Are Genetically Modified Crops the Solution?

In The Australian Food News article, “Greenpeace ‘Cries Wolf’ about GM Food Ingredients” (2010 November 1) the author, Dan Quinn, expresses several claims regarding the ongoing opposition of genetically modified crops. A few of the claims involve the beneficial factors GM crops has accomplished worldwide and the ongoing success it wishes to establish. Specifically the Golden Rice project is one subject where the author makes some claims that I feel lack supporting evidence. One strong claim mentioned in this article is that Greenpeace have not found a single piece of scientifically credible evidence that there is anything wrong with GM crops and its production/distribution. I feel that these claims (and the many more that will be mentioned) are weak, irrational and exaggerated forms of judgment upon the views of Greenpeace and those who oppose Genetically Modified crops.

In Quinn’s argument, he believes that Greenpeace and the many other activist groups are opposing GM food and preventing their release worldwide which (in his view) is slowing down the solution to solving world hunger. I believe that these groups who oppose GM crops rebel against them for reasons that can be considered viable. For example health issues and the long term effects of GM crops may affect certain individuals and according to another article (by Chuck Palazzo, October 2010), these health issues and long term effects of GMO (genetically modified organisms) have not been thoroughly tested for food-safety concern. This was something Quinn failed to present in his article which relates back to the Golden Rice project; where those in favour of its properties wish to release the rice worldwide to stop vitamin A deficiency (VAD). The problem here is that the development and research of the golden rice has provided no impact on VAD through its methods of production (Eric Darier, November 2010). The use of pesticides and other chemicals on the GMOs has contaminated the other neighbor crops. GM is clearly irresponsible to the environment (Eric Darier, November 2010). Quinn’s argument has provided no supporting evidence to back up his statement that “GM crops are good.” Upon reading his article, he merely formulates statements without scientific facts to prove his point.

Dan Quinn provides quotes within his argument to establish the message that genetically modifications are no more dangerous that the conventional breeding of crops, reported by scientific experts. Once again Quinn provides no scientific evidence to support his argument. He claims through other reports that:

“GM products have been in several foods for many years and consumed without any substantiated evidence of ill effects on health, and their safety confirmed by many peer-reviewed studies world-wide.” Australian Academy of Science (2007)

“There is a comprehensive body of knowledge that already adequately addresses current food safety issues including those dealing with GM products; it is considered by the experts as sufficient to assess the safety of GM products.” European Union Joint Research Centre (2008)

“GM foods currently available on the international market have undergone risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health any more than their conventional counterparts.” World Health Organization (2005)

I find these quotes to be sheer statements with no relevant evidence. In this article, Dan Quinn lacks the supporting verification from any research and/or statistical evidence to persuade the reader into believing and considering that GMOs are completely safe. There are three main reasons why there are so many criticisms towards GMOs (as mentioned in another article by Deborah B. Whitman) that Quinn did not consider to bring up in his argument. There are environmental, health and economic issues that involve genetic modification. Quinn failed to acknowledge any of these reasons and for that matter I believe that he is biased towards GMOs and neglects the views of Greenpeace and other activist groups.



The environmental issues that arise may include the unintentional harm towards other organisms, reduction of pesticide effectiveness and the possible gene transfer to non-targeted species. Health problems may involve not knowing the true effects of GMOs. For example studies have been done with GM potatoes that were tested on lab rats. It was observed that there were differences within the rats’ intestinal tract compared to rats that were fed unmodified potatoes. These differences could simply foreshadow the potential threats of GMOs to human beings if something like the Golden Rice was released worldwide. There are also allergenic problems that play an important role in health issues. For example, many people are allergic to peanuts and other food. By introducing genetically modified foods into their lives there may be a chance that certain individuals may develop new allergens towards the product. These problems were never stated in Quinn’s article but were rather avoided and unheard of.

Dan Quinn also claims that Golden Rice presents a sustainable, cost-free solution and not requiring other resources. Well, the third issue here is economic concern and although the Rockefeller foundation provides a non-profitable organization, they do not provide a cost-free solution to VAD as Quinn has stated but instead, they provided it at a reduced cost. This is one of the false claims Quinn made. Quinn additionally says that GM crops would not be planted if farmers did not benefit from them. I say that without doubting the beneficial factors that GM food has to offer, it should not be the only solution to solve world hunger.

The Author Dan Quinn proposes limited evidence to his claims and merely declares them to be true. Quinn’s claim for saying that Greenpeace have found nothing scientific to prove that GM crops are bad, is completely false and is a statement served with no background evidence to support it. I believe that his argument is weak in terms of not providing enough proof to support his points. There are indeed many great beneficial properties that genetically modified crops have to offer but there are also many uncertainties that come with it. I believe that stating both the positive and negative factors of GM crops is important for everyone to know which was something Quinn lacked to include in his article.

References
Palazzo, C. (2010) Who let the GMOs Out? Veterens Today, 20 Oct 2010. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/10/20/who-let-the-gmos-out/. Accessed 10 Nov 2009.
Darier, E. (2010) GE golden rice’s lack of lustre. Greenpeace, 9 Nov 2010. http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/ge-golden-rices-lack-of-lustre/blog/28192. Accessed 9 Nov 2010.
Quinn, D. (2010) Greenpeace “cries wolf” about GM food ingredients. Australian Food News, 1 Nov 2010.http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2010/11/01/greenpeace-cries-wolf-about-gm-food-ingredients.html. Accessed 9 Nov 2010.
Whitman, B.D. (2000) Genetically modified foods: harmful or helpful? CSA, Apr 2000. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php. Accessed 10 Nov 2010.