INTRODUCTION
There is general discontent and uneven acceptance of genetically modified foods in the world all over. This has led to the development of regulatory frameworks in many countries to control its use or at the least monitor them. The sudden increase in discontent prompting different control and monitoring approaches such as labeling can be attributed to a lot of factors. First, organic farming is on the rise globally, and as a worthy competitor of genetic modified foods, organic farmers are advocating for the labeling of GM foods in order to advance their health and environmental risk concerns. The discontent is so widespread that citizens such as those of California are going to the polls to determine the labeling policies. All this is going on in spite the scientific consensus that clear GM foods of any environmental and health consequences.
Thesis statement: In spite of the benefits realized so far due to adoption of GM food technology, it is clear that the original idea was far much oversold to the consumer.
The GM food idea have been sold world over as noble idea for alleviate malnutrition and food insufficiency problems especially in areas where agriculture and food production is based on rainfall patterns. However, the consumer benefits of the idea seem to be oversold. Many faulty arguments have been raised in favor of genetically modified crops. The proponents of GM food engineering are of the idea that GM crops will reduce pesticide and fungicide use
However, in reality, usage of chemicals is unaffected. Second, the proponents argue that GM crops will result in insignificant contamination of traditional foods. This fact is disputed because cross-pollination between GM crops and natural crops is widespread. Next, the biotechnology industry has assured the population that GM foods are safe. However, there is no single conclusive scientific research that supports the claim fully. Last, GM food advocators have argued that the technology has been globally accepted as a universal solution to acute food problems. However, in reality, GM food have wiped out organic farmers and rendered them irrelevant. The support from the general population is also in contrary with the belief. Were the general population in universal acceptance of GM food, there would have been no labeling referendums like those witnessed in California and skeptical concerns by countries in Europe as consumers would have been happy. Globally, there are more than 40 countries including all European, Japan and China exercising labeling regulations. Out of the 10 countries with the most acreage in biotechnology crops, eight are developing countries. This indicates the rising skepticism arising with the use of the technology in developing countries.
Developing countries are obviously faced with the recurrent problem of food shortage and in order to keep their food basket full, they have to rely on farming strategies not dependent on rainfall patterns and pest control. GMO is a perfect solution for this kind of countries whose environmental aspects are not only predictable but also unfavorable for food production. Bearing in mind the fact those developing countries required a stable solution to their food security problems coupled with the rigorous campaigns of the GM crop proponents over its benefits, might explain their early adoption.
It is, thus, indicative that GM crop benefits to the consumer were oversold. This paper explores the concerns raised over time by GM technology opponents over its widespread adoption advances as well as the environmental and health concerns that have given it “oversold consumer benefits” technology.
It can be argued that the consumer benefits of GM foods were oversold. This is because the GM landscape at the 90s when it was introduced is far much different from the current situation. Developing countries without a reliable source of food products would utilize biotechnology to produce abundant food without additional costs. In 1994, University of California cellular biologist and former Monsanto researcher revealed in 2004 that biotechnology would deliver food abundance in developing countries if the technology was adopted. Crops would be genetically modified to ripe slowly thereby diminishing the factor of perish-ability.
As predicted, GM techniques would broaden chances of crop variety improvements. Other adaptation techniques and modern agriculture methods could also be exploited to seek maximum returns with sufficient nutritional contents. However, as predicted such technologies were not commercialized due to several reasons.
It was argued then that utilization of this technology not only guarantees disease- and drought-resistant crop varieties, it also leads to plants with desirable characteristics. A good example is potatoes that absorb small amount of fats when fried.
In addition, GM foods were predicted to be used for medicinal purposes as vaccines and other prescriptions. As predicted by Val Giddings, the vice president for food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, by 2010 90 to 95 percent of all plant-derived food materials would be obtained from genetically engineered foods. He predicted that in spite of the low penetration of the technology, a positive trend will be recorded and finally, opposition would be replaced with understanding and adoption. This prediction never came to pass since the organic crop industry has risen tremendously as GM food production decreased significantly. The underlying research behind fruits, vegetables and nuts with long shelf lives were abandoned proponents for industrial commodities such as corn and cotton. The earlier forecast that food varieties such as potatoes, tomatoes, and vegetables genetically altered to withstand adverse environmental conditions and diseases were not to be as GMO companies shelved the idea.
The latest development by the USDA involved the approval of Monsanto's insect-resistant Bt soybean and insect-resistant Bt cotton developed by Syngenta. It was expected that decreased used of pesticides as a result of disease resistance among crop varieties would serve the common good of preserving the environment. Late blight diseases, for instance, cost the UK over 50 million Euros yearly even with regular application of fungicides. BAST claimed that its GM potato will significantly reduce fertilizer spraying from 15 times yearly to only two. However, the biotechnology industry has been characterized with exaggerated promises with little proven results. Currently, up to 12,000 tons of agrochemicals are still used in the UK to spray potato plantations. Monsato’s GM sweet potato for Africa as reported by biotech industry was expected to reduce food insufficiency in Africa and deliver up to ten tones of yield per hectare from 4 tons. As reported the GM potato is virus resistant, and high yielding, but the reality proved contrary. The variety was not virus resistant and yielded much less than the non-GM varieties such as the Ugandan virus resistant sweet potato.
