 |
| http://flic.kr/p/8Zhbbh |
I first gained interest in GMOs in high school while taking a biotechnology and genetics class. GMO stands for genetically modified organism, meaning an organism (usually a crop) that is genetically engineered to contain desired traits, such as pest-resistance. Our honors credit required us to do projects on specific topics relating to what we studied. My favorite was the FlavrSavr Tomato project. When picking out tomatoes, you always search for a perfect tomato: bright red color, firm, not too soft, and that garden fresh smell. This wasn’t just some average tomato you buy at the farmers market; this tomato was THE perfect tomato. Genetic engineers gave the tomato its desirable red color and firmness that lasted longer than the average tomato, all while keeping a fresh taste. The expectations associated with the FlavrSavr Tomato should have revolutionized the agricultural industry; however, it did not live up to all the hype. The tomatoes ran into roadblocks when it came to the overall acceptance of the GMO and segregation from non-GMO tomatoes, taking them off the market after a short-lived success. Genetically modified crops like the FlavrSavr tomato, including most prominently genetically modified wheat, could provide a sustainable food supply worldwide. However, because of big chemical business’ true profit motive, the contamination of non-GM crops, and the consumers’ health, GM wheat growth should be strictly regulated.
Mistrust when it comes to businesses and corporations behind GMOs presents itself as a major source of opposition, especially in Europe. Of course part of the business world includes making a profit for economic gain; however, a problem arises when it is believed that this interferes with the health and safety of consumers. The seed of mistrust was planted in the nineties when the media spread their disapproval of GMOs. During this time, it appeared that biotechnology companies procrastinated with their rebuttals. These “turnarounds” led the general public to believe that “they’re hiding something from us.” Due to lack of answers, questions and unknowns grew to a wall of resistance, making it nearly impossible for present-day scientists and companies to ease skepticism.
Unanswered questions aren’t the only thing that built up to such strong dubiety. Future promises of a sustainable food source through GMOs are accompanied by pressure to live up to such expectations. Private biotechnology companies put the government under pressure to accept GMOs and approve research grants. With evidence that the ever-growing population of the world will someday need to rely on an alternate food source, scientists and researchers continuously push to adopt GMOs now rather than later. While the world may need to rely on genetically engineered crops, there isn’t any rush to push the citizens of the world into something they still have concerns about. Personally, it sets off a red flag that so many questions remain unanswered. If the reason these big businesses and corporations are not answering questions is because they don’t feel like they have a concrete answer, they need to come out and say that. I could have a lot more confidence if they are open with me about where they are in their research and the predictions for GM wheat as of right now. If scientists open up about their research, then people will feel more comfortable supporting their cause. This constant urge for deeper research within field of GMOs is yet another source of mistrust between private chemical companies and the consumers they affect. A study with surveys found that 95% of Europeans said that they want to have an active role in deciding the outcome of GMOs. In the same study, 86% desire to know more about genetically modified foods in general before they decide whether or not to consume them. This leads to the conclusion that Europeans are not all about completely banning GMOs, they just want to regulate them because they trust themselves over big businesses. I 100% agree with the Europeans. Researchers expect these citizens to just stand by and let them do their thing; however, it doesn’t work like that. GM wheat is something that could significantly impact the agricultural market all over the world; people have the right to know more about what they are getting into before they dive in headfirst.
Another large concern when it comes to the integration of GM wheat is the ability to segregate it from other non-GM wheat and crops. This exposes the biggest disadvantage of adopting GM wheat. A prediction from agricultural economist Robert Wisner states, “there is a high probability that GMO wheat would be rejected...by a substantial segment of the international market...[GM wheat] would create a high risk of accelerated foreign investment in the agriculture of former Soviet republics and Eastern Europe.” Wisner finally predicts that if the U.S. were to ever adopt and integrate GM wheat into their agricultural exports, they would lose 33%-52% of its export market. Grain marketing experts say that segregating GM wheat is nearly impossible. Their description states, “Once the GMO genie is out of the bottle, bionic wheat will sooner or later be everywhere--even on U.S. and Canadian farms that never planted it.” And once this “genie” is released, it is irreparable. The damage is done and it is impossible to remove from the system. The thought that there isn’t an “undo” button is a very serious and scary reality. I know that if something like GM wheat is implemented permanently, I want countless research findings and testimonies to back it up. I’m an open-minded person, but I’m sure I speak for a fairly large amount of people when I say a long road lies ahead before I support the implementation of GM wheat into the agricultural market. There is still a long road ahead before I support the implementation of GM wheat.
