Frankenfoods
Frankenfoods: It’s What’s in the Inside that Counts During the Neolithic Revolution, human life revolutionized. Humans started living in cities, forming class hierarchies, and organizing labor. However, the most significant turn of the new era was the advent of agriculture. Agriculture made the Neolithic Revolution truly a “revolution” by removing the need for humans to move from place to place in search for a meal and giving humans the ability to feed not only their families, but their friends and neighbors. Now in the twenty-first century, a new dawn approaches humanity. Humans are approaching the domain of God, speeding up the natural processes of evolution to shape nature to their needs in a new revolution: the Green Revolution. By splicing
…show more content…
advantageous genes from one organism to another, genetically modified crops (GM crops) can produce their own pesticide and herbicides, obtain drought resistance, and yield more food than ever before. These frankenfoods (a derogatory term used towards foods altered in the lab) are not just experiments done by a graduate student in college; bioenhanced crops have taken over traditional agriculture, with 94% of soybean acreage, 89% of cotton acreage, and 89% of corn acreage consist of herbicide resistant crops (“Recent Trends in GE Adoption”). However, with every new breakthrough in technology, there has always been traditionalists aimed at limiting their spread, and the advent of biotechnology is no exception. Skeptics of the technology claim that substances produced by genes pasted into crops could cause new allergic reactions, damage the environment, and even cause cancer and want to limit the consumption of genetically modified foods by impose stricter labelling laws. However, bioenhanced products should not be labelled as they have been proven to be no dangerous than conventional crops and their benefits are advantageous to humanity. Labelling only leads to unfair discrimination towards biotechnology and costs companies significant amounts of money.
The rewards that are reaped when biotechnology is used right is essential to meet the rising global population. According to Dr. Fred Davies of Texas A&M, food issues could be politically destabilizing by 2050 (K. Phillips). Biotechnology provides crops multiple advantages that could aid humanity in escaping a destabilizing future. As noted by an article titled “Physiological and Biochemical Significance of Genetically Modified Foods: An Overview” in The Open Nutraceuticals Journal, bioengineered crops have been seen to improve food production both qualitatively and quantitatively (Mishra 18). In addition, genetic engineering can be utilized to reduce costs for production, lower pesticide usage, and provide crops resistance to pests, disease, and other environmental stressors such as aluminum, boron, and salt (T. Phillips). These advantages can be seen in recent history through the research and development done by Dr. Borlaug, a Nobel Prize winner. His research helped develop “successive generations of wheat varieties with broad and stable disease resistance, broad adaptation to growing conditions across many degrees of latitude, and with exceedingly high yield potential”, providing Mexican farmers the crops necessary to combat stagnant drought and preventing a hunger crisis (World Food Prize). Similar strains of crops to Dr. Borlaug’s could be produced that could benefit farmers in the United States and the world by increasing food yields, thereby increasing the carrying capacity (the amount of people that can be supported per unit of land) of the world. With a higher carrying capacity of the world, the Neo-Malthusian future of global population exceeding global resources could be avoided through the usage of biotechnology.
Frankenfoods have been proven by a large scientific consensus to be no more dangerous than traditional agricultural method. In an European Union report on genetically modified foods consisting of 130 research projects involving 500 independent research groups, genetic engineering was found to be “not per se more riskier than … conventional plant breeding technologies” (“A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research” 18). The large consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods cannot be a conspiracy by large biotechnology firms when five hundred different groups not linked to any corporation or private interest group were all able to reach the same conclusion that scientifically altered organisms are safe. However, anti-GMO advocates claim that bioengineered crops are damaging to the environment and hold less nutritional value compared to normal crops. Contrary to what is believed, frankenfoods could even be beneficial to the environment. Dr. Ray Bressan, professor of horticulture and director for the Center for Plane Environmental Stress Physiology at Purdue University had a positive message about the potential GM crops offered, stating that “we'll soon be able to produce more crops with less pesticide, less fuel, less fertilizer, fewer trips over the field” (PBS). An expert consultation on biotechnology and food safety in the World Health Organization agrees with Dr. Bressan, stating, "the benefits of biotechnology are many and include providing resistance to crop pests to improve production and reduce chemical pesticide usage, thereby making major improvements in both food quality and nutrition" (PBS). By limiting the need to use chemical pesticides and fertilizers, genetically modified foods reduce the runoff that wrecks havoc on river ecosystems. In addition, genetically modified products are not deficient in nutrition; some provide even more nutrition than conventional crops. For example, in order to combat Vitamin A deficiency in many developing nations, Golden Rice was engineered, producing beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Only three quarters of a cup of Golden Rice is necessary to meet the recommended daily amount of vitamin A, a vast improvement compared to traditional rice (Scientific American). With GM crops not containing any less nutrition than conventional crops -- as proven by Golden Rice -- and the scientific consensus affirming that “frankenfoods” do not harbor any significant danger to humans and the environment, there is no need to label genetically modified foods.
