Crops are genetically modified for certain desired outcomes such as high yield, pest resistance, drought tolerance, herbicide resistance, for a better nutritional quality, etc. The genes that impart the desired characteristics do not naturally occur in the crop, and are not expressed by natural recombination (World Health Organization [WHO]). They are engineered in the laboratory, and may be obtained from unrelated species too. Genetically modified (GM) crops are thus subjected to much speculation despite the fact that they have several benefits.
1. Pros of GM Crops
Bioengineered crops with pest tolerance, reduce dependence on chemical pesticides, and crops engineered for high yield remove the need for chemical fertilizers (Nguyen). Drought tolerant crop varieties can be cultivated in regions with water scarcity, and saline tolerant crops can grow even in soil and water with high salt content that would otherwise remain unutilized (Nuffield Council on Bioethics). Further, crops with genes coding for vitamins, pharmaceutical products and vaccines, can help with alleviating diseases (Nguyen). This is very beneficial to developing countries, in which diseases attributed to nutritional deficiencies are quite common. Beta-carotene enriched “Golden Rice”, a GM product, which can prevent vitamin-A deficiency is considered a boon to developing countries with a high rate of childhood blindness (Nuffield Council on Bioethics). Thus, GM crops can be cultivated in regions already subjected to high environmental stress, and they can also help in meeting the nutritional demand of a rapidly growing population.
2. Cons against GM Crops
The main concern over GM crops is the engineering aspect, i.e. genes are moved across species unnaturally. For instance, Bt-cotton gets its insect tolerant genes from a microbe called Bacillus thuringiensis, which codes for toxic proteins that leads to pore formation in the insect gut. Genes are moved to corn or cotton from a microbe, and there is no way this could have occurred spontaneously in nature without human manipulation (Nguyen). Thus there is concern over the unknown and unintentional consequences of genetic modification. One example of unintended harm is the death of monarch butterflies that transferred pollen from Bt-cotton (Nguyen). The toxin coded by the recombinant genes was intended to kill the bollworm, a pest that severely reduced cotton yield, and monarch butterflies succumbed to the toxin as well. Sometimes, allergens may be expressed in the bioengineered product, and susceptible people who are unaware of the source of the recombinant DNA might unknowingly consume it (Nguyen). There is also concern over human enteric bacteria being affected by GM crop toxins, especially from roundup ready soya beans. Another controversial aspect is the monopoly (Nguyen). A recombinant seed could be made sterile, and farmers utilizing the seed could be made completely dependent on the corporate for their yields.
3. The crunch – Should we genetically modify crops?
High yielding GM crops reduce chemical pollution of water and land to a great extent, and human exposure to hazardous chemicals is also reduced. Further, drought or saline resistant GM crops can be cultivated even in areas with severe environmental stress. They could be our saviors in a future world threatened by climate change impacts. According to WHO, GM crops or foods are not different from their natural counterparts in their nutritional property or safety. Safety is gauged based on allergenicity and toxicity to humans (WHO). Presently, all approved GM crops are safe for humans. Unintended allergic response is also assessed prior to the marketing of a product. The environmental concern about outbreeding is justified, but it can be controlled by appropriate containment of the recombinant variety, preventing its crossbreeding with other plants. As only few biotechnology companies are involved in this field, the contamination can be controlled effectively (Nuffield Council on Bioethics). Further, the source of the engineered gene is known, it can be removed or modified based on the outcome. Arguments about “naturalness” are not acceptable because hybridization and plant breeding has already added several variants to the gene pool (Nuffield Council on Bioethics). Monopolism can also be checked by appropriate regulation. On the whole, with proper regulation, such as mandatory GM labeling, appropriate risk assessments and containment, there is no need to fear. We need to genetically modify crops to feed the growing global population sufficiently in a nutritive manner.
Conclusion
There are several arguments for and against bioengineering crops. But, on the whole genetic modification of crops is still being researched, and it is intended for the greater good. With appropriate regulation, genetic engineering can be used as an effective tool to manage our growing food demand in spite of dwindling natural resources, and threats posed by climate change.
Works Cited
Nguyen, Ha Then. "Genetically Modified Foods: Should We or Shouldn’t We?" The Gillings
Sustainable Agriculture Project A Gillings Innovative Laboratory. 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2016. <https://gillingsproject.wordpress.com/genetically-modified-foods-should-we-or-shouldnt-we/>.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. "Concerns about GM Crops - Nuffield Bioethics." 2016. Web.
22 Mar. 2016. <http://nuffieldbioethics.org/report/gm-crops-developing-countries-2/concerns-gm-crops/>.
WHO. "Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Foods." 2016. Web. 22 Mar.
2016. <http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/>.