When Bt insecticidal crops were introduced in 1996 together with the Roundup Ready resistant crops, it was expected that the technology would be used industry wide. However, 16 years later, the two modifications are only used largely in three crop varieties: cotton, soybeans and corn produced in large scale. Currently the percentage of genetically engineered corn produced in the U S is above 80 with soybeans and cotton ranging higher. Among the genetically engineered corn varieties under production include one variety capable of producing ethanol.
Opponents of GM technology are of the idea that the technology was oversold to the population without proven scientific capability to produce the products they promised. The popularized Roundup Ready and Bt insecticide crops are only available in large scale context and in the couple of years they have been used, not even a single benefit has been extended to the consumer. It, thus, signifies that the technology is failed. The actual gains are not realized by the consumer but rather the biotechnology seed company and the farmer.
The higher cost of GM seed varieties is associated with intellectual property rights. As argued by opponents, the high productivity returns of GM varieties are the net of the inflated cost of obtaining seeds. Since most intellectual property rights are controlled by private companies away from the adopting country, the gains are always overwhelming considering the fact that developing countries are more often than not being offered this technology for free. In spite the fact that off-the-shelf technology is still impractical for most developing countries, most private sector developers advance favorable terms to developing countries at no cost but with tough restrictions. The potential benefits of biotechnology are sealed for large multinational corporations alone. Poor and developing countries are yet to realize even a fraction of the exaggerated benefits. Actually, technology is not least probable to solve the poor farmer’s problems. Just like in the Green Revolution period of the 60s and 70s where high yielding crop varieties, irrigation schemes and heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides were evident, with minimal benefits to the poorest farmers in developing countries, the same can be said of biotechnology. The technology is expensive and GM seed multinationals exercise stringent control measures over their products. Farmers, for instance, covered by patterns are barred from saving them from season to season, and as such, it makes no economic viability for the poor farmers in developing countries to use it. After making all the commitments in terms of cost and devoting all the efforts it would be impractical for them to be controlled on the use of seeds.
With GMO crops, environmental concerns are imminent. The large scale adoption of the technology is a recipe for environmental degradation and contamination. There is likelihood that the GM crops are more likely to develop resistance to the safe Roundup herbicide and Bt insecticide. This concern has been realized by the pro and anti crusaders. It is unfortunate that cases of resistance have been reported for corn borer and corn rootworm, the two insects killed by the harmless herbicides. Another incidence of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp was recorded in 2010 opening up to researchers the fact that adequate beyond glyphosate control measures are necessary.
Given that there are no other proven methods of pest and weed control and that the resistances have been so widespread, it is worrying concern. GM adopters especially those growing Roundup Ready seeds are not legally bound to develop a refuge while those growing Bt are required to develop refuges equivalent to 205. However, this regulation is not exercised in the industry. It is then apparent that resistances to existing GM crops and mutations to control procedures will not affect the biotechnology companies but will affect farmers to a great extend. Biotechnology companies did not develop an integrated control mechanism to counter the effects of resistances. Together with country legislations that does not necessitate minimal-use or rotation programs, the problem is magnified upon realization that environmental contamination is imminent on the side of the consumer.
When the effects are compounded with cross-pollination contamination, it is apparent that the world will never be the same again. Initial reports indicating that cross-pollination is insignificant have been proven contrary. When GM and n-n-GM crop varieties are different, cross-pollination is the highest level. In 2000, for instance, GM starlink corn approved only for animal feeds ended up in taco shells and other food products. The organic canola industry in Canada was wiped out by GM contamination Together with other GM food controversies world over, it is apparent that GM food technology is not only unable to deliver what they promised, but has also become harmful to the human consumer. There is conflicting information on the recommended buffer zone to prohibit cross-pollination. However, the truth is that as far as human health is concerned, GM technology industry cannot guarantee that their products are not safe. A single human health report published in 2004 cannot be the basis of industry wide approval. All this arguments points to the fact that the benefits of GM food technology are oversold to the consumer.
Works Cited
Clark, Ross. ""What's Good for GM Is Good for the World," www.spectator.com." The Spectator 25 October 2003.
Conko, C.S. Prakash and Gregory. "Technology That Will Save Billions from Starvation," , ." The American Journal of Food Safety (2008).
Farndon, John. From DNA to GM Wheat: Discovering Genetic Modification of Food. Oxford: Heinemann Library, 2006.
Fox, Michael W. Killer Foods: When Scientists Manipulate Genes, Better is Not Always Best. Lyons Press, 2004.
Mclure, Jason. "Genetically Mofdified Foods Should labels be required." CQ Press 2012.
Peter PringleFood, Inc. Mendel to Monsanto—The Promises and Perils of the Biotech Harvest. NY: Simon and Schuster, 2005.
Ree, Andy. "Genetically Modified Food Should Be Banned." 2009.
Zurek, Laylah. "The European Communities Biotech Dispute: How the WTO Fails to Consider Cultural Factors in the Genetically Modified Food Debate,"." Texas International Law Journal, ( Spring 2007.).
