GMOs and the Hungry World

Genetically Modified Foods and the Hungry World:

A Solution With Problems
Rachel Lapidus
City College of New York

GMOs and the Hungry World

Abstract
Genetically modified (GM) foods have become commonplace in our world. They are present in
many foods in the first world, from High Fructose Corn Syrup to the feed given to livestock.
They came into common usage, seemingly overnight, without satisfactory study or scientific
understanding. Many bio-tech companies (the companies who develop and produce genetically
modified foods) and the advertising agencies theyve hired have taken advantage of the
confusion to promote the use of GM foods for their own profit. Governments have taken actions
for and against GMOs (genetically modified organisms), often with very little information to
guide them. In the hope of fostering more reasoned discussion, this paper will provide some
background about the process of genetic modification, the following examples will discuss the
process of genetic modification, its potential benefits, its potential risks, and the global effects of
their use.
Keywords: GMO, GM food, genetically modified, bio-tech, agriculture, Monsanto

GMOs and the Hungry World

Genetically modified organisms, sometimes known as GMOs, are plants or animals that
are created through the process of genetic engineering. Genetically modified (or GM) foods are
commonly offered as a solution to world hunger, because they take less time to produce larger
crops. They have gained increased use because they can grow bigger and faster than regular
crops in more difficult environments. They seem to defeat pests that have plagued farmers for
generations. But their common use has reshaped the entire farming industry. Small farms that
cannot afford the cost of genetically modified seed are forced out of business by larger
companies. As large agricultural corporations plant across their giant farms with genetically
modified seed, the local environment adapts and changes creating large portions of land that can
only grow crops from genetically modified seed. This will eventually restrict the amount and
type of food that can be grown. GMOs have become the main ingredient in a hungrier world.
The most attractive quality of genetically modified, or GM, foods is the claim that they
can provide a solution to the global hunger crisis. With genetic engineering, it seems suddenly
possible to solve many of the problems that plague food production worldwide. Most GM crops
are either insect-resistant (that is, produce their own pesticide), herbicide-tolerant or sometimes
both (Cotter, 2011).
This seems an easy way to make life better for farmers across the world. The larvae
European Corn Borer Moth can devastate a farmers entire crop. But by genetically engineering
the crops, suddenly this pest is no longer a problem. In Hawaii, the Ring Spot virus attacks

GMOs and the Hungry World

papaya trees, leaving them unable to produce fruit, if not killing them entirely. In 1999, they
implemented a genetically engineered strain of papaya that resists the virus. It has remained in
heavy use ever since (Hartl, 2011).
The theoretical usefulness of GM crops extends beyond resolving production issues to
potentially solving malnutrition problems. In 2000, a biologist named Potrykus released news of
a potentially life-saving genetically modified crop called golden rice. This quickly caught the
attention of large corporations such as Monsanto, a leading GMO seller. Monsanto prides itself
on advanced plant breeding and biotechnology that uses chemicals and genetic engineering to
enhance plants. Many critics of Monsanto claim they are trying to push the genetically
modified processes on the world and have long been looking for a seemingly beneficial plant to
help push their agenda. Despite its initial success, golden rice, the poster child for GMOs across
the world, has begun to garner criticism. After over a decade, now that the first long-term studies
are nearing completion, some researchers have come to the conclusion that golden rice is a farfetched, glamorized idea.

Besides the environmental and economic impacts of the grain,

malnourished people are not able to absorb Vitamin A in this form; a young boy would have to
eat close to thirty bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the
vitamin (Taverne, 2007).
The marketing divisions of many biotech companies take advantage of the confusion
about how GMOs are made and limited studies. Confronting the major players of these groups
will get unsure mixed answers as to the genetically modified organisms dangers, and that
genetically modified organisms are the solution to world hunger, but very little information about
the actual process (Vernon, 2007). It is therefore important to note that the process of genetic
engineering is different from the more common practice of cross-breeding. The process of

