Advancements in science and technology have immensely enhanced quality and quantity of life. Despite the benefits of progress, criticism lurks closely behind. Like other feats of development, genetic modification of crops has failed to escape the black hole of disparagement. However, genetically modified crops have significantly contributed to changes in agriculture and health. Genetically modified crops also impact local, national, and universal economies and livelihoods. Perhaps the most promising aspect of genetically modified crops is their potential to aid in the satisfaction of Millennium Development Goal 1, promoting the health and vitality of world citizens. Delve, probe, and explore to discover how genetically modified crops benefit the world.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Ban on the Beet: Implications of the Roundup Ready Sugar Beet Ban
Abstract
Roundup Ready sugar beets, which comprise 95 percent of sugar beets produced in the United States, have recently been banned by the government due to a lacking Environmental Impact Study. The ban was set in motion by special interest groups against genetically modified foods. Although a sizeable amount of scientific data exist regarding the environmental impacts of Roundup Ready sugar beets compared to traditional sugar beets, the ban will continue until an EIS can be conducted. The ban considerably affects local farmers, the local economy, and the satisfaction of Millennium Development Goal 1 in Idaho.
Since 2008, when Roundup Ready sugar beets were introduced into the agricultural sector, the percentage of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets planted in the United States has risen to 95 percent (Monsanto, Profita). Roundup Ready sugar beets are incorporated with a gene that provides tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup that proves fatal to weeds and hinders the growth of traditional sugar beets (McGinnis et al.) However, when Roundup is applied to a Roundup Ready sugar beet no damage will ensue (Isham). Therefore, Roundup can be applied to a field with little concern about damaging the crop. Idaho is the second leading state in sugar beet production and produced 5.6 million tons of sugar beets in 2009 (Barker). The 2009 sugar beet crop brought 252 million dollars to Idaho. However, the economic gain for Idaho may be short lived. On August 13, 2010, Roundup Ready sugar beet seeds were banned by the federal government due to a lacking Environmental Impact Study (EIS), an experiment meant to analyze the environmental consequences of producing genetically modified sugar beets (Rodine). This decision not only impacts the Idaho sugar beet grower and the Idaho economy, but has potential to drastically impede the achievement of the first and seventh Millennium Development Goals. The Millenium Development Goals were set in place by the United Nations in order to address the most crucial problems citizens of the world are facing. The first Millenium Development Goal (MDG) is to “Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger” (Goal: Eradicate). This goal centers on increasing the availability of food to the malnourished and starving by decreasing poverty. Genetically modified foods as a whole can significantly contribute to the achievements of this goal on the local, national, and global scales. The individuals who were motivated to enact legislation on Roundup Ready sugar beets, in general, oppose any kind of GM crop. Therefore, a successful ban on Roundup Ready sugar beets could provide legislative precedence to ban other GM crops. The individuals responsible for the recent ban on Roundup Ready sugar beets did not take into account previous studies on the crop, the implications of the ban on sugar beet growers and the sugar beet market, or the effects that the legislation will have on satisfying the first Millennium Development Goal.
Opponents of Roundup Ready sugar beets claim that genetically modified crops, including GM sugar beets, are detrimental to humans and the environment. For instace, an article from Eat Drink Better asserts that Roundup Ready sugar beets are leading to Roundup resistant weeds (Munsey). Others are concerned about cross-pollination with sexually compatible plants such as organic sugar beets and Swiss chard (Judge). Also, Paul Achitoff stated, “[gentically modified] crops offer consumers nothing, and are designed primarily to sell herbicides” (Earth Justice). Lastly, an experiment called the farm-scale evaluation was conducted in the UK that found GM foods detrimental to wildlife (Coghlan).
Although Roundup resistant weeds are a valid concern, they have yet to pose a threat. Since the development of Roundup Ready sugar beets, weed control has been much more efficient and manual weed pulling has for the most part been eliminated (McGinnis et al.) The amount of other herbicides to kill weeds has also decreased. To address the problem of Roundup resistant weeds, McGinnis et al. states, “Maintaining diversity in crop rotation…coupled with the use of herbicides with different modes of action is an important factor in lessening this risk” (3).
Cross-pollination may also occur. An article in the Idaho statesman says that pollen from sugar beets can travel up to six miles (Barker). However, sugar beet crops are biennial, meaning that sugar beets flower once every two years (McGinnis et al.) In Idaho, most sugar beet crops are harvested annually and never flower. The dilemma is in areas that produce sugar beet seed and seed for other compatible crops within close proximity, allowing for cross-pollination. The issue with cross-polination can be satisfied through regulation of proximity.
Contrary to Achitoff’s claim, GM foods have enormous potential to benefit consumers. A site committed to the promotion of genetically modified foods states, “A key benefit cited for the use of GM foods to reduce poverty is that they can significantly improve product yields” (Reducing Poverty). The directly relates to MDG 1. It could also be argued that GM foods make the environment more sustainable, which is the objective of MDG 7. Bennett et al. claims that GM sugar beets reduce the amount of herbicides needed to control weeds thereby reducing contaminated run-off from fields (An Application).
Although the farm-scale analysis found GM crops harmful to farmland wildlife, other impacts of GM crops were not considered (Coghlan). Coghlan states that the life-cycle analysis conducted by Bennett et al. is a much more accurate and holistic representation of the impacts of GM crops. As defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, life-cycle analysis (LCA) is “a technique to assess the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service” (EPA). Cost and benefits are incorporated into everything. In regards to agriculture, it is necessary to weigh all of the costs and benefits of traditional crops versus GM crops.
