What are the issues and cons of genetically modified crops?
Discussion and insight into one of today's most important issues.
Below video: Demonstrations against Monsanto shown by Russia Today
Below video: Demonstrations against Monsanto shown by Russia Today
1. Intellectual Property, absolute control by corporations and domination of world production
Genetically modified seed companies use intellectual property laws and common law expressed in contracts to farmers forbidding the saving of seeds (and owning the means of production) and sharing of seeds.
In addition, GM seeds sold by companies are also subject to commodification, whereby seeds are a good that can be sold and must be returned to the seller once fully used. With several Supreme Court cases in the US ruling that GM seeds could be patented and be privatized in contrast to the historical status of seeds being a public commons, being bred and then freely distributed.
In addition to this, Monsanto’s recent acquisition of the “Terminator gene” whereby the next generation of seeds self-destructs and is unable to reproduce, has created a biological enforcement of contracts.
Monsanto defended its acquisition by claiming there was no conspiracy and it was simply a way to protect their company’s billions of dollars into research in bio-engineered products. (Stein, 2005)
Monsanto has filed lawsuits against 145 farmers, proceeding to trial with 11, and won all cases. (Monsanto Company, N/A) One case, Monsanto v. Schmeiser which was widely misunderstood as the company claiming ownership of a crop based on accidental presence of GM seed. Schmeiser was sued on the grounds that he had deliberately planted unlicensed GM seeds from neighbouring fields. Monsanto won the case.
However, this stance has sparked controversy and placed this issue at the front of international policy agendas, with groups and activists arguing that such seeds could have a disastrous effect on the global supply and production of food, creating a serious problem for farmers in developing countries, many of whom dependent on seed saving.
Greenpeace’s stance is that it gives corporations a dangerous amount of control over their product and is unlikely to benefit less developed nations until restrictions are lifted.
In addition to this, Monsanto’s recent acquisition of the “Terminator gene” whereby the next generation of seeds self-destructs and is unable to reproduce, has created a biological enforcement of contracts.
Monsanto defended its acquisition by claiming there was no conspiracy and it was simply a way to protect their company’s billions of dollars into research in bio-engineered products. (Stein, 2005)
Monsanto has filed lawsuits against 145 farmers, proceeding to trial with 11, and won all cases. (Monsanto Company, N/A) One case, Monsanto v. Schmeiser which was widely misunderstood as the company claiming ownership of a crop based on accidental presence of GM seed. Schmeiser was sued on the grounds that he had deliberately planted unlicensed GM seeds from neighbouring fields. Monsanto won the case.
However, this stance has sparked controversy and placed this issue at the front of international policy agendas, with groups and activists arguing that such seeds could have a disastrous effect on the global supply and production of food, creating a serious problem for farmers in developing countries, many of whom dependent on seed saving.
Greenpeace’s stance is that it gives corporations a dangerous amount of control over their product and is unlikely to benefit less developed nations until restrictions are lifted.
2. The UNKNOWN EFFECTS OF GM FOODS and other health and scientific issues
[Studies] indicate that they (GM foods) may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters
The effect of GM foods with new proteins and modifications is not known. This may be putting society’s health at risk by exposing them to unknown dangers. Testing requires an analysis showing no significant differences with conventional foods and a 30-day feeding study with adult animals. Long term frequent use may show negatives, as was shown with nicotine and asbestos.
The results of a review published was that GM foods “indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters” .
(Dona & Arvanitoyannios, 2009)
Although research on animals was conducted, and showed that toxicity in GM foods was assessed and present during the exposure time of the research, the duration of the research was insufficient to allow for evaluation to be made on any possible “biochemical parameters” and to show signs of disease within the limited subset of animals. A larger subset of animals, as well as testing determining whether it has carcinogenesis (cancer-causing) and mutagenesis effects should also be conducted.
Years of careful independent research with clinical trials and animals will be necessary and anticipated in the future in order to assess this completely and thoroughly. (Dona & Arvanitoyannios, 2009)
The results of a review published was that GM foods “indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters” .
(Dona & Arvanitoyannios, 2009)
Although research on animals was conducted, and showed that toxicity in GM foods was assessed and present during the exposure time of the research, the duration of the research was insufficient to allow for evaluation to be made on any possible “biochemical parameters” and to show signs of disease within the limited subset of animals. A larger subset of animals, as well as testing determining whether it has carcinogenesis (cancer-causing) and mutagenesis effects should also be conducted.
Years of careful independent research with clinical trials and animals will be necessary and anticipated in the future in order to assess this completely and thoroughly. (Dona & Arvanitoyannios, 2009)
3. Consumer rejection of GM FOODS and other financial issues
Genetic alteration of organisms and foods is seen as interference with nature with unknown consequences and with risks through interactions with the human body. Consumers have raised questions and are averse to any health effects regarding the food supply.
Throughout the USA, limited controversy has arisen regarding the use and widespread adoption of GMOs, but in the EU, and Australia and other countries, restrictive regulations and moratoria have been developed in response to harsh consumer outcry and demands for protection. Much of this can be distilled down to risk perception and can be explained with the theory of decision making.
Applying this theory, an application of the model can be made to consumers choosing GMOs and non-GMOs, whereby they choose the type of food that maximises the probability of the desirable outcomes. Predictions through this model has been made showing that products likely to gain acceptance are those that show significant benefits in financial outcome (eg. Food is cheaper), or in taste or health. When GMO products display no benefits over non-GMO products, and are perceived to increase the likelihood of a negative aspect occurring, consumer resistance is likely to occur, such as in historical cases of Bt corn. (Nelson, 2001)
Throughout the USA, limited controversy has arisen regarding the use and widespread adoption of GMOs, but in the EU, and Australia and other countries, restrictive regulations and moratoria have been developed in response to harsh consumer outcry and demands for protection. Much of this can be distilled down to risk perception and can be explained with the theory of decision making.
Applying this theory, an application of the model can be made to consumers choosing GMOs and non-GMOs, whereby they choose the type of food that maximises the probability of the desirable outcomes. Predictions through this model has been made showing that products likely to gain acceptance are those that show significant benefits in financial outcome (eg. Food is cheaper), or in taste or health. When GMO products display no benefits over non-GMO products, and are perceived to increase the likelihood of a negative aspect occurring, consumer resistance is likely to occur, such as in historical cases of Bt corn. (Nelson, 2001)