Looking past the contamination of non-GM wheat, there are additional costs and risks of segregating GM wheat from the get go. Segregation testing has its added costs and risks to both buyers and sellers: for buyers, there runs the risk of “commingling” of GM wheat varieties and non-GM or limited-GM varieties; for sellers, there is a risk that incoming shipments could be rejected because of “false positive test results” regarding the GM material in those shipments. These are risks that some buyers and sellers aren’t willing to take. Helen Waller, a Montana spring wheat grower, states why she doesn’t want GM wheat: “I don’t want it because my customers don’t want it...it’s that simple.” This is a popular response among sellers. They realize the cost of GM wheat may be cheap, but the demand for it is not there, resulting in less profit. In today’s economy, expenditure remains a huge issue in every corner of the world. A budget and a plan are required to try and keep a country afloat in a sea of debt. People will not want or support the spending of money on something that is merely a hypothesis. What if after all of this research regarding segregation, it doesn’t work? Will that be millions, perhaps billions, of taxpayer’s dollars wasted? Of course some tangible evidence is needed to establish credibility and potential. No one is going to risk spending so much money on something that could be worth it.
Overwhelming health concerns top the list of arguments behind the opposition. This links back to the mistrust of companies behind GMO research. People feel as though they do not know enough about GM wheat to feel comfortable safely consuming it. Since the nineties when the media began spreading the opposition of GMOs, food safety issues remain unresolved. Biohazards are often highlighted as a main safety concern, arousing questions centered on what exactly are we consuming and is actually safe. Food safety regarding GMOs has even gone as far as to imply bioterrorism, such as “the intended or unintended creation of virulent micro-organisms...or the creation and escape of new life forms.” Consumers do not know what they are putting into their bodies and they are concerned that human hands genetically modified GM wheat. Genetic engineering is a tricky field. It is weird to think of yourself eating something that was created in a laboratory rather than grown on a farm. I haven’t seen one statement from scientists regarding the possible side effects and/or risks of consuming GMOs. Does the making of GMOs require radiation or some other dangerous component that could result in cancer? Is it safe to consume while pregnant, or could it possibly result in genetic defects of our own children? Even more unanswered questions arise than before, prompting answers before any further research.
As it stands right now, the European population feels misinformed and betrayed by government support of chemical giants, providing justification behind opposition. The fact that GMO companies continue pushing the government for grants towards GMO research results in more distrust on a political level, making the chance of future acceptance slim. If the government refuses pressure from private companies and instead focuses on setting new regulations regarding GMOs, perhaps they could begin to slowly earn the trust of the population. A plethora of unanswered questions surrounding GMOs, and GM wheat in particular, contributes to growing skepticism. Hitting the pause button before this research gets out of control is the only hope of turning the opposition around. Scientists need to answer questions and the government needs to insert its dominance; it is in the best interest of the world economy, the agricultural market, and the health and well being of people worldwide.
Mistrust when it comes to businesses and corporations behind GMOs presents itself as a major source of opposition, especially in Europe. Of course part of the business world includes making a profit for economic gain; however, a problem arises when it is believed that this interferes with the health and safety of consumers. The seed of mistrust was planted in the nineties when the media spread their disapproval of GMOs. During this time, it appeared that biotechnology companies procrastinated with their rebuttals. These “turnarounds” led the general public to believe that “they’re hiding something from us.” Due to lack of answers, questions and unknowns grew to a wall of resistance, making it nearly impossible for present-day scientists and companies to ease skepticism.
Unanswered questions aren’t the only thing that built up to such strong dubiety. Future promises of a sustainable food source through GMOs are accompanied by pressure to live up to such expectations. Private biotechnology companies put the government under pressure to accept GMOs and approve research grants. With evidence that the ever-growing population of the world will someday need to rely on an alternate food source, scientists and researchers continuously push to adopt GMOs now rather than later. While the world may need to rely on genetically engineered crops, there isn’t any rush to push the citizens of the world into something they still have concerns about. Personally, it sets off a red flag that so many questions remain unanswered. If the reason these big businesses and corporations are not answering questions is because they don’t feel like they have a concrete answer, they need to come out and say that. I could have a lot more confidence if they are open with me about where they are in their research and the predictions for GM wheat as of right now. If scientists open up about their research, then people will feel more comfortable supporting their cause. This constant urge for deeper research within field of GMOs is yet another source of mistrust between private chemical companies and the consumers they affect. A study with surveys found that 95% of Europeans said that they want to have an active role in deciding the outcome of GMOs. In the same study, 86% desire to know more about genetically modified foods in general before they decide whether or not to consume them. This leads to the conclusion that Europeans are not all about completely banning GMOs, they just want to regulate them because they trust themselves over big businesses. I 100% agree with the Europeans. Researchers expect these citizens to just stand by and let them do their thing; however, it doesn’t work like that. GM wheat is something that could significantly impact the agricultural market all over the world; people have the right to know more about what they are getting into before they dive in headfirst.
