|
Genetic modification of food crops has great promise to do exactly what it is billed to do. Hybrid plants have long been a staple of the agriculture industry, boosting yield per acre and allowing crops to be grown in less than ideal conditions. Also, because of the boosts in yields the developed world has actually seen a reduction in the amount of farmland (as much as 40 million acres of which has returned to its natural state) - while at the same time outstripping the ever increasing demand. Meanwhile in the third world, where more traditional methods and seeds are used, over 300 million additional acres have had to be turned over to agriculture just to keep up with demand.
The present growth in population, if it is to be fed, requires incremental increases in the amount of food that is planted and harvested. This can be done in only two ways, increase the land area used for agriculture, or increase productivity. Probably both will be necessary; a 1 percent annual increase in productivity (considered sustainable without genetic modification) will still require an additional 700 million acres of land be turned over to agriculture by 2050. Historically, this kind of growth was sustained for long periods late in the 20th century. If genetically modified crops are introduced into this picture a 1.5 percent increase in productivity is not unlikely and would mean that the amount of land required to feed the growing world population would actually go down!
The possibilities for genetically modified food meeting future needs are vast. Even more, genetic modification of crops can enhance the taste, texture and shelf-life of foods. In spite of all of these benefits, certain groups oppose introduction of genetically modified crops to the marketplace. And there are some good reasons for the opposition. It is feared that genetically modified crops could become rampant in the wild and wreak havoc on bio-diversity. While this is possible, the opposite has been shown to be the case with hybrid crops and tests have shown that genetic modification often results in no advantage and often disadvantages to the modified crop in an uncontrolled natural environment. Also farming methods can be used to reduce cross-pollination between genetically modified crops and organic crops.
Another problem is the possibility of certain people having an allergic reaction to foods because of the introduction of a gene from another plant. This actually occurred during testing in the 1980s when a gene from a peanut was introduced to a tomato plant and resulted in a reaction from people allergic to peanuts. Yet this problem too can be controlled by adequate comprehensive testing of products before they reach the market.
In a risk assessment (or a cost/benefit analysis) it seems obvious that Genetically Modified Crops could feed a burgeoning population while at the same time reducing the amount of land required for agriculture. The potential hazards can be minimized. Genetically modified crops might even have a positive effect on biodiversity by freeing up and preserving land for use in perpetuating pristine ecosystems.
This report relies heavily on Indur Goklany's book, The Precautionary Principle.
|