Several experiments have been conducted concerning the other environmental impacts and human health impacts of traditional sugar beets versus GM sugar beets. Bennett et al. states that “emissions contributing to… ozone depletion, global warming, ecotoxicity of water, acidification and nutrification of soil and water… toxic particulate matter, and carcinogenicity” are reduced in GM sugar beets (Environmental and human health impacts). An article in Annals of Applied Biology finds that GM crops offer a more economical choice to crop production stating that UK sugar beet farmers could save in excess of 23 million dollars annually with GM herbicide tolerant sugar beets (May). GM sugar beets also conserve energy (Coghlan). In addition to research that refutes GM sugar beet opponents, GM sugar beets have many more advantage over traditional sugar beets.
The recent decision to ban Roundup Ready sugar beets will significantly affect Idaho sugar beet farmers and the local sugar beet economy if the decision is not overturned by next growing season. Drew Eggars, a Meridian sugar beet farmer, said that a continuation of the ban would encourage him to plant another crop rather than plant traditional sugar beets (Rodine). This ban will especially affect farmers in southeastern Idaho, where climate already strictly dictates what crops can be grown (Isham). A choice similar to Eggars by other Idaho farmers would lead to a drastic decrease in sugar produced in Idaho. An article in the Idaho statesman says, “if…sugar beet farmers in Idaho are forced to plant other crops…that could hurt Amalgamated Sugar, the farmer-owned company that refines the beets into sugar in Nampa- and it could increase the supply of these other crops and reduce the price farmers get for them” (Barker). In addition, southeastern Idaho is the source of the phosphate that Monsanto uses in Roundup. This could further induce the economic losses that Idaho will face with this ban.
In addition to considering the implications of the sugar beet ban on Idaho farmers and companies, the consequences of the ban must also be considered in regard to the Millenium Development Goals. In Idaho, 12.5 percent of individuals are below the poverty level (US Census Bureau). This directly relates to nourishment of Idaho citizens. Already, 55.8 percent of Idaho school children eat two meals at school every day at reduced or no cost (Moore). Numerically, 61,515 Idaho students receive free lunches and 15,505 receive lunches at a reduced price (Idaho Department of Education). Currently, 50 percent of sugar in the United States is produced from sugar beets (Profita). An increase in sugar prices due to a decrease in supply caused by the Roundup Ready ban would significantly affect the food programs. Sugar is a main ingredient in several food items including baked goods, beverages, cereal, and dairy, all of which are offered daily in the food programs and contribute to proper nutrition (Sugar Industry Biotech Council). Certified Crop Advisor, Bo Isham, states, “[GM crops] will be the number one method used to eradicate hunger in the coming years. We will need to be able to increase yields substantially in order to feed the growing population on less usable land as it is continually lost to urbanization” (Isham). The UN has already decided that the highest priority in ensuring well-being to the world’s citizens is to eliminate poverty and hunger as stated in the first MDG. Banning Roundup Ready sugar beets only hinders the achievement of this goal.
The recent ban on Roundup Ready sugar beets will prove to be detrimental for local farmers, local industries, and local satsifaction of Millennium Development Goal 1. Regardless of the data found in research about Roundup Ready sugar beets and other GM foods, special interest groups continue to relentlessly hound the government until no option seems viable but to eliminate technologically enhanced crops. These groups are ignoring alternative choices and the consequences of their actions. As a result, the local economy and the national sugar industry are on the brink of a crisis. The only option that remains is to trust that the government will consider the burden of the ban and make the choice that is best for all.
Works Cited
Barker, Rocky. "Idaho Beet Growers and Organic Farmers Are Living in Uncertainty While A Lawsuit Plays Out." 26 March 2010. Idaho Statesman. Web. 20 September 2010.
Bennett, R. M., R. H. Phipps, and A. M. Strange. "An Application of Life-Cycle Assessment for Environmental Planning and Management: The Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Growing Genetically-Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Sugar Beet." Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 49.1 (2006): 59-74. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sept. 2010.
Bennett, Richard, et al. "Environmental and human health impacts of growing genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet: a life-cycle assessment." Plant Biotechnology Journal 2.4 (2004): 273-278. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sept. 2010.
Coghlan, Andy. "GM crops benefit the environment." New Scientist 180.2424 (2003): 17. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sept. 2010.
Earth Justice. ""Roundup Ready" Sugar Beets Declared Unlawful." 2010. Earth Justice. Web. 17 September 2010.
EPA. Life-Cylce Assessment. 6 August 2010. Web. 21 September 2010.
Idaho Department of Education. "National School Lunch Program." March 2010. Web. 23 September 2010.
Isham, Bo. Certified Crop Advisor Kayla Isham. 4 October 2010.
"Judge Puts Roundup Ready Sugar Beets On Hold." 24 September 2009. Year of Plenty. Web. 17 September 2010.
May, M. J. "Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet." Annals of Applied Biology 142.1 (2003): 41. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sept. 2010.
McGinnis, Esther E., Mary H. Meyer, and Alan G. Smith. "Sweet and Sour: A Scientific and Legal Look at Herbicide-Tolerant Sugar Beet." Plant Cell 22.6 (2010): 1653-1657. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sept. 2010.
Monsanto. Roundup Ready Sugarbeets. 2010. Web. 20 September 2010.