GMOs and the Hungry World

crossbreeding can only combine related organisms, has been used for centuries, and has few
associated health risks. Genetic manipulation takes dominant genes from one organism to replace
weaker, less-resistant genes in another and easily creates a genetic exchange that is completely
impossible in nature. The purpose is to insert genes from a donor organism carrying a desired
trait into an organism that does not have the trait (Hart, 2002).
Humans may make many improvements in the world through technology, but when
humans start to tamper with the natural order of life and growth, such as changing and
reconstructing the genetic layouts of plants and animals, it creates unpredictable chains of long
and short term events. These events are potentially irreversible and are something not to be
taken lightly when considering food is a major means to survival. If Nature has spent millions
of years building a structure with natural boundaries, it must be there on purpose. It is there to
guide the evolution of life and to maintain its integrity. Using genetic engineering in agriculture
is like trying to fix something that has nothing wrong with it in the first place, said Dr. Antoniou
of molecular genetics (Tyson, 2001).
Genetic engineers can pull a desired gene from virtually any living organism and insert it
into virtually any other organism. Many labs use animal genes to enhance agricultural crops
against weather conditions and disease factors. Scientists can put a rat gene into lettuce to make a
plant that produces vitamin C (Hart, 2002). However, the DNA code inside every plant and
animal cell is controlled by a complex chemical network that regulates how the cell interprets the
DNA. Exactly how this happens is currently unknown. Inserting DNA via the genetic
engineering process can cause dramatic and unexpected reactions within the cell. Many times
scientists and genetic engineers are unable to predict exactly what will happen when they insert a

GMOs and the Hungry World

new gene. Sometimes adding one piece of DNA will result in a cell destroying large portions of
it DNA. Sometimes it results in the creation of entirely new genetic code (Cotter, 2011):
Unexpected and unknown fragments of genetic material have been found in commercial
GM crops (P. Windels, et al. European Food Research Technology, 2001). Examples
include: Roundup Ready soya (A. Rang, et al. European Food Research Technology,
2004) and insect resistant maize, MON810 (M. Hernandez, et al. Transgenic Research,
2003) (Cotter, 2011).
In addition, genes can be suppressed or overexpressed, causing a wide variety of results.
One such consequence of overexpression is cancer. Nutritional problems can also result from the
transfer of genes. Genetically modified crops have been linked to health problems as diverse as
reproductive damage, cancer, Alzheimers disease and diabetes (Dach, n.d.).
Genetic disruption and instability is one of two major ways that genetic modification may
affect our food supply. [It] may lead to new toxins being produced; the new protein produced by
the foreign gene may cause allergies or toxicity (Cotter, 2011). Allergic reactions typically are
caused by proteins which trigger an immune-response in the body. This is no small concern, as
during the genetic modification process, nearly every transfer of genetic material from one host
into a new one results in the creation of new proteins. This can increase the levels of a naturally
occurring allergen already present in a food, or insert allergenic properties into a food that did
not previously contain them, or even result in brand new allergens never before known (Vernon,
2007).
And the potential risks of GMOs merely begin with allergens.

The majority of

genetically modified crops in cultivation are engineered to contain a gene for pesticide

GMOs and the Hungry World

resistance. Most are Roundup Ready, meaning they can be sprayed with Monsantos
glyphosate herbicide Roundup without being harmed. The idea is that if the crop itself is immune
to Roundup, you can spray it to kill any weeds endangering the plant without worrying about
harming your crop. But what about exposing the general population and the ecosystem to all of
those chemicals? (Pringle, 2003).
Furthermore, genetic engineers rely heavily on the use of antibiotics during experiments.
Not all host cells will take up foreign genes, so engineers attach a trait for a particular type of
antibiotic resistance to the gene they introduce into host cells. After introducing the gene into the
cells, the cells are then filled with the antibiotic to see which ones survive. The surviving cells
are antibiotic-resistant, and therefore engineers know the seeds have taken up the foreign gene
(Cotter, 2011). Although this may seem like a beneficial process that produces ideal genetically
modified crops, one then has to think about the potentially fatal allergens and contaminants that
consumers may now unknowingly consume to in their foods (Hart, 2002).
However, the overuse of antibiotics can potentially cause the development of antibioticresistant pathogens. Several health organizations, including the World Health Organization and
the American Medical Association, have addressed the need for the use of these antibiotics to be
discontinued as part of the process of making genetically modified foods. Preexisting germs or
bacteria within the antibiotic-resistant test subject can create a superbug; meaning previously
unknown strains of diseases or viruses that are resistant to antibiotic or anti-viral treatment
(Cotter, 2011). Sometimes the dangers antibiotic resistance can be caused by things the GMO
was designed to do. In the Philippines, many people eat GM corn designed to produce an
insecticide called Bt toxin.