Despite the evidence clearly labelling that genetically modified foods have no reason to be labelled, many labelling proponents have stated that labelling genetically modified foods will not cost much and therefore should be done for the sake of “consumer choice”.
Under President Barack Obama, these advocates won a victory with a bill requiring the labelling of bioenhanced foods. The new policy of labelling has cost plenty for biotechnology and food companies. First of all, the act of labelling implies danger, leading to unfair discrimination towards genetically engineered foods. According to the AAAS Board of Directors, efforts in labelling altered foods are “not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous”, leading to consumers to avoid a growing industry based on unfounded fear (AAAS). This is not a hypothetical situation; this situation was seen in Europe when the European Union began requiring foods containing genetically enhanced products to be labeled in 1997. Due to the labelling, by 1999, most of the major European retailers removed scientifically altered ingredients from their products (Scientific American). Instead of giving consumers “consumer choice”, GMO labelling in the European Union actually reduced consumer choice by preventing genetically modified foods from even entering the market and it is likely a repeat of this event will occur in the United States. Second of all, in addition to limiting consumer choice, the labelling of bioengineered foods causes many food businesses to spend countless dollars on human resources to verify that their products do not contain any “frankenfoods” by ensuring that their suppliers do not use enhanced seeds. The immense amount of money spent by these corporations would go back to the consumer through increased food prices. According to the Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, GMO labelling in California would raise the annual food bill of a Californian by four hundred dollars (Scientific
American). The effect of labelling would not be limited to California; all of America would see their food prices increase at similar rates. Third of all, Research and Development of GMOs would be hindered as food companies would see biotechnology as an unworthy investment and no longer provide the funds necessary for researchers to develop the new technology. The editors of Scientific American sum up this sentiment, stating, “Ultimately, we are deciding whether we will continue to develop an immensely beneficial technology or shun it based on unfounded fears.” (Scientific American). Americans must choose the former and not give in to the unfounded fears that slander an industry and raise the price of food.
The correct solution utilizing genetically engineered foods without compromising the safety of human beings is to repeal the labelling law and keep the same regulations in place that were there before it. Before President Obama’s bill, regulations on enhanced foods consisted of premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration for products “that [differ] significantly in structure, function, or composition from substances found currently in food” and the licensing of the foods (licensing is required on all biological products whether they are altered or not) (Acosta). These regulations are effective as in order for a product to be licensed, they must undergo rigorous testing involving animal testing and clinical trials that confirms they are safe. Premarket approval provides an additional round of testing, further determining if the products are safe. In addition, because of the large scientific consensus asserting that altered foods are no more harmful to humans than conventional foods, genetically modified foods should receive no more regulation than organic foods unless they differ greatly from their organic counterparts, which is what the policy was beforehand (“Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects”). Policies targeting only GMOs in particular are unscientific, discriminatory and not a proper approach to protect public safety. In addition, reverting back to pre-2016 FDA regulations is also financially benefiting as the government would no longer need to spend extraneous resources in confirming the safety of genetically modified organisms, allowing would be wasted tax dollars to be spent on more pressing issues. With the strength of the previous policy, the common phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” still holds; the United States should revert to pre labelling regulations.