Moore, Martha T. "Breakfast in class: Fight against kids' hunger starts at school." 15 September 2010. USA Today. Web. 23 September 2010.
Munsey, Gina. "Obama’s Administration Refuses to Halt Production of Monsanto’s Genetically- Modified Roundup-Ready Sugar Beets." 6 April 2009. Eat Drink Better. Web. 17 September 2010.
Profita, Cassandra. "Roundup Ready sugar beets? Not without an EIS." 16 August 2010. Ecotrope. Web. 17 September 2010.
"Reducing Poverty Through GM Food Production." 2010. Genetically Modified Foods. Web. 21 May 2010.
Rodine, Kristin. "Roundup Ready Beet Growers in Idaho May Get Reprieve." 10 September 2010. Idaho Statesman. Web. 20 September 2010.
Sugar Industry Biotech Council. Frequently Asked Questions. Web. 23 September 2010.
UNICEF. "Goal: Ensure environmental sustainability." Millennium Development Goals. Web. 17 September 2010.
UNICEF. "Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger." Millennium Development Goals. Web. 17 September 2010.
US Census Bureau. State and County Quickfacts. 16 August 2010. Web. 22 September 2010.
USDA. School Meals. 8 July 2010. Web. 23 September 2010.
Obituary- Annixter from "The Octopus"
Works Cited
BBC. February 2005. Web. 28 November 2010.
Norris, Frank. The Octopus. New York: Penguin Books, 1986.
When the Genes Fit
Works Cited
beboy. "Clipart Illustration of a Cool Corn On The Cob Character With A Green Husk, Wearing Shades ." 2010. Clipart Of. Web. 27 November 2010.
—. "Clipart Illustration of a Nervous Corn On The Cob Character With A Green Husk ." 2010. Clipart Of. Web. 27 November 2010.
Bodgas, Meredith. "A Wal-Mart Wedding? More Couples Are Getting Married in Retail Stores." 19 July 2010. Glamour Weddings. Web. 27 November 2010.
Dicky. "50 Useful Cartoon Character Design Tutorials." 24 February 2010. Web Design Booth. Web. 27 November 2010.
Diva, Driven. "Driven." 10 October 2010. Chicago Now. Web. 27 November 2010.
Elizabeth. 2 September 2009. Scribenzee. Web. 27 November 2010.
Grim@ftl, Captain. Cartoon Store. 2002. Web. 27 November 2010.
Perry, Pamela. "Royalty Free Clipart Image: Bacteria Bug." Clipart Guide. Web. 27 November 2010.
Valentine, Charles. "Unique Uncle Noah cbs Clip Art." 2010. ChildrensBibleStudy.com. Web. 27 November 2010.
Interview with Bo Isham
What is the difference between Roundup Ready sugar beets and GM herbicide-tolerant sugar beets?
“They are the same things. The difference between Round-up ready and traditional beets is the gene that has been introduced which confers resistance, actually tolerance, of the chemical compound glyphosate. This is an environmentally safe chemical that is non selective, meaning that it will kill any plant that it comes into contact with except, of course the GM Roundup ready sugar beet.”
Explain the process of growing traditional sugar beets:
“1. Fumigate 2. Bed up and inject fertilizer into the bed 3. Plant 4. Dammerdike to hold water in row 5. Till 1-3 times 6. Apply herbicide between tillage dependent on cost effectiveness and size of beets usually 4 times minimum. 7. Hope once the rows close that the herbicide has held its effectiveness long enough for the beets to out-compete the weeds for sunlight and water. Cost of traditional herbicide program applied would be around $110/Acre for the season with four times the amount of active ingredient put into the environment and an extra tillage. Total program costs on fertility and tillage and equipment varies on prices of products.”
Explain the process of growing Roundup Ready sugar beets:
“The same as traditional beets other than probably one less trip through the field with a tractor and tillage implement and two less applications of herbicide.”
Goal 1 of the Millennium Development Goals established by the UN is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. How do GM crops contribute to this goal?
“This will be the number one method used to eradicate hunger in the coming years. We will need to be able to increase yields substantially in order to feed the growing population on less usable land as it is continually lost to urbanization.”
Goal 7 of the Millennium Development Goals established by the UN is to ensure environmental sustainability. How do GM crops hinder this goal?
“Most of the genetic crops will allow for less overall chemical use and also the use of chemicals or farming practices that are more “environmentally friendly” and still maintain needed yields to feed the world’s population. There are concerns regarding the creation of new genes or the movement of genes from unrelated species into food crops, but with proper testing and safety procedures in place there shouldn’t be any need for concern.”
In your opinion, is there a compromise that exists regarding GM crops that could satisfy both MDG goals?
“There really isn’t a compromise because GM crops will be a great way to meet both goals as long as the necessary precations are taken to ensure end-user safety.”
How will the recent law banning the growth of Roundup Ready sugar beets impact local farmers?
“It could be economically devastating to the local economy. Many growers rely on sugar beets as a major source of income throughout the state. Practically it will reduce options for growers in the eastern part of the state where there are already a limited number of alternative crops that are economically and environmentally feasible.”
How will the recent law banning the growth of Roundup ready sugar beets impact the local economy?
“It could potentially reduce the amount of money that will go towards ag, a major player in the state of Idaho’s economy, and will more than likely raise sugar prices.”
How will this law affect the agriculture sector regarding the sales of fertilizers and herbicides to sugar beet growers?
