The Infamous GM Crop Debate

By S. Danial Alam, Class: FY-K

Genetically modified crops were first approved for human
consumption in the United States in 1995, and by 1999
almost 50 percent of the corn, cotton, and soybeans
planted in the United States were GM. By the end of 2010,
GM crops covered more than 9.8 million square kilometres
(3.8 million square miles) of land in 29 countries
worldwideone-tenth of the worlds farmland. 1
We must ask ourselves, how much do we really know
about GM crops? The answer is, very little. So where is all
the knowledge, where is all the information, where are all
the resources? The answer to this lies with reference to
two types of people; namely scientists and
environmentalists. These are the people that brought GM
crops into existence and are mainly responsible for their
development. Hence they have all the control as far as
these crops are concerned. A prime example of this
control is seen in the universally famous company
Monsanto. In an article written by Rick Shelton to
HeraldNet website, he mentions how farmers have to go
back to the company each year to buy new seed instead
of saving some of their crop for next year's seed.
Monsanto has even sued farmers for inadvertent
contamination from natural cross-breeding that can
happen. 2 This website is reliable and secure from any
possible vested interests regarding the concerned matter
of discussion. So the authority we give to
environmentalists and scientists is extensive. This leaves
us in a poor situation since we lack control over the
production and maintenance of these crops. Furthermore,
we can not know for sure what are the real intentions of
these scientists and environmentalists, and whether they
1 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/897705/geneticallymodified-organism-GMO
2
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20131018/OPINION02/710189931

really are working for our benefit or not. An active website

calling for a March against Monsanto 3has been set up
and aims to gather people to unite under a common aim
and alleviate the excessive power and authority that
Monsanto enjoys.
A common question usually arises with respect to the
source of our suspicion towards genetic modifications. The
real reason for our suspicion is a mixture of scientific and
personal factors including fear and uncertainty. Whenever
science advances, new ideas surface and sometimes
these ideas are not very positively appealing to the
general public. An example of this is how before 1903,
people saw flying and the manufacturing of airplanes as
unnecessary, impossible and far too dangerous; yet the
Wright brothers proved that it can be one of the most
beneficial scientific breakthroughs that mankind has ever
witnessed. Similarly, the introduction of genetically
modified organisms has raised eyebrows on economic,
religious and humanitarian grounds. We are yet to see the
long term effects of genetic modification, and hence we
are hesitant to open up towards this new concept. An
article written by Shireen Karimi 4, published by Global
Times on 14th July 2013, sheds light on the fact that
people are still very hesitant to accept GM foods and
crops, since they are concerned about the social and
economic consequences GM crops could bring, including
their potential impact on biodiversity. It is thus a mixture,
of superstition, uncertainty, scientific evidence (or lack of
evidence), fear and doubt that cause us to challenge the
views of enthusiastic scientists and environmentalists
towards GM crops; and hence overall leading to suspicion
regarding the crops.
Some people argue that enough food is produced to feed
the worlds

3 http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/
4 http://gmoinside.org/gm-crops-remain-problematic-for-asiancountries/

population already, and that more effort should be put into

better food distribution. However, there are several
problems with this
argument. First, there are serious logistical and political
obstacles
that hinder redistribution. Secondly, the growing demand
for meat,
milk and eggs also requires far more staple crops.
Agriculture is a
vital part of peoples livelihood in developing countries.
Even in areas
where there is a food surplus, such as India, there is
currently
undernourishment due to serious poverty. 5
Another problem along similar lines is the fact that the
wealthy citizens from wealthy countries assume
themselves to be representatives of all people and think
they have the authority to speak on everyones behalf.
This gives them the opportunity to protect the interests at
the expense of the representation of the poorer people.
The rich benefit while the poor usually suffer since they
have no voice, and no one to listen to them either. As a
result of this, poorer countries have often found
themselves in unfavourable situations where they dont
really have the luxury of choosing what stance to have
regarding the GM crops debate. An example of this is how
the power of the US dollar means that in order to buy
technology and manufactured goods, poor countries are
trapped into producing more and more food for export to
the States. Out of 40 of the worlds poorest countries, 36
export food to the USA. 6
It is almost obvious that the business element indeed does
either directly or indirectly affect the issue in some way or
another. Preventing farmers from harvesting seeds means
big businesses could eventually have total control over the
worlds seed supply and prices. Currently, just three mega
companies control over half of the global seed market,
5 http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/GM%20Crops
%20short%20version%20FINAL.pdf
6 http://standingagainstoppression.wordpress.com/tag/gmo/

which has caused prices to skyrocket7. For example, the

average price of planting an acre of soybeans has gone up
325 percent since 1995. Things get even scarier when you
consider Monsanto has developed and owns a patent on a
terminator gene which can make a plant produce sterile
seeds. Industrial farming reduces biodiversity as
agribusinesses clear the land of all native plants and focus
on producing only one type of crop. This large-scale
monoculture crop production has resulted in a 75 percent
reduction in plant diversity since the 1900s. GM farms
make things worse because not only do they produce a
single plant species (e.g. corn, soybeans, rice), but all the
plants within the species come from one modified source
plant and are genetically identical. Having such unvaried
crops is troublesome as it makes our food supply
particularly susceptible to climate change, disease, and
pests. Furthermore, businesses like Monsanto are further
hampering biodiversity by systematically buying up seed
firms and replacing tried and true conventional varieties
with their higher-priced, genetically engineered versions.
While some argue Monsantos ultimate goal is to control
the worlds food supply, its more likely their motivation is
simply higher profits. After all, they make much more
money by selling their patented, expensive, must-buyevery-season seeds than by offering quality traditional
seeds.

7 http://listverse.com/2013/06/22/10-problems-genetically-modifiedfoods-are-already-causing/