Another large concern when it comes to the integration of GM wheat is the ability to segregate it from other non-GM wheat and crops. This exposes the biggest disadvantage of adopting GM wheat. A prediction from agricultural economist Robert Wisner states, “there is a high probability that GMO wheat would be rejected...by a substantial segment of the international market...[GM wheat] would create a high risk of accelerated foreign investment in the agriculture of former Soviet republics and Eastern Europe.” Wisner finally predicts that if the U.S. were to ever adopt and integrate GM wheat into their agricultural exports, they would lose 33%-52% of its export market. Grain marketing experts say that segregating GM wheat is nearly impossible. Their description states, “Once the GMO genie is out of the bottle, bionic wheat will sooner or later be everywhere--even on U.S. and Canadian farms that never planted it.” And once this “genie” is released, it is irreparable. The damage is done and it is impossible to remove from the system. The thought that there isn’t an “undo” button is a very serious and scary reality. I know that if something like GM wheat is implemented permanently, I want countless research findings and testimonies to back it up. I’m an open-minded person, but I’m sure I speak for a fairly large amount of people when I say a long road lies ahead before I support the implementation of GM wheat into the agricultural market. There is still a long road ahead before I support the implementation of GM wheat.
Looking past the contamination of non-GM wheat, there are additional costs and risks of segregating GM wheat from the get go. Segregation testing has its added costs and risks to both buyers and sellers: for buyers, there runs the risk of “commingling” of GM wheat varieties and non-GM or limited-GM varieties; for sellers, there is a risk that incoming shipments could be rejected because of “false positive test results” regarding the GM material in those shipments. These are risks that some buyers and sellers aren’t willing to take. Helen Waller, a Montana spring wheat grower, states why she doesn’t want GM wheat: “I don’t want it because my customers don’t want it...it’s that simple.” This is a popular response among sellers. They realize the cost of GM wheat may be cheap, but the demand for it is not there, resulting in less profit. In today’s economy, expenditure remains a huge issue in every corner of the world. A budget and a plan are required to try and keep a country afloat in a sea of debt. People will not want or support the spending of money on something that is merely a hypothesis. What if after all of this research regarding segregation, it doesn’t work? Will that be millions, perhaps billions, of taxpayer’s dollars wasted? Of course some tangible evidence is needed to establish credibility and potential. No one is going to risk spending so much money on something that could be worth it.
Overwhelming health concerns top the list of arguments behind the opposition. This links back to the mistrust of companies behind GMO research. People feel as though they do not know enough about GM wheat to feel comfortable safely consuming it. Since the nineties when the media began spreading the opposition of GMOs, food safety issues remain unresolved. Biohazards are often highlighted as a main safety concern, arousing questions centered on what exactly are we consuming and is actually safe. Food safety regarding GMOs has even gone as far as to imply bioterrorism, such as “the intended or unintended creation of virulent micro-organisms...or the creation and escape of new life forms.” Consumers do not know what they are putting into their bodies and they are concerned that human hands genetically modified GM wheat. Genetic engineering is a tricky field. It is weird to think of yourself eating something that was created in a laboratory rather than grown on a farm. I haven’t seen one statement from scientists regarding the possible side effects and/or risks of consuming GMOs. Does the making of GMOs require radiation or some other dangerous component that could result in cancer? Is it safe to consume while pregnant, or could it possibly result in genetic defects of our own children? Even more unanswered questions arise than before, prompting answers before any further research.
As it stands right now, the European population feels misinformed and betrayed by government support of chemical giants, providing justification behind opposition. The fact that GMO companies continue pushing the government for grants towards GMO research results in more distrust on a political level, making the chance of future acceptance slim. If the government refuses pressure from private companies and instead focuses on setting new regulations regarding GMOs, perhaps they could begin to slowly earn the trust of the population. A plethora of unanswered questions surrounding GMOs, and GM wheat in particular, contributes to growing skepticism. Hitting the pause button before this research gets out of control is the only hope of turning the opposition around. Scientists need to answer questions and the government needs to insert its dominance; it is in the best interest of the world economy, the agricultural market, and the health and well being of people worldwide.
No comments:
Post a Comment