Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering (GE) is a recently developed technology that allows the alteration of the genetic make up of living organisms. This technology allows scientists not only to exchange genes from members of the same species, which is what farmers and nature has been doing through out history, but also the exchange of genes between completely separate species. For example genetic engendering allows scientists to insert the genes from a fish into a tomato, something that can never happen in nature. Many in the biotechnology industry claim that the recent advancements in this field of research will help solve many of the problems developing countries face. These claims have led to a massive increase in commercial growing of genetically modified organisms, (GMOs) from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 58.1 million hectares in 2002 worldwide. 99% of this growth has only been in four countries; Argentina, Canada, China and the USA, the USA being the largest, producing 68%.

Amidst this enthusiasm there has been growing concern that there exist many hidden costs involved with GE technology. Critics of GE technology claim there are known and unknown health, social, ethical and environmental risks involved with the introduction of this technology. There are also claims that this technology has little if any benefits to the developing world and will in fact only benefit the developed world, and multinational biotech corporations such as Monsanto. Critics argue that whatever benefits developing nations gain from GE technology, these are far outweighed by the risks involved.

Proponents' of genetically modified foods strongest claim is that this technology will benefit farmers in developing countries by allowing those farmers to be more productive and grow a higher yield of crops. Many studies do agree that GE technologies do give farmers a higher yield, but even this is a contested issue. Because many of these studies are sponsored and linked to the very corporations that are developing these technologies, validity of the results are questionable. In fact, there have been certain independent studies that have concluded that genetically modified seeds in fact produce a lower yield than do conventional seeds. For example these is a two-year study by the University of Nebraska, in which Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans yield 6 percent less than their closest relatives and 11 percent less than high-yielding soybean varieties. This study shows that with all things being equal, genetically modified crops may in fact produce a lower yield. Because GE soy is commercially grown more than any other GE crop it will be good to take a look at why.

With Roundup Ready soybeans growing to 81% of the totally soy grown within the United States in 2003 , one must ask why farmers are switching to GE soy. The reason for this is the lower costs of pesticides and herbicides. The advantage of Roundup Ready soybeans is not that they are more productive or that the seeds cost less. In fact the seeds cost about six dollars more per acre than traditional soy seeds. The advantage comes in the form of a more resistant plant. Because Roundup Ready soy has been genetically altered to be more resistant to herbicides and pesticides, specifically a Monsanto produced brand called Roundup. Because these new GE soybeans are able to withstand stronger herbicide and pesticide use at a younger age, without any damage to the crop, farmers are able to kill off weeds and pests earlier and easier. This use of stronger herbicides and pesticides in farming leads to a cleaner crop, with a lower cost of labor.

A 1998 study by Mike Duffy, an economist from Iowa State University shows that all in all the costs and benefits of using GE technologies in soy and corn production do not lead to any sort of significant difference in returns compared to traditional none GE seeds. The main reasons for farmers switching to genetically altered technologies is the lower amount of labor needed for production and the cleaner crop produced with an increase of herbicides.

Clearly the fact that Roundup Ready soy, the most highly used commercial GMO product, has lower yields than traditional soy products we can dismiss the main argument given by the biotech industry that they are trying to help end world hunger. According to the United Nations and many none governmental organizations around the world the problem of world hunger is not one of a scarcity of food; it is in fact a problem of distribution of food. Today the world produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago . The world does not need larger supplies of food; the world needs to address the way in which food is distributed, something that GMO technology has no effects on. The only people that the biotech industry is trying to help are themselves. This is the reason that currently the main commercial implementation of genetically modified technology has been to increase crop resistance to pesticide use. The main producers of GE technology, firms such as Monsanto, are also the world's main producers of pesticides and herbicides.

The example of soy shows that the only real impact of genetic engineering has been to transfer some of the cost of labor into capital costs. This may be a good thing for the developing world where labor is more scarce, and capital intensive production should be sought. The developing world, on the other hand, with its high population and high unemployment would be better off using more labor intensive means of production. If GE soy technologies are applied in less developed nations, where labor is cheaper than in the developed countries, the cost of capital will not be offset as it has been in the United States by lowering labor costs. The costs of GE seeds are too high for farmers from developing countries to implement their usage. The costs of implementing this technology will not be offset by the benefits that farmers in the US have received. Not only will farmers lose money, but unemployment, which is already a problem in many developing nations, will increase, as farmers need to hire less labor to produce the same amount of crops.

The high initial cost of purchasing GE seeds makes the technology more difficult to implement by poor farmers in less developed countries. As happened during the "green revolution" these small farmers would be forced to take out loans to buy this new technology, and if the technology does not deliver higher profits these farmers may lose their land.

Even if a technology was developed that would bring the cost of production down to or below that of existing production cost, there is the issue of consumer preference. The increasing debate over genetic engineering has created a substantial difference in perception of the risks and benefits involved