Dangerous Harvest: The Genetic Engineering of Agricultural Products [A case study of Monsato's Roundup Ready Soybeans (RRS)]

Roundup Ready Soybean (RRS) is "an intelligent solution in favor of the environment," claims Monsanto, the agricultural chemical company that makes genetically engineered RRS (Greenpeace). Likewise, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims "it [Roundup Ready Soybean] does not require premarket approval" and "the special labeling [of it] is inappropriate" (Whitmore). Nowadays we can find information about genetically engineering anywhere. However, many people have been poorly informed about genetic engineering. This is because developers of genetically engineering and the U.S. government put pressure on public information. In other words, they only give good information to the public and hide unpleasant facts. It seems that genetically engineered foods have nothing different from natural ones, and are not harmful. However, genetically engineering is dangerous. Because more than half the farmers will no longer be able to make their living; secondly, the very merits of genetically engineering are dangerous; lastly, there are no laws which protect our right.

First, I am opposed to genetically engineered food because half the world's farmers can no longer make their living. This is because they will not be able to afford to buy seeds (Edwards 22). Up to the present, farmers could gather seeds up from the crop and replant them next year. However, many genetically engineered seeds are made to grow only one growing season. Melvin Oliver, who works in the USDA's (US Department of Agriculture) laboratory in Lubbock, Texas, and invented genetically engineered seeds, claims that genetically engineered seed is "a way of self-policing the unauthorized use of American technology" (Edwards 22). Monsanto also insists that "because Roundup Ready Soybeans are patented, their responsible use is different from that of other [ general ] soybeans" (Monsanto). But these claims only show one-way thinking which mainly aims at the profit of companies. If farmers have to buy the seeds every year, poorer farmers will no longer be able to buy them. What is worse, this might be dangerous with regards to the environment. If most of the farmers buy these seeds, natural seeds will disappear. What if companies go bankrupt and can not make the seeds that cannot be replanted next year? Farmers will not be able to make crop and we will surely have nothing to eat. Developers cannot assure that this will never happen.

Moreover, the price of genetically engineered seeds will become higher. At first, these seeds will be cheaper than general ones to encourage poorer farmers to buy them. However, this is the tactic of companies that have the patent for the seeds. Willard Phelps, a spokesman for the USDA, anticipates that these seeds will soon be so widely bought that farmers will only be able to buy genetically engineered seeds which can not be replanted next year (Edwards 22). As a result, the companies monopolize the seeds will necessarily set the price higher on account of the patent.

Another reason why many farmers will not be able to make living is that they cannot also buy agricultural chemicals. Monsanto emphasizes that "Monsanto can only assure growers of top performance of Roundup Ready Soybeans if Roundup Ultra herbicide is used." That is, characteristics of genetically engineered seeds will work only when farmers use the agricultural chemicals, which match to them. Again, farmers come up against the problem of patent, and the price of agricultural chemicals will get higher. Farmers who buy genetically engineered seeds have no choice but to purchase the agricultural chemicals that match to them even if the agricultural chemicals are expensive.

Secondly, I am opposed to genetically engineering for more safety-related reasons. The very merits, tolerant to harmful insects and herbicide, are dangerous. Farmers are always troubled with harmful insects. In order to get rid of them, farmers use herbicide; however, they have to be careful about the amount of herbicide. The less farmers use it, the less they can kill insects; on the other hand, the more they scatter it, the more harmful the crops will become. Developers of genetically engineered crops watch for these points and make crops tolerant to harmful insects and herbicide.

Recombinant crops tolerant to harmful insects are dangerous because they themselves contain poison. Developers recommend them because they can reduce the use of herbicide. For example, Monsanto claims that Roundup Ready Soybeans "were able to reduce herbicide use while controlling weeds better in their soybean fields." However, we consumers should know the process of making recombinant crops. For instance, harmful insect A is killed by the toxin made by harmful insect B. Then developers decide to insert the toxin of B into crops ("GEF"). Finally the crops become tolerant to harmful insect A and there is no need to scatter herbicide to kill it. Surely the use of herbicide will decrease, but the crops themselves contain the toxin of insect B, which might somewhat be harmful to us.

Genetically engineered crops tolerant to herbicide have also ill effects, since they will encourage farmers to use more agricultural chemicals. This is because, for example, Roundup Ready Soybean is tolerant to agricultural chemicals at twice the recommended levels of usage (Greenpeace). Before this biotechnology, farmers had to be careful with using herbicide because if they used much, crops themselves will be damaged. However, genetically engineered crops enable them to scatter herbicide without care, which may surely lead farmers to use extra.

Agricultural chemicals are widely known to be harmful not only to us but also to environment. For instance, studies have shown that they cause dioxin; what is worse, it turned out to be true that "dioxin exposure did increase the likelihood of cancer" (Greer and Bruno 142). If farmers use more agricultural chemicals without care, the amount of dioxin will increase and unexpected disaster will happen.

