The data are in: Corn is genetically modified. So are Rice Crispies. Maybe that Kale was genetically modified. But it was raised here at school using all organic and sustainable techniques. The Blue Corn Chips, certified "Organic" by the USDA, had some genetically modified ingredients.
According to the Bio-Rad, the company that supplied us with the testing materials, 85% of all corn and soy crops are genetically modified. Further, farms and agribusiness that use genetically modified corn and soy do not have to disclose that information to the consumer.
I will go on record as saying I don't think that Genetic Modification of food is bad. I see the GM movement, or the "Gene Revolution" (Raney and Pingali, 2007), as a natural extension of modern agricultural practice. As you read in Raney and Pingali's article, however, the GM movement is not without its detractors. The GM movement is not the perfect solution for unsustainable agriculture, nor is it the only solution for feeding the 800,000,000 malnurished or starving humans that share our planet.
Based on what you think, what you've learned from our discussions, and what you "gleaned" from your reading, write a comment based one of these two prompts:
1) If you had to craft a U.S. or U.N. policy to regulate the distribution, production, and use of Genetically Modified crops, what three policy descisions would you make. Why? What evidence do you have to guide your policy decisions?
2) If you were going to organize a protest against GM foods on the National Mall on Washington DC, what three things would you protest and why? Would you be a hypocrytical as a protestor, given that you liklely benefited from GM products the day of the protest? Would that stop you from protesting?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My first policy decision would be to make information about genetically modified foods available to the public. Each producer must list all modifications and the purpose for each of them. Also, all genetic modifications would be public domain, promoting competition and allowing benefits to reach poor farmers. Anyone wishing to sell genetically modified seeds must state where they are planning to sell to, and those areas must meet pulic awareness standards, whether or not they are within the U.S. or U.N.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Gene Revolution is not harmful. I think it can lead to some great innovations as far as feeding countries that don't have enough to eat. But, if 85% of food materials are genetically modified which increasing the production and quality in most cases, how can farmers who do not use gene modified products compete with an “inferior” product?
ReplyDeleteLabeling, Research, and Limited Distribution.
ReplyDeleteLabeling becomes necessary as consumers get more and more isolated from the sources of their food products (ingredients in frozen dinners, corn chips, etc). We already have labeling systems for the growing practices of crops (like "all-natural", "locally grown" or "organic"); it seems logical to let consumers know the practices behind the products they buy to make their own decisions. Consumers have a right to their information- there are oddball cases in which it becomes necessary to label a product for the consumer’s safety (e.g. food allergies triggered by genetically modified plants with genes from known allergens).
More research has to happen- especially if companies want these products to come into the market unlabeled. And I’m not talking about research these companies do themselves- I want these to be independent studies which will be released regardless of whether the data supports or contradicts companies’ previous statements. If either of these options becomes unreliable or unfeasible, then distribution should be limited until further research or labeling take place.
Regarding US and/or UN policy for GM foods, I think the first thing that should be done is making the public aware of what food is genetically modified. If GM foods are being considered a positive thing and there has yet to be any major side effects to consumers, why continue to hide the information? Consumers should probably be aware of the things they’re actually consuming. Second, there should be more research devoted to improving the status of hunger and poor farmers. This technology has shown itself to aid the status of small farms, and there can be nutritional benefits and so on, but what good is that if the only people benefiting from these things aren’t the people who actually need it? From the article, I get the sense that companies are just conducting research for profit and no other benefits. Which brings me to the third policy, distribution of GM seeds should return to a freely disseminated basis. Public research and a more open distribution of the seeds would increase the use, and since these seeds are supposed to be inherently positive for the farmer, the economy, and the consumer, increase of use means an increase in the benefits received from GM foods.
ReplyDeleteWhen you get into things like genetic modification you inevitably get into moral dilemmas. People will start to wonder just exactly what they can do with genetic modification, and eventually they’ll start to wonder how they can cut corners and make money, and we, the consumer, will be the ones who get the short end of the stick. It may just be that I am a pessimist but I don’t really think that’s the case. I know how people work, in general. I know how slimy a lot of us are. Most people are good, caring individuals, but it only takes a few people who are more interested in money than human beings to grow corn twice as fast that causes cancer, or something. I’m not saying I’m against the gene revolution. I think it could be and will be a great thing. I’m just nervous, cautious, I guess. It’s probably misplaced, but I can’t help it.
ReplyDeleteI also personally agree with Michael and Mr. Reardon. I do not believe genetically modified foods are that harmful; and considering the detractors, all in all I think that humans are more important than some crops (I may be biased, so in the interest of full disclosure, I am human). If I were to make policy regarding GM foods, my first decision would be to promote research into better creating GM foods. Like, federal research dollars. With research we may be able to improve on some of the faults inherent in the process as of now. Second, I would try to promote federally assisted education program to try and teach the greater American populous all of ins and outs of the issue as opposed to people's impressions being left in the hands of parties who are inherently benefited one way or the other. My third edict would be to put in place a restriction on the production of GM foods. Now, I'm not against GM foods, but the growth of these organisms would have to be strictly maintained so as not to encroach on any surrounding wildlife.
