Rhoades
Duke University Trinity College of Arts & Sciences
A Debate: Genetically Modified Organisms
Levi Rhoades
Math 89s: Mathematics of the Universe
Professor Hubert Bray
4-19-2016
Introduction
The Borgen Project is a global poverty campaign that came into the public spotlight in 2013 following a controversial slogan claiming that, “$30 billion per year is needed to end world hunger” (The). Accompanying the company’s slogan is a 10 step guide to solving the global hunger crisis. Ranked number one on this list are innovative solutions for sustainable food. This gives rise to the topic of genetically modified organisms and their place in the future of the agricultural industry within the United States. This paper will first present three benefits of adopting genetically modified organisms into the mainstream diet of impoverished nations including theenvironmental benefits, economic benefits, and food security. The topics of seed monopoly, invasive species, and fiscal irresponsibility will then be presented in contention.
Affirmation - Environmental Benefits
Using genetically modified crops allows for greater efficiency in carbon emissions when farming. Specifically the use of GMCs reduces the average fuel useof farmers by decreasing the need for soil tillage and limiting the amount of land sprayed with pesticides. This effect was quantified by PG Economics which estimates that “GM crops have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over 10 billion kilograms” (GM). The greater growing efficiency allows farmers to eliminate large amounts of landwhich was previously wasted on lower yield crops. This in turn calls for a lower irrigation demand and allows diverse natural habitats such as wetlands, rainforests, and grasslands to remain preserved instead of being converted into farmland. As reported by the international service for the the Acquisition of Agri-Biothech Applications there have already been 109 million hectares of untilled land saved by using gmcs (Agritech). Another way in which GMOs generate environmental conservation is through a reduction in the amount of herbicide applications per crop season by farmers. GMCs are engineered to resist specific herbicides which allows farmers to use all herbicides in a single application without damaging their crops. As reported by the US Department of Agriculture that there has been a net loss in herbicide sales and usage as a direct result of the implementation of GMCs in the agricultural industry. These broad-spectrum herbicides are also less toxic and half as likely to cause long term damage to the ecosystems of which they are applied as reported by the US Department of Agriculture. The use of GMCs saves farmers money on chemical farming aids and benefits the environment by preventing more deforestation.
Affirmation - Economic Benefits
Data from the World Bank indicates that nearly half of the world on average spends less than two and a half U.S. dollars a day on food, lowering the price of crops is a considerable roadblock in the path to ending world hunger. The use of GM technology has alleviated poverty by aiding consumer costs. By increasing yields and lowering production costs GMCs have lowered the price of staple crops by just under 30% (Wall Street Journal). However the greater crop yield also benefits farmers as they can put less of their seasonal profits into production costs. The use of GMCs in has helped to bring almost 15 million farmers out of poverty and into a more stable economic setting (Agritech). This magnitude of this data is quantified by PG economics who reports that crop biotechnology helps farmers earn reasonable incomes for their work. The net economic benefit at the farm level in 2012 was $18.8 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $117/hectare. For the 17 year period (1996-2012), the global farm income gain has been $116.6 billion (GM).
Affirmation - Food Security
The time for secure and more efficient food security has never been greater. With rising global temperatures there will be an influx of droughts, floods, and other meteorological phenomena coupled with the largest human population to record. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that average crop yield decreases almost 2% every decade as a result of global warming while the average demand for food increases by almost 14%. GMOs can remedy this problem with four major advantages over traditional crops. First crops can be infused with minerals and vitamins to increase the nutritional value of the foods so that less food can more properly sustain more people. These can help alleviate vitamin deficiencies and other ailments in countries where usually a singular food product such as rice is the most prevalent option. Lisa Barrett from the University of North Carolina found that “the widespread adoption of genetically modified crops would decrease India’s Vitamin A burden by 59% .. saving40,000 lives every year” (NC). Secondly crops can be engineered to absorb more water thus making droughts less devastating to already impoverished nations. Water efficient corn in Africa can yield up to 35% more crops during a moderate drought. Third crops can be engineered to have longer shelf lives so that they can be stored and shipped to more distant places so as to more equally appropriate the distribution of goods. Lastly crops can be genetically altered to produce a crystal protein called Bt which is lethal to insects but harmless to wild mammals and humans. In addition to contributing to the longevity of a crop lifecycle these Bt proteins expose farmers to harmful pesticides with less frequency.