“If Round-up ready sugar beets are banned, the old fashioned way of applying large quantities of herbicides to combat weed populations will have to be used. Lower yields from weed competition will also greatly impact sales.”
How long have Roundup Read sugar beets been grown in the Treasure Valley? How will this affect the ban on Roundup Ready sugar beets?
“3 years with probably 99.9% of growers using this technology.”
In your opinion, does this law take into account scientific evidence, and does it weigh both the pros and cons of growing Roundup Ready sugar beets?
“The Roundup Ready lawsuit is a law, if created, is based on the lack of evidence currently but does not weigh the fact that sugar beets are biennial, meaning they only produce seed on the second year. Banning them from all producing areas only hurts the farmer as no pollen or seed is produced from a biennial plant in the first year. Even if a rogue plant bolts and enters the reproductive stage, it is easily picked out and destroyed.”
In general, what is your opinion of this law?
“It’s not law yet but the ban on growing them is pointless. They reduce the amount of chemical applied to the environment and increase yields making them much easier for farmers to grow.”
How long have you worked in agriculture?
“14 Years.”
What is your official title?
“Parma CPS Certified Crop Advisor.”
Interview with Lee Parsons
“Golden Rice” is a type of rice that has been genetically modified to include higher quantities of vitamin A and iron. What are some benefits of distributing golden rice to underdeveloped countries?
“Diets which may have a high number of calories from a single source (such as rice) which does not have adequate vitamin A can lead to high risk for vitamin A deficiency and associated blindness. Vitamin A supplementation in the diets of children and adults who do not get adequate vitamin A will help to prevent blindness. If Golden Rice becomes widely used, it would be an inexpensive and easy way in which to “distribute” vitamin A to the population, the at-risk members of the population may not otherwise be able to afford (or it may not even be supplied and available if they could afford it) vitamin A supplementation even if they comprehended the need for it.”
What are the immediate and long-term effects of vitamin A deficiency?
“Vitamin A deficiency is a common cause of blindness. I don’t remember off-hand, but I think that it is the most common preventable cause of blindness.”
What are the immediate and long-term effects of iron deficiency?
“I didn’t know that Golden Rice was also designed to help with iron supplementation. Increased dietary iron availability in children and adults who do not get much dietary iron will help to prevent anemia.”
What is your view on GM crops and consumer safety?
“To this date, there are no scientific, peer-reviewed studies which indicate any safety issues from the consumption of GM crops. I gladly consume GM crops without thinking about it. The safety concerns that are raised by some groups are “junk-science” and they do not make sense. Why do the same people who advocate for limiting deforestation around the world want us to avoid using GM crops? If we don’t use GM crops, then we must use more insecticide and fertilizer or, alternatively, more land area to grow the crops which means that we must cut down more forests. Environmentalists, who are right to care about humanity’s affects on nature, should be at the front of the line cheering on GM crops as a way in which to save our planet.”
How can GM foods benefit and harm the economies of underdeveloped nations?
“The obvious benefit of GM crops is to be able to feed the population of a country with the food grown within the country and less reliance on imports of food which can require a large amount of a poor country’s foreign currency reserves. The drawbacks of GM crops are imposed on poor countries by wealthy (European) countries. The Europeans are wealthy enough that they can be picky about wanting their food raised in a certain fashion (for instance, “organically” or without genetic modification or locally) even if it costs more. But when they (European governments) impose their rules on poor countries, this has unintended consequence of creating more starvation among the poor in those countries that otherwise might be able to raise enough food if they had GM crops available (say genetically modified cassava that could withstand drought, or GM corn that require less insecticide and fertilizer for good crop yields because poor farmers cannot afford much fertilizer and insecticide).”
How can MDG 1 be satisfied?
“My obvious answer, in part, is to use GM crops and expand their development. However, the real answer lies not just here, but in expanding freedom so that small plot farmers own the title to their own land. If they have title, they can get loans (even small loans are helpful) and they incentive to improve what [they] own. If they don’t have title, they do not have this ability or this incentive.”
What responsibility does the US have in aiding in the satisfaction of MDG 1?
“The responsibility of the US is a moral one – it is also in the country’s self-interest to promote prosperity, stability and self-reliance among poor countries. I am not aware of any “contractual” (treaty) obligations of the US in this regard.”
What is your official title (as a professor and as a doctor)?
“I am temporary, part-time, seasonal adjunct at the college. Official title would be adjunct professor in the biology department (and assistant swim coach; my wife, the swim coach, calls me ‘the ass. coach’!). My other job: obstetrician/gynecologist. I work for Ob/Gyn Associates.”
Letter of Inquiry 1
14 October 2010
543 Mountain Loop St.
Middleton, ID 83644
Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC
1951 S. Saturn Way, Suite 100
Boise, Idaho 83709
Boise, Idaho 83709
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Kayla Isham, and I am a student at the College of Western Idaho. I am conducting a research project on issues relating to genetically modified foods. During my research, I encountered information regarding the recent Roundup Ready sugar beet ban. I am writing to you in inquiry of the affects of this ban on Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC and on Idaho’s economy as a whole.
I have learned that 95 percent of sugar beets grown in the United States are genetically modified to tolerate Roundup. Also, I have read articles in the Idaho Statesman of farmers expressing concern that the Roundup Ready sugar beet ban may prevent them from growing sugar beets because of a shortage in traditional sugar beet seed and the maintenance of growing traditional sugar beets. In the event that the ban is not repealed, how will Amalgamated Sugar be affected? Is there concern associated with local sugar beet farmers growing other crops rather than resorting back to traditional sugar beets? I understand that Idaho is currently second in the nation in sugar beet development. How will the ban affect Idaho’s presence in sugar production? What will the consequences of the ban be on Idaho’s economy?
