Young Writers Society

In the current health craze, Americans count calories, carbs, and fat (among other things) to such an extent that people can now detail exactly how many grams of transfat were in what they had for breakfast today. But with all people seem to know about their food, it’s astonishing to see what they do not know: Issues involved in their food, coded right into its DNA, that far outstrip the issue of having too many carbs at lunch. One such controversial and yet little-known issue is that of transgenic crops.

Transgenic Crops: What are they?

Transgenic crops are crops that have been genetically engineered by having genes from other organisms inserted into their DNA with a gene gun. They are usually modified to withstand frost, pests, or herbicides. Examples include tomatoes injected with flounder genes to make them more frost-resistant and corn containing Bt, a naturally-occurring pesticide produced by a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis.

Benefits of Transgenic Crops

According to Monsanto, the American corporation holding 90% of the patents on transgenic crops, their products produce higher yields and provide better nutrition than traditional crops. Their Roundup Ready products are resistant to their herbicide, Roundup, and Bt crops can withstand pests without the help of pesticides. For farmers, this means less money spent on insecticides and fewer chemicals used. For some farmers, transgenic crops are a veritable godsend that allow them to get off the perpetual merry-go-round of the ever more (and more dangerous) sprayings that are needed to keep the bugs at bay. They can also allow farmers to make more money off a crop, as less money is spent on chemicals and more money is made on the higher yield.

Why are they controversial?

Despite the apparent benefits of transgenic crops, Europe has a quasi-moratorium on genetically-modified foods, and the 2008 film Food, Inc. describes Mexico’s reluctance to accept corn from the United States. Why are other countries so wary about transgenic crops?

According to Luigi Ponti’s article “Transgenic Crops and Sustainable Agriculture in the European Context,” “…hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives have been documented to be successful in a wide range of cultivated species.” In other words, transgenic crops have been shown to interbreed with related species. If transgenic crops can breed with related wild species, then they can also breed with traditional and organic crops. This is a problem for several reasons.

For one thing, the spread of Bt plants (both crops and non-crops) will in turn encourage the evolution of insect resistance to Bt, creating a race of “superbugs” and rendering useless one of the few natural-based pesticides (and one of the only pesticides organic farmers can use). This scenario has played out many times, not only with insects out-evolving the manmade pesticides meant to kill them but with bacterial and viral diseases as well. The more plants that are protected with Bt, the faster pests will develop resistance to it. This means that organic farmers will have to turn to other, more labor-based methods of pest control and that Bt crops themselves will become useless.

Another concern is the spread of “terminator technology.” This is a trait that protects a corporation’s biotech patent by sterilizing the seeds of the crop a farmer grows from the transgenic seeds he buys. His crop will grow, but any seeds produced by that crop will be infertile. Since it has already been shown that transgenic crops can successfully interbreed with other crops and wild relatives, the worry is that the terminator trait as well as other traits can be passed on. This would lead to the infertility of plants other than transgenics.

Aside from the uncertain effects transgenic crops could have on the environment, there is the issue of effects they could have on human health. Very few studies have been done to determine whether or not transgenic crops could have adverse health effects on those who consume them, and the studies that have been done have contradictory conclusions. A study done on mice showed degeneration of their cells and advised further tests and precautions before putting biotech crops on the market, while a study of rats showed no ill effects and a study of broiler chickens showed that the consumption of transgenic crops may have increased the amount of meat produced! Even fewer have been the studies done on humans. So far, if any biotech company has done such studies (or any studies), the results of those studies remain unpublished, even though it would inspire more faith in transgenic crops if the companies who produce them were willing to share such studies with the public.

* * *

The main problem here is that genetically engineered plants are being taken out of controlled lab conditions and thrust into the environment without the proper precautions first being taken. In a laboratory setting, transgenic crops cause no upheaval to the balance of nature. But out in the wild, what is there to stop them from doing so? Virtually nothing, and there have been no long-term studies done to determine possible future effects on the environment, just as there have been no long-term studies done to determine the effects of these crops on health. Until these studies are done, no one can really know what long-term benefits or destruction transgenic crops may bring.

Hey!

So, I'm not really going into your writing. Just a couple of thoughts. (Psst, neither European nor American. )

bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis

Always. All freaking ways. Italicize. Basics to microbio.

You speak of only monsanto. True, they're pretty much a monopoly, but try to show some other companies too, ja? But yes, I've read somewhere that Monsanto sells its unsuccessful seeds (those disapproved by the FDA) to other countries. (Case in point : India).

In other words, transgenic crops have been shown to interbreed with related species

All related species can. It's not something new. So, instead I would suggest framing your argument in such a way that you imply that if multi-crop breeding occurs in a plot, risks of contamination is larger.
Personally, I find this superbug argument weak. Because they evolve no matter what we do. We can't let crops and pests thrive together.

Not all companies use terminator tech.

The main problem here is that genetically engineered plants are being taken out of controlled lab conditions and thrust into the environment without the proper precautions first being taken.

Your sentence is too strong; and this is not always true. I've visited GM manufacturers' 'plant', where they make plantains. There is so much of testing done on environmental conditions. If this wasn't done, there would be no approval for such an industry.
I would say the main issue is that the testing time period is small, but if you test for years and years, the situation might worsen. So, compromise, maybe. I still say they need to elongate testing times.


So, I've tried to keep my comments as neutral as possible. I hope it wasn't too bad.

Another I noticed is, you didn't address ethical issues! Think! No I don't mean the 'playing god' card.
What about 'animal' genes in plants? Is that a cause for dilemma among vegetarians and vegans?

Me, I'm up for transparency. Of course not everything can and will be shared, but the consumer info is a must.

Cheers!

So far, if any biotech company has done such studies (or any studies), the results of those studies remain unpublished, even though it would inspire more faith in transgenic crops if the companies who produce them were willing to share such studies with the public.

That's not so much the fault of the companies themselves. All published studies have to be peer reviewed, which means, unless there were several experiments running concurrently, or the data is so solid and consistent with prior experiments that were published, other scientists in other places with unrelated interests have to perform the experiments themselves and get the same results. If the experiments take 10 years to do, then it takes 10 years before the paper is published after it's submitted, which means that the initial research was started 20 years before publication. And running a large-scale experiment is not cheap, which can delay publication further.

As Lava pointed out, there wasn't much on the ethics of genetically modified crops. You also didn't really touch upon known side-effects, such as people with seafood allergies having a reaction to tomatoes with the flounder gene; that in particular would have been excellent support for the need for information to be shared.

For a video presentation with a time limit, this is decent, but it would have been nice if you could have included more stronger and solid details on the topic.

Wait, you said that you were going to cite all the sources at the end? You don't cite anything! I'm rather curious as to what you have to say, since I've actually grown transgenic crops in my genetic engineering classes and attended several seminars about transgenic crops. So, I am a bit curious where your sources are coming from.

Also... I know this is a video presentation, which is limited, but in your benefits section, you didn't actually mention the other use of transgenic crops that they are looking at using... basically, they are being used to grow proteins for medicine. Did you leave this out intentionally?

Also, typically companies don't publish those kind of research because they would be considered biased. They let others do that for them. So... did you look other places for that?

So yeah. Waiting for the sources.