Just say KNOW to GMOs - for real.

Ok, let me first state my position on GMOs first, in case it isn't clear in the rest of what I am about to write.  I am not categorically opposed to genetic engineering of organisms for food, medical, or bioremedial purposes.  I believe that popular opposition to GMOs based on their being "un-natural" is irrational, relying on an overly simplistic view of the world with a false dichotomy between humans and nature.  However, I believe that we as scholars, writers, and voters, have an obligation to consider broader historical, economic, political, historical, social, and cultural factors before deciding to advocate genetic engineering as a solution to world hunger.  I believe this broad view is essential in accurately evaluating whether or not these technologies could in fact produce positive effects that outweigh their negative effects on the people they are supposed to help. 

On their poster, Seven Deadly Sins argues that "advocating for the spread of Genetically Modified Organisms fulfills our moral obligation to use the technology that we have to stamp out world hunger and end malnutrition in not only the United States, but across the globe."  In opposition to this position, I argue that advocating for the spread of GMOs categorically (as opposed to supporting some while rejecting others) amounts in today's world (and there is no other world for us to argue in) to supporting the increased power of profit-hungry multinational corporations over farmers and consumers worldwide.  Spreading GMOs worldwide increases third world dependence on outside forces, and thus is more likely to cause an increase in world hunger and malnutrition than a decline.   

Even though Seven Deadlies states their belief that "it is necessary to regulate large biotech companies," this regulation is highly unlikely given the reality of US politics today.  The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of both local and federal government throughout the US are largely in the pocket of these large biotech companies.  Even if you don't support Monsanto, advocating for GMOs as a solution to world hunger in effect gives power to Monsanto, diverting attention and funding from alternate solutions not centered on creating maximum corporate profits. Monsanto has already spent $208,000 in contributions to federal candidates in the 2012 election cycle: $64,000 on Democrats and $145,500 on Republicans (source).  Michael Taylor, the Obama administration's Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), formerly worked as a lobbyist representing Monsanto.  Current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s.  The US government is not going to take significant action against Monsanto anytime soon.

Monsanto's interest in profits is evident in its lawsuits against US farmers for patent violation.  In the midst of explaining how important farmers are to Monsanto, the Monsanto website states that "Monsanto files suit against farmers who breach their contracts and infringe our patents," initiating 141 lawsuits against farmers over the past 12 years.  A multi-billion dollar company that destroys farmers' lives because they could not prevent pollen from its GE crops from entering their fields does not have "the public good" in mind. See this article for some good investigative reporting on the topic.

This government website presents data on the adoption of GM crops in US agriculture:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops/adoption.htm

As you can see from the website, 73% of corn planted in the US in 2011 was genetically modified for herbicide resistance (e.g. Roundup Ready), 65% was genetically modified for pest resistance (e.g. Bt corn), and 49% was "stacked" to express both of these traits.  In total, 88% of corn grown in the US in 2011 was genetically engineered. 

The specifics of this situation are important.  US corn crops are not genetically engineered in a wide variety of ways - they are either Roundup Ready (herbicide resistant) or Bt (pest resistant) or both, and they are owned by powerful corporations like Pioneer, Syngenta, and Monsanto.  Therefore, rather than debating the pros and cons of "genetically engineered foods" in an abstract sense, we should be looking at the pros and cons of these crops in specific, as well as the practices of the companies that own and profit from them.

What can we learn by focusing on these concrete examples of how genetic engineering manifests itself in our food supply today?  Let's look at Roundup Ready.  Roundup Ready crops have been engineered to withstand the herbicide Roundup, with the active ingredient glyphosate. Before these crops were available, U.S. corn farmers would till their fields and apply either Atrazine or ALS inhibitors to destroy weeds seeds before planting.  Roundup Ready crops allow farmers to plant the crops without tilling or applying pesticides, and then apply heavy amounts of Roundup to kill weeds later, once the crops begin to grow.  This is attractive to farmers because it frees them from the time-consuming work of tilling.  The no-till aspect of this system also helps to prevent the erosion and nutrient loss associated with large-scale tilling.  However, Roundup Ready crops require the application of large amounts of Roundup, which has been shown to be toxic to human placental and embryonic cells in concentrations lower than those used in agriculture.  See this study, and this one.

 But this study disagrees with the other two, reviewing other studies and reporting that Roundup "does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals."

How do we know who to believe?  How do we decide who to trust?  In doing this research, I found it very difficult to determine the funding sources of any of the various studies on Roundup.  I Googled all reasonable variations of the query "how to find out who funded a study," with no useful results.  I suppose my best bet would by to contact the scientists and ask them, which I am considering currently.  [side note - I think it would be great if there were some sort of searchable database that would help you trace the funding structure of any study available on the internet.]

Regardless of whether or not increased Roundup use is harmful to humans or the environment, Monsanto's actions with regard to Roundup Ready corn lead me to be very skeptical about the long-term benefits of this product for farmers. In thinking about this problem, it is important to remember that there are multiple people, groups of people, and public and private entities involved, each with contradictory economic and political interests.  What is best for Iowa corn farmers is not necessarily best for consumers on the south side of Chicago or for Monsanto executives and stockholders or for University of Minnesota plant geneticists.  Conflicts over genetically engineered crops stem from this contradiction of interests. 

When thinking about these contested issues, I believe we tend to side with whoever's interests, rhetoric, and aesthetic most closely align with our own view of the world, in a way that is beyond the realm of reason. For instance, when looking into studies on genetically engineered (GE) crops, I searched for things like "toxicity of glyphosate," rather than "safety of glyphosate," and I found myself clinging to those studies that demonstrated toxicity, while remaining suspicious of those that concluded that Roundup was safe for humans and the environment. 

As I stated in the beginning, although I am not categorically opposed to the development of GM food crops, I have a strong tendency toward suspicion of those who advocate them and trust in those who oppose them.  Why?  If I were looking for a semi-reasonable explanation for my suspicion, I would point out that there is a lot of money to be made by supporting GMOs, while there is very little to be made by opposing them.  That is, a corporation can make billions selling GM products and a university researcher can make triple-digit salaries producing them, whereas I can't think of any way someone could make a triple-digit salary by opposing GMOs.  Therefore, while I believe that there are people on both sides of the debate who genuinely care about improving living conditions for the world's impoverished populations, I tend to see GM supporters as either evil, greedy capitalists or misguided dupes of a capitalist money-making scheme, while I see GM opponents as generally on the side of actually improving human life, regardless of whether or not their thinking on the issue is based in logic.  Is this opinion based in reason?  Partially, but partially not.  I could definitely be convinced that GM foods are not harmful to human or animal health.  But could I be convinced that technological innovations hold the solution to world hunger and malnutrition?  Probably not.