Thank you for your time and consideration. A response would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kayla Isham
Letter of Inquiry 1 Response
October 18, 2010
The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC
1951 S. Saturn Way, Suite 100
Boise, ID 83709
Kayla Isham
543 Mountain Loop St.
Middleton, ID 83644
Dear Kayla:
Thank you for expressing interest in issues relating to genetically modified foods. The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC is in the middle of a lawsuit related to the use of Roundup Ready sugarbeet seed. As a result, the Company is unable to answer your questions at this time.
We appreciate your interest and apologize that we cannot be of more assistance. Good luck with your research.
Sincerely,
John C. McCreedy
General Counsel Secretary
JCM/js
cc. John Schorr
Letter of Inquiry 2
1 December 2010
543 Mountain Loop St.
Middleton, ID 83644
Golden Rice Humanitarian Board
contact@goldenrice.org
To the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board:
My name is Kayla Isham, and I am a student at the College of Western Idaho. I am conducting a research project on issues relating to genetically modified foods. As I have researched the benefits of genetically modified crops, the efforts surrounding the introduction of Golden Rice into the agricultural sects of underdeveloped countries has drawn my attention. I am writing to you in inquiry of the impacts of Golden Rice in these countries.
I noticed on the goldenrice.org website, a plethora of information exists regarding Golden Rice. This information certainly brings to attention the unrecognized benefits of the crop. In the charitable efforts of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board, what has been the response of citizens in underdeveloped countries? What are the primary issues concerning the adoption of Golden Rice in these countries? How will these issues affect the future development of Golden Rice and other nutrient-enriched genetically modified crops?
I appreciate your time and consideration. A response would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kayla Isham
Fatalities in Farming
Victimization of farmers has been occurring for decades. Whether intentionally mistreated or indirectly wronged, farmers must adapt according to the consequences of government action or inaction. One of the greatest injustices farmers have faced in the history of the United States occurred during the building of the railroad in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Currently, farmers must deal with the repercussions of genetically modified foods. A comparison between these two events depicts several similarities and differences in the characteristics of the parties involved and the participation of the government in the issues.
The Octopus, a novel written by Frank Norris in 1901, illustrates the struggles farmers face when up against the railroad company (Penguin Books). A group of honest, hard-working farmers being driven off their land by the corrupt railroad must resort to corruption themselves when their claims are continually denied by the courts. Despite a courageous fight, the end results for the farmers are loss of lives, ruin of livelihoods, and destruction of families.
The issues that farmers face in The Octopus relate to issues that farmers presently face in the debate of genetically modified foods. In The Octopus, farmers fell victim to the increasing prices of grain and hop transportation inflicted on them by the railroad (Norris). Farmers relied on the railroad as the sole means of transporting their crops. Aware of the reliance of the farmers, when the railroad looked to expand, they increased hauling rates in order to bankrupt farmers and take their land. The railroad was selfishly motivated and utilized corruption to satisfy their goals, taking full advantage of wealth and power.
In the era of the railroad, the United States was run by wealthy corporations. Money was power, and bribery often decided governmental proceedings (United States Senate). In The Octopus, this is portrayed in the government’s ignorance of the conflict between the railroad and farmers and in the court’s decisions in favor of the railroad (Norris). Although large organizations and corporations still impact the government, current governmental proceedings are much more immune to bribery and corruption stemming from organizations and corporations. For instance, the genetically modified food debate is fueled by companies like Monsanto and special interest groups like the Sierra Club. However, laws enacted by the government prevent these groups from placing farmers at their mercy like the railroad did to the farmers in The Octopus. Instead of satisfying the desires of groups like Monsanto and the Sierra Club, the policies of the government that dictate decisions regarding genetically modified foods are focused on consumer and environmental protection. Decisions of the government concerning genetically modified foods greatly affect farmers.
Government regulation (or lack of regulation) of genetically modified foods impact both organic farmers and farmers that grow genetically modified foods. A documentary about genetically modified foods briefly discusses how the unregulated planting of genetically modified crops affect organic farmers through cross pollination with compatible species (Shore). When genetically modified crops are in close proximity to organic crops that are sexually compatible, there exists potential for the genetically modified crop and the organic crop to reproduce. This leads to contamination of the organic crop. Because organic crops generally sell at a higher price, contamination of the organic crop leads to profit losses for the organic farmer.
Decisions made by government officials also affect growers of genetically modified crops. Recent government regualtion of the genetically modified sugar beet is affecting hundreds of sugar beet farmers throughout the United States. In the summer of 2010, Roundup Ready sugar beets were banned (Rodine). This means that sugar beet farmers must resort to planting traditional sugar beets or plant a different crop. The maintenance of traditional sugar beets is more intensive than maintaining genetically modified sugar beets, and traditional seed is much more difficult to come by since 95 percent of sugar beets in the United States are genetically modified (Isham; Profita). Theoretically, the result of the sugar beet ban will be an increase in the cost of planting and maintaining traditional sugar beets (Barker).
