The Future or Bust: Why We’ll Need GMO Foods To Survive

So this is a paper I wrote for my writing class. I freaking love this. It is so good. But I mean that in a completely humble way. Give it a read:

The year is 2030 and as you walk out of the grocery store, you look at your receipt in disbelief. You remember the days when you could purchase a can of beans for less than a dollar. But ever since humankind outgrew their food supply, prices went through the roof. Potatoes are a luxury, fruit is a rich man’s treat, and meat is a once in a lifetime miracle. Buckling your seat belt you see crowds arriving to loot and riot the store. The irony is laughable. There had been a way to prevent all of this, but these same people just weren't ready to accept the idea of mankind controlling the blueprints of life. It was ironic that before the food shortage, there were similar protests towards the only hope for a future. Ironically, the “monster” of GMO foods was hated and picketed, yet now it was the only thing that could save humanity. We had the future in our hands, but like the “creature” in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, we rejected it based not on a knowledge, but on a lack of knowledge and the uneasiness therein found. Indeed, the fear of the unknown kept mankind from adapting and now natural selection was taking its toll. You drive home wishing things had worked out differently.

Luckily it’s still 2015 and the world has plenty of food—or does it? 11.3% of the world goes to bed hungry and this statistic is growing from year to year (The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015). The dystopian future 2030 no longer seems far fetched. As explained before, there is a solution. Genetically modified foods are created in order to improve their growth and yield. This is done by introducing new genes from foreign organisms into the target organism. An example would be a genetic modification performed by D. R. Cooley by introducing the gene found in flounders to be resistant to cold into a tomato plant, thus causing the tomatoes to be able to live through frosts and cold snaps (442). Although there is seemingly to be no downside to these breakthroughs, this has become one of the most controversial topics in our age. "Opposition scientists have voiced doubts about the safety of agricultural biotechnology, both in terms of human health and environmental safety” (Lieberman, 396). Yet in many ways genetic modification is and will be useful. It is simply a necessary evolution, or adaptation, if you will, that must be embraced. Genetic modification is nothing more than another safe step towards our full potential. This technology will be needed to solve the world hunger crisis, and save us from hitting our carrying capacity.

Natural food stores like Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods Market have become very popular. In part, this popularity stems from their pledges to abstain from selling any food that is associated with GMO products. The promise preys on the pleasure produced by purchasing products that seem healthier. Most see this and feel better because they are natural. But is natural really better? Further, how bad are GMO foods for human consumption? Many seek to prove that this “Frankenstein Food” is as unnatural and evil as Frankenstein’s monster in Mary Shelley’s 1823 novel. Vast studies have been done, testing anything imaginable to debunk GMO foods. Jon Entine, an outspoken science skeptic, states in his Forbes article, “…[T]here have been more than 2,000 studies documenting that biotechnology does not pose an unusual threat to human health and genetically modified foods are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods…” Entine cites a study which states, “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops.” Although this information may be surprising to learn, the results are consistent in every study. As one author said, 

“[Anti-GMO activists] denounce proteins in GMO crops as toxic, even as they defend drugs, pesticides, and non-GMO crops that are loaded with the same proteins. They portray genetic engineering as chaotic and unpredictable, even when studies indicate that other crop improvement methods…are more disruptive to plant genomes” (Saletan 1).

The fear found in “Frankenstein Food” is nothing more than paranoia and propaganda proposed by the uninformed. Not unlike Mary Shelley’s novel, the “monster” of GMO foods is simply misunderstood because the general public has assumed the word “unnatural” is synonymous with “evil.”

 If misunderstanding seems to be the problem, understanding should be the solution. The process of genetic modification is simply introducing genes from foreign organisms into the subject. This gene is isolated and controlled. This process can be compared to an architect taking the blueprints of another building and applying an idea from those plans to his own building, like the style of a staircase. Although the change is certainly there, the staircase’s design will most likely not have changed the structural integrity of the building. We should be able to trust that the expert architect knows what he is doing. Likewise, the change genetically in a GMO food is minimal and therefore the consequences are easily predictable. “In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) procedure to regulate GMOs is not that of approval but rather a consultation process, which is voluntary. This involves an audit of a risk assessment based on information provided by the biotech company…” (Chetty 269) 