ReplyDeleteGenetically modifying our food increases productivity which allows us to feed more people. The Gene Revolution is a good thing which can potentially help solve the hunger problem in poor countries. But the technology needed to genetically modify food is fairly expensive so it is not available to poorer countries. I think genetically modifying foods is a good idea and do not worry everyday about the potential hazards mentioned in “Sowing a Gene Revolution.” May be more time is needed to show the effects of GM crops. Herbicide-resistant weeds have been found according to the article. Even though they are not a problem now, who knows about the future.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to make policy on genetically modified foods, I would want foods that are genetically modified to be clearly labeled as genetically modified food and would make efforts to educate the public about genetically modified foods. My 2nd policy would be to make access to the technology less expensive. Making it more affordable. This may be done by making genetically modified foods public domain instead of privately held intellectual property. This would make the average farmer more able to afford it. My 3rd policy would make regulations on Genetically modified foods stricter. The effects on the environment, the economy, and the people eating the food, should be studied before these foods are released on the market.
ReplyDeleteAs can be seen in my blog post on genetically modified foods from last week, I think that genetically modified food is currently the best solution to global hunger problems. Making food more nutritious and available in higher quantities would help people in poverty get the nutrition they need. As global population continues to grow at a drastic rate, lack of food will be more severe in the upcoming years than ever before. Innovations in agriculture will be the key to keeping the population healthy and well fed.
ReplyDeleteI would start programs to spread information about genetically modified foods, ensure that research continued, and control labels. If more people had access to information about genetic modification and knew the benefits more people could be helped by it. Research has to continue so the effects of genetic modification can be tracked and so new ideas can surface. With the increased knowledge about genetically modified food my previous initiative would promote, clear and precise labeling would be particularly important in raising awareness and support of genetically modified food.
ReplyDeleteOne policy I would enact would be an educational program about geneticall modified foods. I would also think about genetically modified foods being label. I would be interested to see how a label like that effects the product. It would also be good to make the technology like PCR cheaper and more affordable to use.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to craft a UN policy to regulate the distribution, production, and use of GM crops, I would change current policy. One, I would open up trading of GM crops. Currently, trade is limited to countries who have a regulation entity that can test GM foods. Second, all countries who import and export GM foods shall have or have a plan to create a regulation department within 5 years. It is important to regulate these crops, but not limit the trade because of a lack of regulation. Third, I would create a website listing all the crops, their genetic modification, and their tested safety results. This would help poorer countries and farmers know what they are buying, and limit the redoing of expensive safety tests. Many of these things I got from the handout. On the last page, on the side, there was a list of institutional problems, and I think the policy outlined above addresses those problems.
ReplyDeleteGenetically Modified Foods are not entirely bad. They can help fight hunger by increasing food supply and decreasing cost allowing poorer countries to have more external access to food. If I were to make three policies, the first would be to have more research required before a GM product is released. Policy number two, increase awareness of GM foods by teaching classes about the pros and cons of GM foods. Third policy would be to have GM foods be limited. It is scary that there is no non-GM corn seed that can be found. There should always be a non-modified seed for every plant to prevent future possibilities of species extinction. By preserving the old we have a greater chance at maintaining a good biodiversity.
ReplyDeleteI agree that GM foods are more good than bad. But, if I were to protest, I know what issues I would raise to the surface. One, GM foods are unnatural (more of today not of the past). Foods that are modified via human involved pollination are not an issue but gene modification by direct means is not natural at all. Two, GM foods could have harmful effects in the long run which ,ay not be predicted by any testing of the products. Three, what if we have a GM plant that takes over! Attack of the Weeds! Bad for gardening, bad for biodiversity.
I don't know that I'm well versed enough in the policy to make recommendations. I can say that what interests me about the "Gene Revolution" article is the fault line between commerce in the industrialized world and policy in the developing world. Sounds like there's evidence that, left only to its own devices, the market alone won't spur the development of more and better food for people and countries that really, really need it. Clint's idea of GM foods being public domain is an interesting one. That's a panel I'd like to hear -- agribusiness folks and WHO-types -- who could hash out the many issues that are surely there.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing I notice is how ideological purity/surety on this issue ("GM is bad!" or "GM will end hunger!") seems to be impossible. As is the case with so many intractable problems, a pragmatic, case-by-case approach is not only the best approach, it's probably the only possible approach.
As far as the protest goes, I'm not a protest sorta guy. I will say I don't think it's inherently hypocritical to protest something if you benefit from it. (I.e., many people who "benefitted" from segregation/Jim Crow protested against it, etc.) And where do you draw the line of benefit? I likely benefit to some extent from the economic health of US Agribusiness. It's tough to extricate yourself wholly and completely from the marketplace (as our experiment showed in just one way).
Now, to be wholly unaware of the fact that you use/benefit from something you're protesting...that's another matter.