Over the last century technology has changed the world we live in drastically, for better or worse. However, a relatively new area of science, called biotechnology, threatens to alter it in ways we may not understand until it’s too late to fix.
At first glance, the arguments for biotechnology seem irrefutable. By manipulating the genetic structure of a plant or animal, the agriculture industry can produce more food more efficiently and eventually end world hunger. They can create “superfoods” with longer shelf lives and immunity to pests. But things are not always as they seem.
Opponents of genetic engineering wonder if this manipulation could lead to ending nature as we know it. Although that seems a little dramatic, consider the case of the poisoned butterfly.
According to Food, Inc.(pp.122-123) by Peter Pringle, in the spring of 1999 a young Cornell entomologist, John Losey, reported in the science journal Nature that the beloved monarch butterfly’s future appeared to be in danger.
At that time, a quarter of the U.S. corn crops had been planted with seeds that contained Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. Originally used as a pesticide spray, scientists found it was more effective to inject the Bt bacteria into the cells of crops like corn, cotton, and potatoes. So instead of it protecting from the outside, it grew from the inside out.
Losey and his Cornell researchers were concerned that injecting the bacteria into corn would mean it would be in the pollen the crops released. Losey speculated that monarch butterflies could be harmed when they ate their normal diet of milkweed leaves covered in Bt corn pollen.
In a barebones experiment, Losey fed monarch larvae with Bt pollinated milkweed leaves and observed. Within four days nearly half the larvae were dead and the others were severely underweight compared to the control group.
Until then, the biotech industry had touted the Bt pesticide as the most green-friendly product available, since it was a naturally occurring bacteria. Losey knew that news of the dead monarch butterflies would rock the industry. Many companies had spent millions of dollars developing ways to use Bt.
However, the implications would spell global trouble for all kinds of moths and butterflies feeding near millions of acres of Bt cornfields. There was no way to know yet how this could threaten the balance of the ecosystem.
The opposite result happened in the case of the diamond back moth, but no less alarming. For many years, scientists have known it’s possible for insects to develop a resistance to artificial insecticides. However, the diamond back moth became fully tolerant to Bt crops after just two-dozen generations, or eight crop seasons, according to Your Right To Know by Andrew Kimbrell.
Article comments
1 - Schiller Thurkettle
Some 80-90 percent of all food in North America is derived from GM crops, and has been, for over a decade -- with no adverse outcome for any consumer, anywhere.
The 'studies' used to support the conclusions of this article have either been long discredited, or disclose data which are so marginal that their value is speculative at best.
The description given for the process of genetic engineering bears no resemblance to the actual process.
2 - s13cybergal
Great article. Instinctively I cringe at mixing plant and non-plant DNA. Nature doesn't mate a plant with a fish, or a cow or a human being. I fear all the chemicals we've adulterated the food supply with have already taken a huge toll on us.
Thanks for a very good article on a subject our children may have to deal with as in "cleaning up our mess".
3 - Christine
Great insight to GMF, need to spread the news about this more!
4 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Yea, I have to agree with Schiller. Let's not forget what Norman Borlaug (R.I.P.) achieved by using genetic modifications in developing semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties which,basically, launched Mexico's exporting business and overwhelmingly improved Mexico, Pakistan, and India's food security.
But, let's not let the facts get in the way.
5 - M
"Originally used as a pesticide spray, scientists found it was more effective to inject the Bt bacteria into the cells of crops like corn, cotton, and potatoes. So instead of it protecting from the outside, it grew from the inside out."
This is incorrect. Scientists did not inject actual Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria into the corn or engineer them in, but they took the gene from the bacteria and put it in the corn, so the corn manufactured the same type of toxin as the bacteria. Thus, any insects eating the corn would be exposed to the toxin. But there is no engineered bacteria growing inside the corn. You should become more familiar with genetic engieering and its real dangers in GMOs. Very poor reporting and research. What's a bigger danger is the fact that GMOs are usually clones and an entire crop can die or fail due to disease or pest resistance. In other words, they increase the chance of famine and starvation. You cannot fight nature.
6 - Wal Heinrich
Scientists seem to like saying "GE is worth the risk" but they don't explain the risk. The risk is the destruction of all life on the planet as we presently know it. Is it worth the risk?