A friend of mine wrote this note asking about the implications of GM (genetically modified) plants in relation to a food source. I wanted to share my response to her questions with you, and encourage civil discourse on the subject. Diane writes: I understand that doing certain things to food, ie, radiation, etc, clearly are not healthy. This post is not about that. But here are some things Ive been reading, and I have some questions, for anyone who would like to KINDLY EXPLAIN, as opposed to hopping on a soap box. 1. Broccoli is a result of careful breeding of cultivated leafy cole crops in the Northern Mediterranean in about the 6th century BC. 2. The first corn plants only grew small, one-inch long corn cobs, and only one per plant, but artificial selection by the indigenous people of the Americas made it to grow several cobs per plant, and usually several inches long each time. 3. Cultivation and repeated harvesting and sowing of the grains of wild grasses led to the creation of domestic strains, as mutant forms of wheat were preferentially chosen by farmers. In domesticated wheat, grains are larger, and the seeds remain attached to the ear during harvesting. Wild strains are more fragile allowing the ear to easily shatter and disperse the spikelets. Selection for these traits by farmers might not have been deliberately intended, but simply have occurred because these traits made gathering the seeds easier; nevertheless such incidental selection was an important part of crop domestication. As the traits that improve wheat as a food source also involve the loss of the plants natural seed dispersal mechanisms, highly domesticated strains of wheat cannot survive in the wild. 4. It was during the mid 1940s that Charles Leggett developed the butternut squash, after crossing the gooseneck squash with other varieties. 5. In the 1930’s, the Sakata Seed Company, a Japanese firm, was looking around for new types of plants to promote, and came upon the Chinese squash. They developed an improved strain and introduced it in seed form around the world. The Burpee seed company in the US first picked up and marketed Sakata “vegetable spaghetti” seed, and later changed the name to Spaghetti Squash. Since nearly all of our vegetables have already been altered, generations ago, from what they were originally, to the point that we even have vegetables that didnt EXIST 500 years ago, why are so many people against genetically modifying our food? As I said, I understand SOME things are dangerous, but apparently, NONE of our food has been left unmodified, since mankind has developed the concept of farming, anyway. Just curious what the uproar is about? My response to Diane: Diane, the methods of improving crops that you mention above are all hybridization. This happens both naturally, when two varieties and sometimes species are growing in close proximity, and intentionally when a farmer cross breeds for desirable traits. In human terms, this would be like choosing a mate based on their health, looks or temperament. The resulting children would most likely inherit some or all of these characteristics. Sometimes different species of animals are bred. For instance the horse and the donkey produce a mule. A mule is a combination of traits from both parents. However, cross species mating usually results in females that cannot reproduce. Genetic Modification, as Melodie explained, is done artificially on a cellular level. There is no way that it could occur naturally. It is not another plants DNA that is being injected, but another species or other substance that would never occur in the subject. However, these seeds can and do reproduce. A farmer cant save GM seed to plant the following year, not because it wont grow, but because Monsanto owns a patent on the seed. This has caused economic devastation in small farmers and particularly in 3rd World countries where the farmers have been persuaded to give up poly-culture (think vegetable garden) in favor of a monoculture of one crop designed for export, rather than the sustenance of the farmer and the village. Basically, a farmer is hooked in and at the mercy of the seed provider. This same seed provider also provides (at great cost) the herbicides that promise to make this crop so easy to grow. Aside from the economic impact, there is the issue of seed diversification. It is extremely important to have a variety within plant types. It sometimes happens that one variety of plant may fail being vulnerable to disease or drought. An example of this is the Great Potato Famine in Ireland. They were growing one variety of potato that was wiped out by the blight. Although they grew grains, those were controlled and exported under the feudal system. The potatoes were the Irish food source and when they died, so did many people. Had they had diversity, it is possible that some of the varieties would have been blight resistant. The problem with GM seeds in relation to diversification is that pollen can travel a great distance and nothing can stop it. So once the GM crops are released, there is really no way to keep them from hybridizing with naturally occurring crops. Some of us are trying to preserve useful heirloom species. Hybridization, not inherently bad, is often done to select traits for stability during shipping or uniformity of size, while sacrificing the taste trait. These old heirlooms keep those traits and also keep the basic genetic material that we can use to hybridize the traits we wish to keep. The GM pollen can infiltrate globally in a surprisingly short period of time. What this means is that there may come a time when there will not be an heirloom vegetable without the DNA of GM plants. Aside from the diversification issue is the patent issue that I mentioned before. GM seed companies (Monsanto) maintain that seed derived from their crop belongs to them, or the person in possession of such seed should pay a royalty. This is akin to me letting my dog run all over the countryside, cross fences into other folks yards, impregnating their female dogs and then demanding that those folks pay me for their resulting puppies. I think that is pretty outrageous! Another economic and social impact is that this pollen drift, which cannot be contained, will land in organically grown produce. To be certified organic, the plants cannot be genetically modified. Nor can the animals eat genetically modified food. Some see the introduction of GM alfalfa as an example of the intent of Monsanto to control the food supply, thus forcing organic farmers out of business. So there are many factors to consider when making decisions about Genetically Modified seeds. There is the health impact, which is largely unknown at this time, but reports from farmers feeding their livestock and independent studies on rats have suggested of some grave consequences. A look at our countrys collective health, especially those who eat high concentrations of prepackaged foods, nearly all of which contain some GM products (corn, soy) finds numerous ailments which we did not have in such proportions in days where folks ate real whole foods they grew locally. There is the economic impact that keeps farmers working for Monsanto, the high rate of suicide among Indian farmers who can no longer support their families, and the contamination of organic farms. There is also a danger of too few corporations controlling the food source. Whoever controls the food source controls the people. There is the food diversity and sustainability issues, and something I didnt mention but is worth pondering, the spiritual issue. Is it really right to play God, doing in the lab that which would not happen naturally--especially with our food source? Throughout history the hubris of man got him into sometimes irrevocable trouble. Consider Pandoras Box. Perhaps a parable for these times.
Posted on: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:49:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015