Similar to the farmers in The Octopus, current farmers must also suffer consequences of decisions made by more powerful entities. To the farmers in both instances, land is life. In The Octopus, the profits of the farmers were manipulated by the railroad through controlling the rates of crop transportation (Norris). Currently, profits that farmers receive are dependent on planting regulations decided by the government. These outside influences have potential to completely devastate farmers and their families. However, unlike that powerful entity that immorally took advantage of the farmers in The Octopus, the United States government is primarily concerned about safety of the crop in relation to the consumer and the environment. Although motives are drastically different, consequences to the farmer are considerably the same. Like the farmers in The Octopus, farmers continue to be the victims in decisions that affect land and crop usage.
Works Cited
Barker, Rocky. "Idaho Beet Growers and Organic Farmers Are Living in Uncertainty While A Lawsuit Plays Out." 26 March 2010. Idaho Statesman. Web. 20 September 2010.
Genetically Modified Food – Panacea or Poison. Dir. Josh Shore. 2005.
Isham, Bo. Certified Crop Advisor Kayla Isham. 4 October 2010.
Norris, Frank. The Octopus. New York: Penguin Books, 1986.
Profita, Cassandra. "Roundup Ready sugar beets? Not without an EIS." 16 August 2010. Ecotrope. Web. 17 September 2010.
Rodine, Kristin. "Roundup Ready Beet Growers in Idaho May Get Reprieve." 10 September 2010. Idaho Statesman. Web. 20 September 2010.
United States Senate. Direct Election of Senators . Web. 8 October 2010.
Nourished through Science: The Contributions of Golden Rice in the Alleviation of Vitamin A Deficiency in Underdeveloped Countries
Abstract
Rice is a staple food in many underdeveloped countries. Traditional rice is low in vitamin A. Therefore, many individuals suffer from vitamin A deficiency. “Golden Rice” is a type of genetically modified (GM) rice that contains high levels of vitamin A and can counteract the ill effects of traditional rice. In order to satisfy Millennium Development Goal 1, Golden Rice and other nutrient rich GM crops must be utilized. However, Golden Rice is being prevented from implementation because of the controversy surrounding genetically modified foods.
In 2010, the United Nations deemed the worldwide elimination of poverty and hunger as a top priority in the Millennium Development Goals (UNICEF). Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1 is to “Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger” and focuses on providing proper nutrition through decreasing poverty. In many underdeveloped countries, rice is the primary means of income and nutrition (EUFIC). Due to the low prices and narrow nutritional benefits of rice, many individuals in these countries develop vitamin A deficiency. Vitamin A deficiency drastically impacts health. In order to negate the effects of a diet consisting mainly of rice, Golden Rice was developed. Golden Rice is a genetically modified rice containing high levels of vitamin A (GMO Compass). Although the benefits of Golden Rice are obvious, the distribution of Golden Rice to underdeveloped countries cannot escape the controversy surrounding genetically modified (GM) crops. The European Union (EU), a vital trade partner to these underdeveloped countries, harshly opposes GM foods (Shah). Despite opposition to the genetic modification of foods, Golden Rice and other nutrient rich GM crops prove to be vital resources in the satisfaction of MDG 1 and must be implemented to combat undernourishment in impoverished countries.
As stated previously, Millennium Development Goal 1 is to “Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger” (UNICEF). The purpose of MDG 1 is to ensure adequate food intake for all inhabitants of the world, preventing undernourishment and its associated health problems. Undernourishment results when a diet lacks proper intake of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, minerals, vitamins, and water (Nix). Rice consists of 89 percent carbohydrates, 4 percent fats, and 7 percent proteins (SELF Nutrition Data). According to Williams’ Basic Nutrition and Diet Therapy, a balanced diet should consist of 45 percent to 65 percent carbohydrates, 20 percent to 35 percent fats, and 10 percent to 35 percent protein (Nix). Also, rice is completely deficient of vitamins A, C, K, D, and B12 (SELF Nutrition Data). As can be noted, a diet consisting mainly of rice can quickly lead to undernourishment.
In underdeveloped countries there is little availability for variety in diet because healthy foods are considered a delicacy and are consequently unaffordable. As a result, many individuals living in poverty stricken countries suffer from undernourishment. The attached map (Figure 1) depicts the percentage of individuals in different countries throughout the world that are undernourished (ATinNM). Undernourishment also leads to a variety of health problems. Nations in which rice is a staple food contain a large population that suffers from vitamin A deficiency. Dr. Lee Parsons, Ob/Gyn and adjunct professor at The College of Idaho, states that “Vitamin A deficiency is the most common cause of blindness” (Parsons). Sadly, blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency is completely preventable. Vitamin A rich Golden Rice provides an alternative to traditional rice grown in impoverished countries and can also prevent blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency.
Golden Rice was first developed in Switzerland in 2000 and was genetically modified to contain a precursor of vitamin A called beta-carotene (Black). Once in the body, beta-carotene is converted into vitamin A. Initially, the two genes implemented into Golden Rice that contributed to higher levels of beta-carotene in rice were the PSY gene from the daffodil (Narcissus
Pseudonarcissus) and the CrtI gene from the bacterium Erwinia uredovora (Yonekura-Sakakibara and Saito). Later, in order to obtain a higher beta-carotene yield, the maize PSY gene was used. This version of Golden Rice contains 37 micrograms of beta-carotene per gram of dry rice. The recommended intake of vitamin A in its various forms is 700 to 900 micrograms per day (Nix). The implementation of Golden Rice would provide a convenient mechanism of distribution of vitamin A to populations in need (Parsons).
