Genetic Modification: Pro GMO or No GMO?

Source: http://engl105062.web.unc.edu

Genetic Modification (GM) of organisms and our food is incredibly hot topic in this day and age. The internet is full to the brim with very strongly opinionated articles about why you either should or should not be for the use of GM products. These opinions are cleverly disguised as facts, and are about as useful as a chocolate teapot... Thus, as a result, through time I have had friends who are vehemently against their existence, which often lead me to lean far the opposite way in the 'for' camp. However, over the last year or so, I have found myself dwindling back in the middle again - a reason I wanted to write this post in the first place. Despite this, I've been putting it off for weeks, trying to procure legitimate facts and rid my brain of preconceptions or little sound bites I've heard. So, please, if you're firmly in one camp or another, I ensure that you will benefit from reading further and understanding both the pros and cons, and extending that olive branch to your "GM-emies" (*cough* enemies *cough*) to finally end the disdain you feel... Otherwise, if you're in an argument with a strict "yes or no"-er, you can now have the upper hand of knowledge!

So, what's the deal with GM? Genetic Modification is when a species' genetic material (either DNA or RNA) has been altered in some way that is not specific to that organism, for example, through the switching on or off of certain characteristics within the genome, or by transferring genes from one organism to another (including different species). Regardless of the potential pros of this recent technology, there are strong public concerns over its safety within food production, and fear of its damage to human health, the environment and economies. A lot of these worries appear to stem from the prevalence of multi-billion agricultural biotechnology company, Monsanto, whose patents on a large proportion of crop seeds grants them a great deal of control and power over what we eat. This is undoubtedly a worrying matter. However, others seem to focus more on the safety of the food itself, as opposed to the inequality in its distribution or ownership... Despite this, the UN say that as a planet who are currently facing a huge crisis in terms of food security and malnutrition, we cannot justify ignoring the use of Genetic Modified Organisms (GMOs) in our food. So, is there anything wrong with GM food, or is it just in the wrong hands?

Source: www.livinglimitlessly.com

For / Pros / Yea

Productivity:

• Crops can be genetically modified to become more resistant to certain stress factors, such as pests, weather conditions (e.g. drought or frost), and disease, making it less likely for their yields to fail. In some cases, this can increase the overall yield of crops and increase their adaptability to climate change and other environmental stress, which would provide more food globally, and ensure improved food security in the future. Additionally, this can pave the way for increased efficiency and future research in improving crops through GM methods.
• For animals, genetic modification has the potential to increase milk yields in cows, which can reduce the amount of dairy cattle needed, which in turn reduces their devastating impact on the environment, as described here.

Environment:

• GM crops can decrease the environmental destruction caused by chemical and industrial practices. For example, crops modified to be resistant to pests and disease dramatically reduce the amount of pesticides used on them. A study (conducted between 1996 and 2002) determining the environmental impact of pesticide use concluded that a reduction of 503 million kilograms led to a decreased direct carbon footprint of 18.7%, including an equivalent reduction in GHG emissions from 11.9 million cars (compared to the mass of CO₂). 
• The ability to produce more food on less agricultural land due to the increased productivity potential of GM crops. This reduces the need to cultivate new land.
• Additionally, we are able to rehabilitate degraded land, which again decreases the need to cultivate new land. This is achievable either through the introduction of organisms modified to increase soil quality and provide nutrients, or through the use of crops resistant to harsh conditions, such as drought or degradation.
• This available land can be used to create bio-fuels, modified to efficiently provide a lot of energy, whilst simultaneously reducing the need for fossil fuels. 
• Increase the shelf life of food products, and in turn reducing the vast volumes of global food waste, which currently equates to approximately a third of all food!

Health:

• By the transfer of genes into crops, we have the potential to insert certain nutritional characteristics that may benefit consumers. Golden rice is an example of this, where the gene that encourages the production of vitamin A was transferred into certain rice crops. This advantage can decrease vitamin A deficiency, a condition that can lead to blindness, disease and death, and is prevalent in developing countries.
• The existence of GMOs allow us to experiment with medicines and vaccines, which can potentially save many lives and lead to become a more medically advanced society.
• They also enable us to learn more about certain diseases with carry genetic material.
• Lastly, we can identify certain allergens in food and organisms, thus leading to improved methods of prevention and possibly eradication.

Source: http://makeena.com

Against / Cons / Nay

Socio-Economic:

• As mentioned previously, the ownership of certain GM crop seeds (often within the private sector) decreases farmers' capability to exist independently, and often runs them out of business. The idea of large companies dominating the market, and selling farmers' crops back to them at extortionate prices creates a monopoly in the market.
• This issue also affects the freedom of researchers, which is lost due to the ownership of property, and can reduce the speed in which research is developed.
• The well-known "terminator" feature of GM crops, stopping crop from reproducing the following season naturally, is designed to prevent the crossing of GM seeds with non-GM seeds, which can lead to complications described below. However, it also means that farmers cannot save seeds from one season to the next, and have little choice but to buy new ones again (likely at high prices).

Environment:

• It is a possibility that the genes through one GM species could be transferred unexpectedly to another through "gene escape". This could result in weeds developing herbicide-resistance, and thus damaging future crops. Out-crossing is heavily monitored prior to its introduction in agricultural practice, and has not yet indicated an increased risk of invasive species. However, this cannot be ruled out as a future possibility and issue.
• Unknown genetic mutations could potentially occur, with unknown consequences over future generations.
• During the modification, non-targeted (sleeper) genes should be accidentally be switched on, or equally important, active genes may be switched off, leading to unpredictable outcomes.
• The impact of GMOs on biodiversity or ecosystems is also hard to predict. For example, in the laboratory, Bt crops were shown to have a negative impact on certain butterfly species, however this was not reflected in real life.
• Additionally, the concern over insect resistance in Bt crops led experts to push for plans that require all fields containing insect-resistance crops to be accompanied by locations containing non-GM crops, to ensure insect biodiversity is maintained.
• GM crops aren't only a threat to animals, but also to crop biodiversity, either through the competition or crossing of these with wild species.

