i support healthy soil, not gmo's!

     In our final unit of Food class, we covered topics to ultimately help us decide our stance on the use of genetically modified organisms. Initially, we looked at Norman Borlaug and his method of plant breeding to get a better understanding of desirable characteristics, dominant genes, and even probability. 

     In addition to this experiment, is Mendel’s explanation of genetics using pea plants. Circling back to Borlaug’s experiment, is the result of modifying plants. By changing a plants’ genes, we can make crops that are more resistant to climate and disease. This allows starving countries to plant resilient crops and feed the hungry. Upon introduction of the new wheat, you can see around 1960, a sudden increase in wheat yield in Tunisia:

     As you can see above, there is an overall consistent increase in wheat yield, depicted in this equation: y = 239x+5858. Using this equation, we can also predict the estimated wheat yield in 2030. From 1960 to 2030 is a 70-year difference, so we can substitute 70 for x (239*70+5858 = 16,730+5858 = approximately 22,588 hg/ha). After looking closely at the influence of genetically modified foods, I had to form my own position: I don't support the use of GMOs in more developed countries. The specificity is, of course, intentional. Norman Borlaug's experiment evidently saved billions from starvation. Nevertheless, I do believe there is reasonable skepticism when it comes down to long-term effects. 

     The population is continuously increasing, so no matter what, food production will need to be prioritized. This is where it gets complicated, because sustainable food production requires a number of practices that contradict modern farming. We can begin at the root of the plant, or, rather, the seed! Seeds are now being modified and patented, which means that several biotechnology companies can control use and distribution (Non-GMO Project). Unfortunately, this is threatening farmer sovereignty and national food security. A quote from a previous action project of mine applies here nicely: "resilient agricultural practices are vital to resilient societies." I bring this up because sustainable agriculture implicates soil, too! The herbicides that companies like Monsanto use have not been proven toxic to humans, but have had negative effects on soil health (Solomon). So while the genetic modification of food has been a long-lived and preventative practice, the "biological" and "economic" impacts are concerning (Solomon). 

     At a recent farmer's market, I think there was a vendor who brought up an interesting position, "I don’t get GMO’s at the store, but they help reduce hunger for many people.” GMO foods have their benefits, and consumer choices range from situation and ability. This could offer a sort of compromise, by restricting more genetically modified foods to the places in need, and reducing them in the more developed countries. No matter your position, I think it's important to keep a future-conscious mindset when it comes to food production.

WORKS CITED:

FAOSTAT, www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.

“GMO Facts.” Non, www.nongmoproject.org/gmo-facts/.

Kobayashi-Solomon, Erik. “Here's The Real Reason Why GMOs Are Bad, And Why They May Save Humanity.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Feb. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2019/02/15/heres-the-real-reason-why-gmos-are-bad-and-why-they-may-save-humanity/?sh=4bd3e3684877.