GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS: THE NEMESIS OF GREEN REVOLUTION AGRICULTURE
The Green Revolution came about as the result of the science-based transformation of Third World agriculture. In the 1960s, cereal-grain yields were dramatically increased in many developing countries, due to the use of genetically enhanced varieties. The Green Revolution began in Mexico in the 1940s, moved in a progressive pattern throughout the globe for decades to come, and while doing so, changed the face of agriculture forever. Various studies (Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Union of Concerned Scientists) have yielded much criticism that Green Revolution agriculture depends on fertilizers, irrigation, and other factors that poor farmers cannot pay for and that may be ecologically unsafe; and that it promotes monocultures and loss of genetic diversity. There are many issues associated with Green Revolution agriculture but none greater than genetically modified organisms (GMOs). For the purpose of this paper, genetically modified or engineered foods and its effects will be the core issue. Consumers in many European countries, Japan, and parts of the US have resisted consumption of genetically engineered foods pending further research into thei
A third concern involving the health impact of GM foods is that most genetically modified organisms are given a gene that confers resistance to antibiotics which means that the genes act as selectable markers. Most GM plants carry fully functioning antibiotic resistant genes. Commonly used marker genes are npt11 (grants resistance to kanamycin, neomycin, and geneticin) and the bla gene (grants resistance to ampicillin). Dr. Vandana Shiva states that marker genes can exacerbate the spread of antibiotic resistance among humans. If antibiotic resistant genes are found in foods, they could have harmful effects. If one were to eat GM foods and take antibiotics at the same time, the effectiveness of the antibiotics would be significantly reduced because the resistant genes produce enzymes that can degrade the antibiotics. In addition, the resistant genes could be transferred to human or animal microorganisms, making them unreceptive to antibiotics. If such a transfer happened, it could worsen the already existing health problem of antibiotic-resistant disease organisms. A final concern regarding the effects of GM foods on human health is that evidence suggests that some of these foods have decreased nutritional quality. As humans, we have become dependent upon fresh fruits and vegetables for healthy living. By altering the nutritional content of our fruits and vegetables, we are lowering our standards and letting health risks through the door. Just because it looks, smells, and tastes fresh it does not necessarily mean that it is. Some GM foods are “programmed” in such a way as to have a longer shelf life. This definitely implicates public health. It is only a matter of time before pesticides will find their way into our water and food supply, jeopardizing humans and endangering wildlife. Pesticides are harming the Monarch butterfly leaving it in peril. In laboratory tests in 1999, Cornell University researchers found that nearly half of the Monarch caterpillars that ate milkweed leaves dusted with GM corn pollen died inside of four days. The surviving Monarchs that ate the genetically mutated corn pollen were much smaller and had smaller appetites than the control Monarchs, which ate ordinary corn pollen or no pollen at all. Normal Borlaug has been considered by many to be the founder of the Green Revolution. Borlaug’s work in Mexico in the 1960s involved propagating high-yielding strains of wheat immune to fungus and rust diseases. His success rate was phenomenal. The net result of the work Borlaug inspired was an average annual increase in harvests of 2.1 percent a year between 1950 and 1990, the compounding growth curve that led to a tripling of harvests during that period. From the very beginning, the Green Revolution has had its share of evaluations. Timothy Reeves, the director of the International Center for the Improvement of Wheat and Maize (CIMMYT), poses the following question: In feeding ourselves, are we starving our descendants? This question is fitting in context in that the Green Revolution is believed to rely heavily on high inputs of water, capital, fertilizers, and pesticides—these things are simply not sustainable. We are at a crossroads in which the techniques of the Green Revolution that have brought us thus far will not sustain us in the future. A final area that agricultural farmers should be wary of is the socioeconomic factor. Farming is on the verge of elimination. The more patents that GM foods receive, the greater the risk to farmers. As GM food production widens, the reliance on farming lessens. One such method that farmers should worry about is terminator technology. This method entails the creation of infertile seeds. A possible future scenario is that as the terminator technology renders seeds sterile hundreds of millions of farmers who now save and share their seeds will be forced to purchase more expensive GM seeds and chemical inputs from a
Some topics in this essay:
Green Revolution,
Vandana Shiva,
GM Bt-crops,
Vandana Shiva’s,
European Union,
Monsanto Corporation,
Cornell University,
Food Program,
Concurrently FAO,
Borlaug’s Mexico,
gm foods,
green revolution,
genetically engineered,
genetic engineering,
dr vandana,
genetically modified,
vandana shiva,
gm crops,
human health,
dr vandana shiva,
engineered crops,
genetically engineered crops,
genetically engineered foods,
green revolution agriculture,
united nations food,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 3317
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)
|