Ethical Choices for the Common Farmer

The influence of technology and economic growth on agriculture is an issue that has been widely examined for years. Growing world populations and the need to increase productivity have put a strain on the common practices of farming. Since antiquity, the general public has depended on the productivity of farmers for food. Globalization and economics have forced an increase in the demand of agricultural products. With the development of these demands, corporations and government agencies have introduced ideas for better and more efficient production of foods. The introduction of these techniques have proved to be nether improved or ecologically aware then past methods.

The introduction of new efficient ideas in agriculture has spawned questions and concerns. One of the most debated issues surrounding the agriculture community is the implementation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The specifics of GMOs will be discussed later, but in essence, these organisms were introduced both to increase the production of foods and reduce environmental degradation.

On the surface, the idea of GMOs was a fine one. The ability to reap more production while using less chemical input sounded like a secure solution to the changes in agriculture. Nevertheless, GMOs carry an extraordinary amount of economical and ethical baggage.

The fact is that farmers are faced with an enormous ethical question. "Large corporations are pushing for the implementation of GMOs in the United States and worldwide...Farmers have the choice whether or not to embrace biotechnology, but corporations are vigorously influencing the decision" (McCuen 72). It is highly unethical for these corporations to tempt farmers with the economic benefits of GMOs, without letting the whole GMO story be known.

One of the first GMOs to be introduced was Bovine Somatotropin (BST), produced in 1993 by the biotech giant, Monsanto Corporation. This product was created to increase the amount of milk that dairy cows produced. By injecting this hormone into the adult cow, her milk production would increase by 10-15% per day. The next big invention that came from Monsanto was Roundup Ready soybeans. This product was intended to alleviate the use of harmful pesticides such as Atrazine, the most widely used pesticide in the United States. By planting Roundup Ready soybeans, the crop would not need to be sprayed with chemicals because the DNA spliced into the soybeans automatically combated insects (McCuen 46).

These products sounded like the answer to all of our agricultural needs, while making Monsanto appear as the world's saving grace. After years of research, "BST was found by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to have no adverse affects on human health" (USDA 92). The fact remains, though, that "the hormone IGF-1 that is present in BST milk, is not broken down in the human body. IGF-1 is an insulin-like growth factor that has been found to cause breast cancer in some women" (Williams).

Roundup Ready soybeans have also been approved by the FDA and USDA, and remain the largest source of Monsanto's income- bringing in more than 40% of the company's profit annually. Although the product has been approved, soil degradation and adverse affects on neighboring crops have been documented by farming associations (1).

The issue here deals with ethics, the economy, and farmers. Since GMO products have proven themselves effective, the agricultural market has been skewed to view all-natural, or organic, crops as inefficient. This forces farmers to make an ethical choice: Should they jump on the biotech bandwagon to get more yield at a lower price while possibly inflicting harm to human health, or can they continue with their former, high-cost practices in effort to preserve the environment and offer safe products to the public?

The connection between farmers, ethics, culture, and technology is best described in Wendell Berry's book "The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture." Mr. Berry, a farmer and author from Henry County, Kentucky, describes the personal relationship that the small-time American farmer shares with his land and crops. He focuses on the fact that agribusiness and the need for higher crop yields are taking the life out of farms and putting it into the hands of large corporations. Because of this, American farmers are forced to "get big or get out." Technology is raping the farmers of their own ethical views and forcing them to comply with standards. Agricultural analysts call the process of high production and high return, "agripower." In light of this, Mr. Berry explains that,

[agripower] is measured by its ability to produce a marketable surplus, which generates 'agridollars'. The income from this increased production is spent by farmers not for soil maintenance or improvement, water conservation, or erosion control, but for 'purchased inputs'.

In short, technology and agribusiness are forcing the farmer to be a money-minded businessman, rather than a nurturing producer.

On the economic side of things, the introduction of GMOs has put a strain, not only on the farmers, but also on others involved in the crop-handling process. Since several strings of GM crops have been put on the market, the number of available crops has doubled. Put more simply, the farmer has twice as many crops from which to choose: GMO or non-GMO. The increase in crop selection has also put a strain on the grain handlers.

When a crop, soybeans for example, is harvested, the farmer must load the product into trucks and transport it to an elevator. An elevator is a very large piece of stationary equipment that sorts the soybeans and prepares them for shipment. Since these elevators are so large and expensive to operate, there are only a few in each state. With the number of crops doubling, these elevators were put into higher demand. Rather than build new elevators to meet the demand, which would put a drain on already tapped resources, the crop handlers were forced to improvise. When a farmer brings his or her soybeans to the nearest elevator, time and money are now spent to keep the GMO and non-GMO crops separate. The soybeans must be put through a testing phase to verify that the crop is GMO or non-GMO. These tests usually cost $7.50 per truckload and take 15-20 minutes on average. If the soybeans were a GMO product, the elevator and all of its parts must be cleaned to insure that the next non-GMO crop is not crossed with the GMO DNA. The cleaning process must be done quickly to ensure that all of the trucks are inspected, so extra help is often required. The extra time would end up costing