Thirdly, the characteristic tolerant to herbicide has "the ability to pass alien genes . . . onto following generations and even to related wild species" (Greenpeace). This is the most dangerous point because not only it encourages the extra use of herbicide, but also "the spread of these plants . . . [can] result in a long-term change in natural ecosystem" (Greenpeace). In the case of genetically engineered oilseed rape by Joergensen and Andersen, it is estimated that within the first planting season, "a substantial part of wild weed population could acquire the gene for herbicide tolerance" (Greenpeace). If weeds have the same ability resistant to herbicide, herbicide itself will not be effective to crops. In other words, farmers scatter agricultural chemicals because they want to remove weeds; however, agricultural chemicals are no longer effective and farmers have no choice but to use greater amount of powerful herbicide.

I emphasize that there are no laws that protect our rights from genetically engineering. The government should guarantee our rights to choose whether to eat genetically engineered food or not. However, we don't have these laws as yet.

Because there were even no testing systems, serious tryptophan incident happened ten years ago. At that time, FDA (Food and Drug Administration) allowed Showa Denko to sell genetically engineered Tryptophan without safety testing because other companies had been selling natural Tryptophan. The reason why FDA permitted Showa Denko to sell genetically engineered Tryptophan because it presumably didn't have any difference from natural ones (Fagan). Merits of the genetically engineering are that it can increase the amount of Tryptophan and accelerate the process. However, when Tryptophan is genetically engineered, a highly toxic contaminant comes out with Tryptophan (Fagan). John Fagan reports that this product was placed on the U.S. market in 1988, and within 3 months, 37 people died and 1500 were permanently disabled.

There is a testing system now. However, I claim that it is not enough yet, because genetically engineering is tested only by developers not by outsiders. Since goal of many corporations is to make profit, there is possibility that they will lie. For example, in litigation of Monsanto’s Nitro studies ending in 1989, it was proved that Monsanto had made a pattern of manipulated data and misleading design (Greer and Bruno 141).

Lastly, there is also no law to label whether food is genetically engineered or not. FDA claims that labeling is needed when composition of food is clearly different from natural one by genetically engineering. But, "when the technique [genetically engineering] is used to modify a plant in a way that does not significantly change its composition, special labeling would be in appropriate" (FDA SP). Because of this system, U.S. government and Monsanto planed to mix Roundup Ready Soybean with ordinary soybean and put on the market (Greenpeace). Even if we gain knowledge of the dangerous points of genetically engineering, we can not prevent ourselves from having genetically engineered food because of the absence of law.

Thus far, I have argued that genetic engineering of agricultural products causes harm to the ecosystem. Likewise, I have to emphasize again that the overuse of genetically engineering may have devastating effects on both the environment and the current farming system. First, I discussed how the current system of farming was collapsing. Next, I explained why genetically engineered agricultural products have ill effect on environment and ecosystem. Third, I suggested that we have to protect ourselves because of the absence of strong laws regulating genetic engineering.

In conclusion, I believe we must do the following in order to protect environment and ourselves from the danger of genetic engineering. First, we must have exact information about genetically engineered food. Second, since we cannot keep ourselves from it now, we also must struggle for a labeling system. It is very difficult to ban genetically engineered food because the companies that have introduced genetic engineering, along with many governments, will put pressure on any attempts to prohibit it. Therefore, the best way is to make the law for labeling whether food has been genetically engineered or not.

by Saori Tonogai

Works Cited

Edwards, Rob. "End of the Germ Line." New Scientist 28 March 1998: 22.

Fagan, John. "Summary of the Tryptophan Toxicity Incident." Genetic Engineering - Tryptophan Toxicity Incident.
http://www.natural-law-party.org.uk/ (6 May. 1998).

"Food Derived from New Plant Varieties." FDA's Statement of Policy.
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/ (24 June 1998).

Greenpeace.  "Not Ready for Roundup."  
http://www.greenpeace.org/~usa/ (28 April. 1998).

Greer, Jed and Kenny Bruno. Green Wash: The Realty Behind Corporate Environmentalism.  Penang: APEX Press, 1996.

Monsanto Inc. "Frequently Asked Questions." Roundup Ready Soybeans.
http://www.roundupready.com/ (6 May.1998).

"遺伝子組換食品 Genetically Engineered Food."  疑問あり！遺伝子組換食品 I'm Opposed to Genetically Engineered Food.
http://www.netwave.or.jp/~hara/ (27 April. 1998).

Whitmore, Arthur. "FDA Evaluation of Bioengineering Soybean and Corn Varieties."  FDA Talk Paper. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ (24 June. 1998).