Transgenics, or GMOS...
I've been looking into this for awhile. As someone who was studying bioinformatics (computer simulations in regard to biological systems) this is a topic that actually although not exactly was in my field, was close enough to where I easily understand the conversations and the scientific papers.
As I see it, this is by no means, nor will it ever be, a black and white issue. If you're pro-transgenics, you're ignorant. If you're anti-GMO, you're ignorant. Not ignorant in the common vernacular of "You're a dummy" (although that may or may not be true) but the proper meaning: ignorant as in "You don't have all the information."
So, here's my quick primer on situations...
1. Not all transgenic/GMO products are created equal.
2. The environmental damage and benefits cannot be measured purely by the organism itself, but also how it's used.
3. The damage and benefits to society cannot be measured purely by crop yields and increased vitamins, but approaching corporate dependency needs to be accounted for and anti-competitive practices must be attended to.
4. No negatives/positives confirmed is not the same as no negatives/positives.
5. As food is central in daily life, the social impacts cannot be ignored.
Into deeper detail:
--- Points to consider ---
* To be proven reasonably safe, many researchers will agree that a three generational rat study should be conducted. This is because a three generational rat study not only observes immediate effects, but also its effects on births, and any effects on genetics (which, if a recessive gene, would not show up until the third generation).
* Any food product that passes a three-generational rat study is very reliably to be as safe as anything else you're going to eat. There's no reasonable reason to avoid these foods on your plate.
* To date, less than a fourth of transgenic/GMO products have undergone a three generational rat study.
* The FDA does not generally require a three-generational rat study. In the few times it does, if it doesn't pass a three-generational rat study, the "no pass" can be cleared by a 90 day single-generation rat study (which is a lot less intensive). This means even if the three-generational rat study proves there's a problem, it can still get a pass by the FDA by passing a weaker test. (This would be akin to trying to taking the ACT to get into college, and when you don't pass the mark, letting you take a middle school math test, and then letting you in if you pass the middle school math test.)
* Almost every three-generational rat test on GMO corn has deemed the corn safe.
* Almost every three-generational rat test on GMO soy has show problems (although the FDA still let it past after the 90-day study).
* The current head of the FDA was a Monsanto employee and hypothetically will be re-hired by Monsanto once his time there ends. This is an obvious conflict of interest.
* GMO crops get patented. Monsanto has abused the courts on this, suing small farmers whom their crops invaded for "infringing on intellectual property" and are, however, protected from those same farmers from suing Monsanto for their invasive plants getting into their farmland. [11]
* Many Monsanto GMO crops don't produce seeds. This means the farmers have to buy from Monsanto again, and again, and again, a ridiculous financial burden on smaller farms. [4]
* The built-in pesticide aspects of a number of the plants are reducing the number of bugs and pests in communities.
* Many of Monsanto's GMO products are made to be used in tandem with Monsanto pesticides. These pesticides are killing bees, which is threatening environmental collapse. [1][2][3]
* Transgenic products, like Golden Rice, can get lots of nutrition to underfed regions of the world, helping increase the quality of life.
* Plants can be engineered with multiple benefits allowing greater yields which can address hunger problems (IF the distribution problem is also addressed.)
* Engineering plants could have many benefits, such as creating high-fiberous plants that could put an end to deforestation.[10]
* Plants could be engineered to produce medicines, allowing for medical needs to be met significantly cheaper and in greater quantity. [9]
* Plants could be engineered to generate clean-burning fuels, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and helping clean our environment. [7]
* Monsanto is, for the most part, not focusing on helpful transgenic products, but profitable ones (stuff made to work alongside their pesticides) that provides no real overall benefit to humanity. - Crop yields are already past what humanity needs to survive, and with that as the primary benefit, it's effectively no benefit. [6]
* Monsanto and associated agricorps have been steadily squeezing out more and more family-owned farms. This means fewer jobs and an upward distribution of wealth. [8]
* Monsanto GMOs built to withstand stronger chemical treatment, encourage farmers to use more chemical treatment. These chemicals are produced at a high cost to the environment in chemical factories.[5]
All said an done, here's my general stance...
I'm for GMOs as long as they don't encourage pesticides, go through a three-generational rat study, don't hurt bees, and provide some benefit to society other than crop yields.
[1]Pesticides and bees:
http://pollinatorstewardship.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Protecting-Honey-Bees-Florida.pdf
[2] Negative effects of bee loss
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347%2810%2900036-4?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0169534710000364%3Fshowall%3Dtrue?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0169534710000364%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
[3]More about bee loss
http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol67-2014-125-130lu.pdf
[4] Monsanto Terminator Seeds
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/19/2212256/monsantos-terminator-seeds-set-to-make-a-comeback
[5] Herbicide resistant crops and increased use
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_aims/146.herbicide_resistant_crops.html
[6] What Monsanto makes GMOs for
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/monsanto-agricultural-seeds.aspx
[7] GMO Fuel
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519791/genetically-modified-bacteria-produce-50-percent-more-fuel/
[8] GMO vs family farms
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section002.groupv/small_farms_and_gmos
[9] GMO Medicine
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/897705/genetically-modified-organism-GMO/279978/GMOs-in-medicine-and-research
[10] GMO Paper vs deforestation
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/04/04/genetically-modified-trees-clean-paper-industry/#.U3v0jyhLpRU
[11] Mosanto sues farmers
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx
Article is written from past studying and memory, and many points are covered in various literature. I am attempting fill in some sources for additional reading to allow for easier studying by those reading it. However, bias should be noted as I wrote the article first, and then then looked for articles I remembered (or at least similar ones).
No comments:
Post a Comment