Health:

• A risk is the possible transfer of genes containing allergens into other crops, which may be a danger to allergy sufferers.
• There may be unapproved genetically modified food available on the market, which will require strict regulations and governance.
• Similarly to eating meat, GM foods have the potential to transfer resistance of antibiotics to humans (and livestock) which would make us highly susceptible to bacterial diseases, and may lead to increased deaths.

So, what do you think now? Yea or Nay? Please leave your opinions in the comments about where you think you are, and we can all have a gruelling debate! Even if you're still in the middle... Or if you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to ask!

Source: www.civilbeat.com

The Role of Climate, Conflicts and Economies on Future Food Security

Source: The Guardian

Climate change is undoubtedly one of the most pressing issues of our time, and will continue to worsen if our attitudes fail to change quickly. As discussed in a previous post, food insecurity is amongst our greatest concerns when it comes to climate change, with the potential to leave millions in food poverty and increased deaths. Some models predict that we have the capacity to produce enough food for the global population over the next 20 to 30 years, while others contest these claims, stating that climatic variations may see a net decline in major cereals, such as corn, wheat and rice, over the next 20 years. Despite this, multiple studies agree that our ability to expand production is slowly diminishing, as intensification and exploitation of resources reach their limits.

Diverse regions across the world face variable levels of food systems vulnerability due to the different physical, social and economic abilities to cope with climate change. Alongside the direct causes, like change in weather patterns, many indirect also causes play havoc with the future of global food security, such as disease, poverty and politics.

On the contrary, it’s not all bad news for everybody over the globe, as some areas may soon start to enjoy social and economic growth as a result of climate change…

Climatic Impact on Food Security

Source: http://i.imgur.com

With increasing global temperatures brings great changes in regional climates and weather patterns. Take, for example, the high temperatures and increased precipitation we have experienced this winter, leading to mass flooding and social devastation. In terms of food production, tropical and subtropical regions are highly in danger of decreased food security due to a rising risk of drought. It is estimated that many countries across these regions could receive less than the minimum 120 days necessary to produce sufficient cereal crop yields, plunging already typically vulnerable countries into economic decline. The increasing occurrence of El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events are thought to be related to enhanced dry spells, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. This implies that this region is likely to be the most at risk of hunger and food insecurity in upcoming years. Additionally, with heightened chance of drought, decreased precipitation and increased evaporation comes greater risk of water scarcity, which is forecasted to affect 5 billion people by 2025.

Although, these projections are largely based upon models and assumptions, which do not take into consideration the likelihood of technological development, adaptation strategies, international support, and political attitudes to climate change, which may see some of these regions less affected than predicted.

Interestingly, a majority of countries located in the temperate and arctic climates (mainly in the northern hemisphere) will experience an approximate 9% gain in arable land suitable for agriculture. This expansion will mainly be observed across Russia, North America, Central Asia and northern Europe, seeing respective boosts in local economies and availability of food. Despite this, it is postulated that, on the global scale, food reserves will remain relatively the same. So, this does not solve the distribution problem effectively! Additionally, this prediction of increased agricultural land in these regions does not take heavily into account the potential for unprecedented occurrences to take place, such as natural hazards, flooding/waterlogging, conflict or political instability.

Other Impacts on Food Security

However, as discussed above, climate is not a single deterministic factor of food security. Although it is the most quoted, many countries, such as Least Developed Countries (LDCs), struggle to cope with sudden shocks and variations due to a lack of infrastructure, financing, skilled labourers, and much more. The resulting issue tends to increase with heightened instability of external factors, instead of just climate change itself. For example, despite Europe, USA and eastern Australia having an incredibly high human threat to water security due to severe drought, climatic variations and detrimental agricultural practices, their ability to cope is high, as they are technologically and economically equipped to manage. (This demonstrated in the image below).

Source: Vörösmarty et al., 2010

Poverty is the most obvious aggravating factor, as it can lead to reduced technological capability, poor social infrastructure (housing, transport, etc.) and increased risk of disease. With food security reliant upon availability, access and utilisation, these characteristics are highly pertinent. To illustrate, lack of efficient transportation reduces access to food from outside regions (which is particularly concerning in the face of an environmental or social emergency), lack of trained agriculturalists or labourers impacts the quality and availability of food, and lack of economic security increases hunger and food poverty. Additionally, approximately half of all malnutrition is caused by non-food related aspects, such as HIV/AIDs and malaria, which are amplified by increasing global temperatures, and are often located in LDCs. That really is the icing on top of a shit-filled cake…

To add insult to injury, political alliances also have a huge part to play in the battle for food security. Alliances with countries who are well-equipped to deal with climate change, such as North America, Europe and Australia, may be ensured aid, safety and refuge in potentially dark times head, whereas less-economically developed countries may find themselves marginalised and left to fend for themselves (despite statistically contributing a whole lot LESS to global warming). Additionally, these political alliances can become vastly unpredictable, particularly during the current “war on terror”, born almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, which continues to deconstruct and rebuild new political affiliations on a regular basis.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

AHHH! The voice is my head is almost screaming as I write… Which factors do you see as the most damaging to future food security? Climate change? Economic stability? Political stability? Health? Something completely different? Or a mixture of certain factors? Let me know in the comments!