Negation – Seed Servitude
An essential gradient of the agricultural industry manifests itself in the recycling of crops specifically in the storage of seeds. If prices are predicted to go up and a farmer does not sell as many crops as he usually does he will store seeds in order to flood the market when prices come back down. However Genetically Modified seeds protect the investment of their research by forcing farmers to sign contracts which prohibit them from saving and reusing seeds from GM crops. This purchasing renewal is a problem for many farmers because GM seeds are two to four times more expensive than conventional seeds and when the seeds must be bought new every year farmers cannot buy a stockpile of seeds when the prices are low. As a result, many farmers cannot afford to, at least consistently, purchase GM seeds. Additionally, if a farmer is able to afford GM seeds they become dependent upon large corporations of a single crop variety. Carmen Gonzalez of the University of Cambridge found that GMOs led to “the displacement of indigenous crop varieties and biodiverse cultivation systems, increases vulnerability to pests and disease, depletes the fertility of the soil, increases dependence on fertilizers and pesticides, increases the probability of catastrophic crop failure in the event of blight” (University). GMOs do not present a solution for small-scale farms as they are unaffordable and put into jeopardy the livelihood of people who depend upon recycled seeds.
Negation – Weeds
Genetically modified crops have become so efficient at restricting weeds that they have begun to apply a form of evolutionary pressure on the weeds which do persist among GMOs. Restrictive seed policies and high prices have created a monoculture among farming systems which now tend to only plant a singular, most profitable, crop every year. As a result the weeds which are best adapted to this crop flourish and reproduce at an exponential rate without any other weed competition. This has also created a farming environment in which 98% of farmers rely on a singular herbicide, glyphosate. This extreme use of one herbicide has also accelerated the rate at which existing weeds can evolve to resist glyphosate and create a form of mega-weed. These weeds call for an increase in herbicide usage and Charles Benbrook of the national Academy of Sciences found that GMOs have increased the use of herbicides by almost 527 billion pounds in the United States alone. This has obviously proved detrimental to the environment and has given rise to an environment conducive to mega-weeds such as the Palmer Amaranth which can resist herbicides and grow to almost 8 feet. They are capable of damaging farm equipment and slowing down the efficiency of production. When the weed begin to outcompete the crops for efficiency there begins to be a net loss in yield. They also drive up the cost of foods because of the increased labor cost associated with clearing and farming mega-weeds.
Negation - Stagnant Alternatives
Similar to String Theory dominating the jobs and time of theoretical physicists. GMOs have done little to alleviate global hunger thus far and a continued focus on their development is forcing other revolutionary farming techniques to be underfunded and not taken seriously. The University of Essex found that switching to agroecological techniques provided for an average yield gain of 93% which is a number far greater than any ever provided by GMOs. Genetically modified seeds are currently allotted an 11 billion dollar annual budget for research and development. However the UN Environmental Programme remarks on the potential of agroecological techniques while calling the spending on GMOs “misguided” (Agritech). Similar to the old phrase of putting all your eggs in one basket, GMOs have made great strides in their availability and efficiency in the last decade, but they are still in their infant stages and other solutions should not be discredited before the large scale production of GMOs shows tangible alleviation of poverty.
Conclusion
Adopting genetically modified organisms into the mainstream diet of impoverished nations includes environmental benefits, economic benefits, and food security. However the topics of seed monopoly, invasive species, and fiscal irresponsibility cannot be ignored as criticisms of the next great human development. It is evident of the potential within the matriculation of GMOs into mainstream agriculture however there is still plenty of research to be done before those moments. So despite the Borgen project’s claim that world hunger could be solved with only 30 billion dollars, there are clearly more factors in play besides getting everyone the nutrients they require. Borgen must account for the livelihood of those depending upon the agricultural industry as well as those looking for food. Despite this it is clear that GMOs possessvery real benefits to the future alleviation of world hunger.
Works Cited
Agritech, Emerging. "GMO: Concentration Africa."SECTION 3(n.d.): n. pag. Web.
"GM Crop Use Continues to Benefit the Environment and Farmers - Read the Full Report (1)."GM Crop Use Continues to Benefit the Environment and Farmers. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016
"NC House Bill 446 and GMO Labeling."Carolina Farm Stewardship Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
"The Borgen Project."The Borgen Project RSS2. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
University of California. "Bt GM Crops."Bt GM Crops. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
"University of Cambridge Training."University of Cambridge Training. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.