The advantage of Golden Rice as a source of vitamin A supplementation is that farmers in the affected regions already know how to grow rice (Yonekura-Sakakibara and Saito). As opposed to vitamin supplements, which may be unfamiliar to many individuals in underdeveloped countries and is projected to be more costly, genetically modifying crops with vital nutrients provides a familiar alternative to ingesting needed nutrients (Stein, Sachdev and Qaim). Other crops that have been genetically modified to additional nutrients include lettuce, maize, canola, soybeans, and tomatoes (Yonekura-Sakakibara and Saito). These crops enhance the attainability of MDG 1 by providing proper dietary intake and decreasing undernourishment in impoverished nations.
It is suggested that GM foods are unsafe because of a lack of evidence regarding their impact on consumers and the environment (Shah). Dr. Lee Parsons states, “To this date, there are no scientific, peer-reviewed studies which indicate any safety issues from the consumption of GM crops… The safety concerns that are raised by some groups are ‘junk-science.’” Opponents of Golden Rice also call into question the crop’s affordability and the efficiency of Golden Rice replacing only a single nutrient (Krawinkel). Concerning the affordability of Golden Rice, it has been projected that providing vitamin A supplements to 100 million children in India would cost upwards of 116 million dollars (Stein, Sachdev and Qaim). The cost for Golden Rice production worldwide in 2007 was 9.3 million dollars. Thirdly, there is concern about Golden Rice only providing vitamin A supplementation, where most undernourished individuals have multiple nutrient deficiencies. Proponents of nutrient enriched GM crops argue that the long term goal is that a single crop will be modified to include several nutrients, thereby increasing the efficiency of growing nutrient enriched crops.
The wealth and power of the European Unions allows them to impose harsh regulations on trade with underdeveloped countries who rely on the EU as a major trade partner (Parsons). Therefore, many underdeveloped nations are hesitant about growing GM crops. In the event that these countries were expelled from trade with the EU because of growing GM crops, many impoverished individuals would lose the little source of income available (Cozay Group). In order to encourage these underdeveloped nations to grow GM foods, the burden of poverty must be relinquished. Lastly, the moral obligation of satisfying MDG 1 must be universal before any major impact can be made. The development and distribution of GM foods is a small step. The desire to provide adequate resources and improve health of impoverished individuals must be an intrinsic responsibility of individuals and nations able to help. Being a nation that values beneficence, the United States has the resources and the knowledge to assist nations in need. The United States has a moral responsibility to disperse the benefits of GM crops to undernourished and impoverished nations (Parsons).
Yonekura-Sakakibara and Saito state, “In developing countries vitamin A, preferably in the form of carotenoid enriched foods, is needed to solve the [vitamin A deficiency] problem.” The most efficient and affective solution currently available is Golden Rice. A healthier population is a more prosperous population. Golden Rice and other nutrient-rich GM crops have the potential to solve the world’s hunger and poverty dilemmas. However, the responsbility of satisfying MDG 1 ultimately falls back on the nations and individuals that have the ability to assist countries that are starving and impoverished. The economic selfishness of the EU must be counteracted and the senseless assertions of GM food opponents must be silenced. The cries of the hungry and impoverished cannot be heard. We must be their voice.
Works Cited
ATinNM. "2C is Possible but Unlikely." 16 April 2009. European Tribune. Web. 17 November 2010.
Black, Richard. "GM 'golden rice' boosts vitamin A." 28 March 2005. BBC News. Web. 17 November 2010.
Cozay Group. Cozay: Through Their Eyes. 2010. Web. 20 May 2010.
EUFIC. More iron and vitamin A from GM rice. November 1999. Web. 17 November 2010.
GMO Compass. Rice. 4 December 2008. Web. 17 November 2010.
Krawinkel, Michael B. "What we know and don’t know about Golden Rice." Nature Biotechnology (2007): 623.
Nix, Staci. Williams' Basic Nutrition and Diet Therapy. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier, 2009.
Parsons, Dr. Lee. Interview. Kayla Isham. 11 November 2010.
"Reducing Poverty Through GM Food Production." 2010. Genetically Modified Foods. Web. 21 May 2010.
SELF Nutrition Data. Nutrition Facts: Rice, white, long-grain, precooked or instant, enriched, prepared. 20 August 2008. Web. 17 November 2010.
Shah, Anup. GE Technologies Will Solve World Hunger. 20 January 2002. Web. 20 May 2010.
Stein, Alexander J., H.P.S. Sachdev and Matin Qaim. "Alexander J Stein, H P S Sachdev and Matin Qaim respond:." Nature Biotechnology (2007): 624.
UNICEF. "Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger." Millenium Development Goals. Web. 17 September 2010.
Yonekura-Sakakibara, Keiko and Kazuki Saito. "Review: genetically modified plants for the promotion." Biotechnol Lett (2006): 1983-91.
One World
As the semester comes to a close, I cannot help but to reflect on the challenges, the accomplishments, and the experiences this class has presented. In a world where I have everything that I need, it is often difficult to remember that my world is not everybody’s world. Unlike so many, I always have food on my plate, I get the opportunity to be educated, and I have access to excellent healthcare. Despite my successes this semester, I have much to improve on that I sincerely hope will be my focus throughout my life.
