Issue 14: Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger?

Issue 14

Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger?

Authors: Gerald D. Coleman and Sean McDonagh

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. Intellectual Property Rights – the rights that an inventor has to her work. She invented it, so she should reap the benefits from it. In reference to genetically engineered food, an inventor believes that she should have the right to price the food as she wishes. The argument against it is that it should be public domain for the greater good – namely, the billions of starving people.

b. Green Revolution – selective breeding of two genetically distant plants that resulted in a plant that produced more food than either parent. This saved Asia from food shortages in the 1960s and 1970s. However, “lead to the loss of three-quarters of the genetic diversity of major food crops.” (McDonagh p. 255)

c. Genetically modified crops – The manipulation of the genome of a plant, in this case one that produces food that will create a higher yield and less dependence upon pesticide. There is some debate over the ethical issues and whether or not they are safe to humans, animals, or the environment.

d. Proponents - a person that proposes an activity that may have an effect on the environment.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

The pro argument author, Gerald D. Coleman, argues that genetically engineered crops can be used to feed the hungry, which in 2005 was estimated to be more than 3.7 billion people by the World Health Association. Every 3.6 seconds, someone dies of hunger in the world, a total of ten million in one year. Tomatoes, corn, and potatoes would not be here today without human engineering. It is no different than the selective breeding we’ve been performing for centuries.

Americans have been eating genetically modified foods for nearly a decade without any proven cases of disease or allergic reaction. The amount of genetically altered crops in this country is: 68% soybeans, 70% cotton, 26% corn, and 55% canola.

The intellectual property rights of genetically modified food could be resolved. Research universities are considering a proposal to have an open licensing provision that would share their inventions with developing countries through a ‘developing-country license’ but still retain the rights to research, education, and negotiations with industries. The Catholic Church insists that intellectual property rights over genetically modified food should be forsaken for the good of the entire human race.

With genetically altering our crops, we can reduce our use of pesticides, which are known to cause health problems in animals and man as well as pollute our environment. Genetically modified foods not only require less pesticide use, if at all, but they also hold many other benefits as well. They can be packed with nutrients if so designed. They can require less water and be drought resistant. This would be especially important in parts of Africa, where water is scarce. They can be designed to produce more substantial food product as well, so anywhere where the money is scarce, they can be planted and produce food at a lower comparative cost. This reduces the reliance poverty-stricken people have on aid and allows them to be more self-sufficient, which is what they desire anyway.

The con argument author, a priest named Sean McDonagh, argues that genetically engineered crops are dangerous and that we would be better serving the hungry by addressing the issues of land reform and social inequalities. He says that the terminator gene, called “Technology Protection System” by a Monsanto-owned company, which causes the plant’s seeds to self-destruct after the first crop, is reason enough to silence the “feed the world” argument. If every company that manufactures genetically engineered crops were to use this technology, farmers would be buying seeds every year. Hardly realistic if you are a very poor farmer who plants seeds in order to feed your family. This leads to our food supply being controlled by a few companies, which is in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Monsanto has attempted to distance its company’s reputation from the technology, and said it never intended to release the technology until other issues had been aired out. Quite simply, the political environment will not tolerate such technology, as it is obvious the only benefactor is the company itself.

There is some other danger with terminator technology. If genetically similar neighboring crops were to become pollinated with Monsanto terminator seeds, it could spell the end to such plants in a region. Ultimately, it can make an entire region of crops sterile. It could only spell disaster for farmers and those who depend on the region’s food.

Mr. McDonagh, as a priest, feels it is an abomination to God and the value of life that we could consider to patent living organisms. It “opts for an atomized, isolated understanding of life…as interconnected, mutually dependent and a gift from God to be shared with everyone.” (p. 255)

Perhaps technology is not as effective in increasing yields as they are claiming, either. In a 2003 study by the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University of England, they found that the sweet potato, after 12 years of research costing $6 million dollars has only produced an 18% increase in yield. However, conventional crossing on a small budget has produced a virus-resistant variety that increased the yield to 100%.

Claims of a decreased reliance on pesticide are also being challenged. In a study by Charles Benbrook, the head of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center in Sandpoint, Idaho that used U.S. government data, he found that in the first three years, the decrease in pesticide use was 25%. However, after that, pesticide use increases again. In 2001, 5% more pesticide was required on genetically modified crops than on conventional crops.

It is not a super seed that will save our starving population, he claims. In many “famines” caused by economic or environmental factors, food was available; enough for export or sale. But the people who needed the food were too poor to buy it and had no land to plant their own. He does not believe that it will change now with corporations making seeds. The basic underlying problem is social inequality. Until that is fixed, no magic genetic makeup of a seed will help us.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

There are risks involved with genetic engineering. The precautionary principle should not be employed, however, as the need for this product is so great. Yet precautions should be taken, as we cannot possibly reverse any unforeseen effect it would wreck on the environment and human health.

Once again, corporate and political greed rears its ugly head. What audacity of Monsanto to believe that they can market such a gene that would produce sterility! Who do they think they are convincing? And who would invest in such a company that produces such an unethical thing? People argue ethics and what is ethical all the time, but how can anyone defend such a low blow to the world’s poor?

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

My dad is a farmer, and every year he sells his crop for next to nothing. Some years they throw away some crops because there is a surplus. With that in mind, how is it possible that food is in shortage? Greed is the answer to that question. Corporate greed controls the movement of food and for those too poor to sate that greed, they can go hungry. It is a dichotomy of sorts that we are paying two dollars for a gallon of gas because demand is so high, yet, when the demand is high for food, the price is not gouged at the graineries. Farmers do not make the profit, the corporate guys do. Money controls the world and unless we can be more philanthropic, hunger will continue.