists studying GMFs have concluded that

gene manipulation is unsafe. GMFs may have harmful effects on animals, ecosystems, and humans,

and these effects may be irreversible

CORN IN MEXICOCASE STUDY

Corn is the worlds second most important food crop and a large part of Mexican culture. It

was first domesticated there about 8,000 years ago and this center of origin is now a large area of

controversy due to the discovery of transgenes in the native Mexican corn called Criollo.These

were discovered in the village of Capulalpam by two scientists from the University of California,

Berkeley, Ignacio Chapela and David Quist. The consequences of this discovery were unnerving to

many Mexican farmers who unknowingly used contaminated store-bought imported corn for seed.

The concern was that if their corn plants became infected with GMOs the artificial genes could

potentially wipe out the genetic basis of corn. This will inevitably hurt Mexico s rich biological andcultural diversity.

IMPORTS

The method of arrival of GMOs to Capulalpam is still being debated, but it is possible that it

was through the Mexican government and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in

imported corn shipments sold for human consumption. Local farmers used this corn as seed. Mexico

imports about 6.2 billion tons of corn a year from the U.S. , but has banned the commercial planting

of transgenic corn. However, it does not require that genetically modified corn be labeled, therefore

its imports from the U.S., which contain transgenic corn, are then unknowingly mixed into the nativecorn. Quist and Chapela also claim the transgenes they found did not behave predictably, even

though transgenes have been accepted as stable. Also, Corns productive and adaptable nature makes

it more susceptible to contamination by GMOs because it spreads its pollen around by reproducing

8/13/2019 Since the Beginning of Agriculture

2/4

through open pollination. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that 75% of

the worlds crop genetic diversity has been lost in the last century.

NEGATI VE CONSEQUENCES

If transgenic corn mixes with teosinte (the wild relative of corn in Mexico ) it would create a

transgenic wild-crop hybrid of corn which could wipe out the original teosinte if it had some

biological advantage such as insect resistance from Bt corn. A likely environmental impact of

transgenic corn would be to Mexico s insect populations. Most transgenic corn is Bt corn, a

constantly active form of insecticide which can harm non-target species such as green lacewings

(which are used as pest control) and the Monarch butterfly. Due to overexposure, insects will

eventually develop resistance to Bt corn, which means that the natural form of Bt which is used as an

insecticide will also lose efficiency and this will cause economic damage to many farmers

worldwide. The villages in Mexico have a lack of information about GMOs and they have no way of

knowing which corn contains transgenes. In these villages corn is a way of life and the people feel a

violation of customs and traditions.

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES

The Mexican way of life is also being threatened by the economic consequences of

transgenic corn. Mexicos family farmers cant compete with the cheap prices of the

subsidized U.S. corn due to the subsidized commodity system and therefore the U.S. farmers get low

prices while farmers in other countries are unable to remain in the market. Regardless of the

discovery of transgenic corn in Mexico s imports, these imports continue to increase. This is in part

due to Mexico s agribusinesses which support more imports because they can get cheap corn for

animal feed and food processing. Traditional farmers have been unable to adapt to NAFTAs terms

and therefore migration to areas like Mexico City and America has increased.

As traditional farming is disappearing, the worlds corn diversity is also disappearing. These

farmers have lower yields than industrial farmers, but they do not use chemical inputs and therefore

8/13/2019 Since the Beginning of Agriculture

3/4

can save and exchange seed easily. This gives them independence and sustains the land based

culture. However, the Ministry of Agriculture in Mexico has not done anything about the increasing

corn imports, claiming they are just another hybrid. This is also exacerbated by the fact that

biotechnology companies will likely forbid farmers from saving any seed contaminated with their

patented GMOs and they will be unable to exchange corn seed. They will have to buy their seeds

from agrochemical companies, like the U.S. does.

Di ff erent opinions in the European Un ion and Uni ted States

Since the late 1990s, the controversy over genetically modified foods has increased

importance in Europe . However, the United States , home to sixty three percent of global

genetically modified crops, has shown relative apathy to the issue.The United States and Europe

differ on opinions of the risks involved with GMOs. In 1999, the EU legislated that in 5 years they

would no longer import GM crops because the United States did not label and differentiate between

GM and non GM crops. The United States has the notion of Substantial Equivalence which

essentially says that if the GM crop and its conventional counterpart are essentially the same in terms

of nutrients and toxicants, there is no need for regulation or differentiation. The United States argues

that labeling all GMOs will confuse and mislead customers, as well as increase costs for

companies required to segregate the crops. In the United States , large retailers control much of

farming and food manufacture, and thus food politics are focused more on economics than human

interests. The view of biotechnology is very different in Europe, especially the UK , where there is a

more precautionary approach of unsafe until proven otherwise. The EU has mandatory labeling laws

for any food with a 1% GMO content or higher. Consumers demand these strict regulations, and the

overall sentiment is very opposed to GMOs. 41 countries have developed labeling laws, however,

the U.S. is not one of them. (Herrick, 294)

8/13/2019 Since the Beginning of Agriculture

4/4

Problems with these types of agricul tur e

Organic agriculture is thought of as having low productivity and being labor intensive, and

thus expensive where labor is scarce.

Solu tions (and why these methods are stil l better than GMOs)

Although organic agriculture will be less productive for the first 5 years, it will then be as

high or higher, and net profit will be higher in long run.

Look for ways to restore healthy topsoil and get back organic material to support community

of soil organisms that will increase nutrient cycling and help protect crop against diseases.

Weeds can be controlled by cover crops.

Transition time can be lessened by applying manure to the field.

CONCLUSIONS

There does appear to be advantages to the production of GMOs, such as increased

yield and pest/disease resistant crops in short term. However, finding new adverse side effects on

health and the environment is not out of the question, and GM crop growth does not support

sustainable development of agriculture. Most importantly, our research has shown that GMOs will

not end world hunger due to the existing social, political and economic systems currently in place.

We must accept GM foods with the same scrutiny as any other lab-developed product, be weary to

the gradual creation of a monoculture, support continual research of GMO safety under all scenarios

and continue to support the testing of side effects even after FDA approval. We, the consumer, must

take the action to question that is endorsing the widespread use of GMOs without any separation or

labeling.