Coming into English 102 with eight semesters of college behind me, I was not necessarily seeking to learn how to write but to improve my writing skills. When I first read the “Research Project Overview,” I was so excited to delve right in because I knew I had such an opportunity to learn through writing research papers. Research papers are wonderful assignments because students have the chance to explore interests instead of agonizing through topics that hold no personal significance. Along with improving my writing skills, I got to enjoy the benefit of choice so graciously provided by Professor Jewkes.
Although this course was filled with English fundamentals worthy of remembrance, the realization of the inequalities in this world was most remarkable to me, and that is what I desire most to take from this course. Through researching, peer-editing, and viewing my classmates’ brochures, I became aware of simple blessings that I take for granted every day and my inadequacies in recognizing the needs of others. The millennium development goals blatantly point out the discrepancies in hardships faced around the world. Extreme hardship being foreign to me, it is often difficult to remember that individuals five miles away and five thousand miles away are burdened in ways that I cannot even fathom. Ignorance is so effortless and simple that it often becomes the solution. With a voice that can be heard and with sources that can be utilized, it is my responsibility to be an advocate.
In only fifteen weeks, an unmistakable imprint has been left on my conscience. The experience I gained from writing research papers in English 102 has overflowed from my head to my heart. A true education is one that consists of purposeful learning that motivates purposeful doing. In a world where health, food, and education are unequally allocated, an opportunity exists to make a difference in the life of another. Although I cannot be a presence in the lives of all in need, the contagious act of caring can bring the world that I live in into the lives of others.
Bibliography
ATinNM. "2C is Possible but Unlikely." 16 April 2009. European Tribune. Web. 17 November 2010.
Barker, Rocky. "Idaho Beet Growers and Organic Farmers Are Living in Uncertainty While A Lawsuit Plays Out." 26 March 2010. Idaho Statesman. Web. 20 September 2010.
Bennett, R. M., R. H. Phipps, and A. M. Strange. "An Application of Life-Cycle Assessment for Environmental Planning and Management: The Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Growing Genetically-Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Sugar Beet." Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 49.1 (2006): 59-74. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sept. 2010.
Bennett, Richard, et al. "Environmental and human health impacts of growing genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet: a life-cycle assessment." Plant Biotechnology Journal 2.4 (2004): 273-278. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sept. 2010. Black, Richard. "GM 'golden rice' boosts vitamin A." 28 March 2005. BBC News. Web. 17 November 2010.
Coghlan, Andy. "GM crops benefit the environment." New Scientist 180.2424 (2003): 17. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sept. 2010.
Cozay Group. Cozay: Through Their Eyes. 2010. Web. 20 May 2010.
Earth Justice. ""Roundup Ready" Sugar Beets Declared Unlawful." 2010. Earth Justice. Web. 17 September 2010.
EPA. Life-Cylce Assessment. 6 August 2010. Web. 21 September 2010.
EUFIC. More iron and vitamin A from GM rice. November 1999. Web. 17 November 2010.
Genetically Modified Food – Panacea or Poison. Dir. Josh Shore. 2005.
GMO Compass. Rice. 4 December 2008. Web. 17 November 2010.
Idaho Department of Education. "National School Lunch Program." March 2010. Web. 23 September 2010.
Isham, Bo. Certified Crop Advisor Kayla Isham. 4 October 2010.
"Judge Puts Roundup Ready Sugar Beets On Hold." 24 September 2009. Year of Plenty. Web. 17 September 2010.
Krawinkel, Michael B. "What we know and don’t know about Golden Rice." Nature Biotechnology (2007): 623.
May, M. J. "Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet." Annals of Applied Biology 142.1 (2003): 41. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sept. 2010.
McGinnis, Esther E., Mary H. Meyer, and Alan G. Smith. "Sweet and Sour: A Scientific and Legal Look at Herbicide-Tolerant Sugar Beet." Plant Cell 22.6 (2010): 1653-1657. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Sept. 2010.
Monsanto. Roundup Ready Sugarbeets. 2010. Web. 20 September 2010.
Moore, Martha T. "Breakfast in class: Fight against kids' hunger starts at school." 15 September 2010. USA Today. Web. 23 September 2010.
Munsey, Gina. "Obama’s Administration Refuses to Halt Production of Monsanto’s Genetically- Modified Roundup-Ready Sugar Beets." 6 April 2009. Eat Drink Better. Web. 17 September 2010.
Nix, Staci. Williams' Basic Nutrition and Diet Therapy. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier, 2009.
Norris, Frank. The Octopus. New York: Penguin Books, 1986.
Parsons, Dr. Lee. Interview. Kayla Isham. 11 November 2010.
Profita, Cassandra. "Roundup Ready sugar beets? Not without an EIS." 16 August 2010. Ecotrope. Web. 17 September 2010.
"Reducing Poverty Through GM Food Production." 2010. Genetically Modified Foods. Web. 21 May 2010.
Rodine, Kristin. "Roundup Ready Beet Growers in Idaho May Get Reprieve." 10 September 2010. Idaho Statesman. Web. 20 September 2010.
Sugar Industry Biotech Council. Frequently Asked Questions. Web. 23 September 2010.
UNICEF. "Goal: Ensure environmental sustainability." Millennium Development Goals. Web. 17 September 2010.
UNICEF. "Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger." Millennium Development Goals. Web. 17 September 2010.
United States Senate. Direct Election of Senators . Web. 8 October 2010.
US Census Bureau. State and County Quickfacts. 16 August 2010. Web. 22 September 2010.
USDA. School Meals. 8 July 2010. Web. 23 September 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)