However the usefulness of crop yield increase is not only for our future problems. If the world were to embrace genetic modification, brilliant minds would work quickly together to help produce crops that can grow year round, strengthen the crop to increase the yield per capita, or even help it grow in extreme climates like African or Australian deserts. It seems everyone wants to end world hunger, yet many believe the people dying now are not worth the GMO food price tag. European countries have been among the most vehement voices against GMO food. The phrase “beggars can’t be choosers” plays a big role in our fight against world hunger. It is hard to picture anyone whose “morals” would stand in the way of a GMO feast after a week without food. As L. Chetty wrote in the South African Journal of Science, “Hunger alleviation in Africa can best be realized if the GMO debate is depolarized and the issues addressed with transparency and forthrightness from proponents as well as opponents of recombinant-DNA technology” (270). In short, the best way to solve world hunger is by figuring out what we want to do about GMO food, then going forward with our plan to help the people who need it most.

However, somehow people still manage to doubt, saying, “There is so much that we do not know!” Yet science is based on discovering the unknown in the world. In an interview on the Jonathan Ross Show, particle physicist and University of Manchester professor Brian Cox said, “I’m comfortable with the unknown -- that's the point of science…that’s what science is.” In the end, science works based on the unknown. The unknown is infinite, so at what point do we accept scientific breakthroughs? With as much scrutiny that any normal food could receive, no studies suggest GMO foods are unnaturally unhealthy. Just as much is known about GMO foods as is known about non-GMO foods. On a logical front alone, it is completely impractical to let the fear of the unknown hold us back. To wait until all the risks are evaluated is to wait forever. It is simply impossible to know every variable. Fear of the unknown didn’t stop Columbus, the Wright Brothers, or Newton, and it should not be acceptable as the main argument of “scientists” who’s agenda is something other than the furtherance of our understanding of the universe and more importantly the future of our species. If mankind decides that putting off exploration in order to gain perfect knowledge of every step forward is the proper course of action, we will have failed before we had begun.

That failure may be coming sooner rather than later. In April 2003, it was said, “Each year the world’s population increases by approximately 73 million people and is projected to reach 8 billion by…2030…In order for the world to address this critical situation, the world will have to double its food production and distribution [before 2030]” (Dean 25). In summary, if the opportunity is not taken to increase food production in every way possible, mankind will reach and surpass our carrying capacity. When this happens, the population will peak, and then plummet well below the carrying capacity, a drop which will mean the death of billions of innocent men and women and children. Mass starvation and death will be a result if mankind does not embrace the idea of genetic modification to increase the yield of our crops.

Genetic modification is a needed tool for many various reasons. The solution of world hunger very well could be within our reach, yet because of superstitious, baseless fear, we do not want the solution. The price seems too high, but it is nothing more than a figment of our collective imaginations. We have nothing to fear, for fear is the enemy of discovery. The future does not need to be bleak. The year 2030 may be in the distant future, but we must decide now where we stand. Trusting the future to the unknown is difficult, but that is what science is all about. As Frankenstein’s “monster,” after which GMO foods have been nicknamed, said, “Once I falsely hoped to meet with beings who, pardoning my outward form, would love me for the excellent qualities which I was capable of unfolding. I was nourished with high thoughts of honor and devotion…I was still spurned. Was there no injustice in this?…” (Shelley 287-288) Even the insultingly base title “Frankenstein Food” poetically warns that one must not be quick to judge that which he does not understand. The key to life is in our hands and only the fear of the unknown is holding us back.Sources Cited

Deal, Walter F., and Stephen L. Baird. "Genetically Modified Foods: A Growing 

Need." Technology Teacher 62.7 (2003): 18. Academic Search Premier. 

Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Chetty, L., and C. D. Viljoen. "GMO Biotechnology: Friend And Foe?." South 

African Journal Of Science 103.7/8 (2007): 269-270. Academic Search 

Premier. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Cooley, D.R. "So Who’S Afraid Of Frankenstein Food?." Journal Of Social 

Philosophy 33.3 (2002): 442-463. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 Oct. 

2015.

Entine, Jon. “The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-

Meal Study.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Lieberman, Sarah, and Tim Gray. "GMOs and the developing world: A 

precautionary interpretation of biotechnology." The British Journal of 

Politics & International Relations 10.3 (2008): 395-411.

Saletan, William. "The Misleading War on GMOs: The Food Is Safe. The Rhetoric 

Is Dangerous." Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Shelley, Mary, David Lorne Macdonald, and Kathleen Scherf. Frankenstein.

  Broadview Press, 1999.

"The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015." Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.