The labelling of genetically engineered organisms is unscientific and prevents the utilization of biotechnology for the betterment of mankind. There has been a vast amount of studies confirming that biotechnology poses no more risks than conventional breeding technology and the advantages bioengineered foods provide allow humans to avoid the imminent hunger crisis. In order to ensure that a scientific and beneficial policy is enacted on the regulation of genetically modified foods, the labelling law must be repealed and previous FDA regulations should be re-instantiated.
advantageous genes from one organism to another, genetically modified crops (GM crops) can produce their own pesticide and herbicides, obtain drought resistance, and yield more food than ever before. These frankenfoods (a derogatory term used towards foods altered in the lab) are not just experiments done by a graduate student in college; bioenhanced crops have taken over traditional agriculture, with 94% of soybean acreage, 89% of cotton acreage, and 89% of corn acreage consist of herbicide resistant crops (“Recent Trends in GE Adoption”). However, with every new breakthrough in technology, there has always been traditionalists aimed at limiting their spread, and the advent of biotechnology is no exception. Skeptics of the technology claim that substances produced by genes pasted into crops could cause new allergic reactions, damage the environment, and even cause cancer and want to limit the consumption of genetically modified foods by impose stricter labelling laws. However, bioenhanced products should not be labelled as they have been proven to be no dangerous than conventional crops and their benefits are advantageous to humanity. Labelling only leads to unfair discrimination towards biotechnology and costs companies significant amounts of money.
The rewards that are reaped when biotechnology is used right is essential to meet the rising global population. According to Dr. Fred Davies of Texas A&M, food issues could be politically destabilizing by 2050 (K. Phillips). Biotechnology provides crops multiple advantages that could aid humanity in escaping a destabilizing future. As noted by an article titled “Physiological and Biochemical Significance of Genetically Modified Foods: An Overview” in The Open Nutraceuticals Journal, bioengineered crops have been seen to improve food production both qualitatively and quantitatively (Mishra 18). In addition, genetic engineering can be utilized to reduce costs for production, lower pesticide usage, and provide crops resistance to pests, disease, and other environmental stressors such as aluminum, boron, and salt (T. Phillips). These advantages can be seen in recent history through the research and development done by Dr. Borlaug, a Nobel Prize winner. His research helped develop “successive generations of wheat varieties with broad and stable disease resistance, broad adaptation to growing conditions across many degrees of latitude, and with exceedingly high yield potential”, providing Mexican farmers the crops necessary to combat stagnant drought and preventing a hunger crisis (World Food Prize). Similar strains of crops to Dr. Borlaug’s could be produced that could benefit farmers in the United States and the world by increasing food yields, thereby increasing the carrying capacity (the amount of people that can be supported per unit of land) of the world. With a higher carrying capacity of the world, the Neo-Malthusian future of global population exceeding global resources could be avoided through the usage of biotechnology.
Frankenfoods have been proven by a large scientific consensus to be no more dangerous than traditional agricultural method. In an European Union report on genetically modified foods consisting of 130 research projects involving 500 independent research groups, genetic engineering was found to be “not per se more riskier than … conventional plant breeding technologies” (“A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research” 18). The large consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods cannot be a conspiracy by large biotechnology firms when five hundred different groups not linked to any corporation or private interest group were all able to reach the same conclusion that scientifically altered organisms are safe. However, anti-GMO advocates claim that bioengineered crops are damaging to the environment and hold less nutritional value compared to normal crops. Contrary to what is believed, frankenfoods could even be beneficial to the environment. Dr. Ray Bressan, professor of horticulture and director for the Center for Plane Environmental Stress Physiology at Purdue University had a positive message about the potential GM crops offered, stating that “we'll soon be able to produce more crops with less pesticide, less fuel, less fertilizer, fewer trips over the field” (PBS). An expert consultation on biotechnology and food safety in the World Health Organization agrees with Dr. Bressan, stating, "the benefits of biotechnology are many and include providing resistance to crop pests to improve production and reduce chemical pesticide usage, thereby making major improvements in both food quality and nutrition" (PBS). By limiting the need to use chemical pesticides and fertilizers, genetically modified foods reduce the runoff that wrecks havoc on river ecosystems. In addition, genetically modified products are not deficient in nutrition; some provide even more nutrition than conventional crops. For example, in order to combat Vitamin A deficiency in many developing nations, Golden Rice was engineered, producing beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Only three quarters of a cup of Golden Rice is necessary to meet the recommended daily amount of vitamin A, a vast improvement compared to traditional rice (Scientific American). With GM crops not containing any less nutrition than conventional crops -- as proven by Golden Rice -- and the scientific consensus affirming that “frankenfoods” do not harbor any significant danger to humans and the environment, there is no need to label genetically modified foods.
