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.
No comments:
Post a Comment