Despite the evidence clearly labelling that genetically modified foods have no reason to be labelled, many labelling proponents have stated that labelling genetically modified foods will not cost much and therefore should be done for the sake of “consumer choice”.
Under President Barack Obama, these advocates won a victory with a bill requiring the labelling of bioenhanced foods. The new policy of labelling has cost plenty for biotechnology and food companies. First of all, the act of labelling implies danger, leading to unfair discrimination towards genetically engineered foods. According to the AAAS Board of Directors, efforts in labelling altered foods are “not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous”, leading to consumers to avoid a growing industry based on unfounded fear (AAAS). This is not a hypothetical situation; this situation was seen in Europe when the European Union began requiring foods containing genetically enhanced products to be labeled in 1997. Due to the labelling, by 1999, most of the major European retailers removed scientifically altered ingredients from their products (Scientific American). Instead of giving consumers “consumer choice”, GMO labelling in the European Union actually reduced consumer choice by preventing genetically modified foods from even entering the market and it is likely a repeat of this event will occur in the United States. Second of all, in addition to limiting consumer choice, the labelling of bioengineered foods causes many food businesses to spend countless dollars on human resources to verify that their products do not contain any “frankenfoods” by ensuring that their suppliers do not use enhanced seeds. The immense amount of money spent by these corporations would go back to the consumer through increased food prices. According to the Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, GMO labelling in California would raise the annual food bill of a Californian by four hundred dollars (Scientific
American). The effect of labelling would not be limited to California; all of America would see their food prices increase at similar rates. Third of all, Research and Development of GMOs would be hindered as food companies would see biotechnology as an unworthy investment and no longer provide the funds necessary for researchers to develop the new technology. The editors of Scientific American sum up this sentiment, stating, “Ultimately, we are deciding whether we will continue to develop an immensely beneficial technology or shun it based on unfounded fears.” (Scientific American). Americans must choose the former and not give in to the unfounded fears that slander an industry and raise the price of food.
The correct solution utilizing genetically engineered foods without compromising the safety of human beings is to repeal the labelling law and keep the same regulations in place that were there before it. Before President Obama’s bill, regulations on enhanced foods consisted of premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration for products “that [differ] significantly in structure, function, or composition from substances found currently in food” and the licensing of the foods (licensing is required on all biological products whether they are altered or not) (Acosta). These regulations are effective as in order for a product to be licensed, they must undergo rigorous testing involving animal testing and clinical trials that confirms they are safe. Premarket approval provides an additional round of testing, further determining if the products are safe. In addition, because of the large scientific consensus asserting that altered foods are no more harmful to humans than conventional foods, genetically modified foods should receive no more regulation than organic foods unless they differ greatly from their organic counterparts, which is what the policy was beforehand (“Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects”). Policies targeting only GMOs in particular are unscientific, discriminatory and not a proper approach to protect public safety. In addition, reverting back to pre-2016 FDA regulations is also financially benefiting as the government would no longer need to spend extraneous resources in confirming the safety of genetically modified organisms, allowing would be wasted tax dollars to be spent on more pressing issues. With the strength of the previous policy, the common phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” still holds; the United States should revert to pre labelling regulations.
The labelling of genetically engineered organisms is unscientific and prevents the utilization of biotechnology for the betterment of mankind. There has been a vast amount of studies confirming that biotechnology poses no more risks than conventional breeding technology and the advantages bioengineered foods provide allow humans to avoid the imminent hunger crisis. In order to ensure that a scientific and beneficial policy is enacted on the regulation of genetically modified foods, the labelling law must be repealed and previous FDA regulations should be re-instantiated.