GMOs and the Hungry World

[T]heir body processed engineered traits and reacted to them. The same
consumers of the GMO corn in the Philippines developed a resistance to ampicillin [a
commonly prescribed antibiotic]. Antibiotic resistance is something that science hadnt
counted on, which is indicative of questionable experimentation (Group, 2006).
These unexpected dangers of GM foods are well-illustrated by the work of a Scottish
scientist named Arpad Pusztai, who had previously been awarded a research grant to create a
testing procedure for GMOs (which unfortunately seems to have never been put into effect).
Pusztai found disastrous results within just a few days of giving genetically altered potatoes to
lab rats. The rats experienced severe health issues including the complete failure of the immune
system as well as other vital organs. Pusztai discovered that it is not the actual additives within
the potatoes that were damaging but rather something inherent in the gene splicing process itself.
(Cummins, 2000). He also found that the nutrient value from potato to potato varied
significantly, even among plants of the same generation (Smith, 2003). Many GM foods are
vastly reduced in nutritional value as a result of the genetic modification process, as well as the
processing of the food itself, creating the risk of malnutrition among first world populations
(Roberts, 2008).
Researchers and doctors continue to gain reasons to believe that genetic modification of
food also causes health problems among those who eat it (Australian Government, 2001).
Numerous health problems increased after genetically modified organisms were introduced in
1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from seven
percent to thirteen percent in just nine years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as
autism, reproductive disorders and digestive problems are on the rise (Dech, n.d.). And the linked

GMOs and the Hungry World

percentage of obesity, diabetes and cancer has since increased by an amount that cannot be
ignored (Australian Government, 2001).
Those against genetic modification often raise the issue that the industry is unable to, or
rarely tries to prove that the new proteins in foods do not contain allergens, contaminants, or
other dangerous health effects.

The U. S. Government does not require biotechnology

companies to test for allergens. Many new GMOs are approved for public consumption without
very much testing at all. For a company this makes sense. Reasons such as time, research
expense, market control, and the fact that testing most often does not work in the companies
favor provide them plenty of incentive to leave their products untested (Nestle, 2003). But for the
worlds population, this is dangerous. When asked if genetically modified foods might pose
health risks for certain people, Dr. Martha R. Herbert, a pediatric neurologist stated:
Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified
substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure
you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on
human subjects without their consent.

Such conduct is illegal and unethical.

Yet

manufactures of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest

uncontrolled experiments in modern history (Tyson, 2001).
Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that genetically modified organisms
are a contributing factor, some medical groups, such as the American Academy of Doctors, state
that if emergency medicine tells us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and
especially our children who are most at risk, then we must begin immediately protecting
ourselves from GMOs. The potential hazards are too difficult to predict or identify immediately
(Dech, n.d.).

GMOs and the Hungry World

10

Much of the current basis for labeling the use of GM crops as safe to use comes from an
initial study done in 1975. The scientists reviewing potential risks of genetically modified foods
considered their work to be of high importance and stated that if the foods did come with health
risks, those risks would be small in comparison to the benefits of such crops. Their findings
were especially valuable to the GMO industry, because at first glance, genetically modified crops
seemed to pose no health risks at all. This initial study has many critics who disagree, stating
genetic mutation and manipulations carried bacteria responsible for diseases in plants, antibiotic
resistance, as well as a number of other factors unknown in the beginning of genetic transferring
(Nestle, 2003).
In 1992, Calgene, Inc. introduced a new type of tomato called the Flavr Savr (pronounced
flavor saver). The new tomato would be resistant to rotting and thus could be allowed to ripen
naturally instead of being picked green and ripening during the shipping process. In 1994, the
USFDA approved it for use with a glowing recommendation. It would require no label, and its
test performance would be allowed to stand in for testing on other GM foods. Most disturbing of
all: The FDA suppressed reports describing deaths and stomach lesions in rats that had eaten the
Flavr Savr. The Flavr Savr failure has not been an isolated incident (Group, 2006).
It was not until 1995 that Arpad Pusztai, along with other members of his team at the
Rowett Institute in Scotland, was awarded the research grant in order to devise the first official
standard of testing for genetically modified foods so that Britain and eventually the European
Union could have a basis for determining the safety of the individual GMO's proposed by biotech companies. About two years into their research, Professor Philip James, the director of the
Rowett Institute, brought the team about 700 pages of proposals for GMO's, and told them they
had less than three hours to make recommendations for the British Ministry of Agriculture, who

GMOs and the Hungry World

11

would be making decisions on them that afternoon. The team didn't actually need three hours,
since not one of the reports contained enough data to support the safety of the genetically
modified food. So, Pusztai called the minister to urge him to refuse the proposals (Smith, 2003).
"I told the minister, on the basis of what we had seen so far, even with just two
and a half hours of review, I advised him to be extremely cautious and not accept it," said
Pusztai. "And then he said something on the phone which I found really amazing: 'I don't
know why you are telling me this, Professor James has already accepted it"' (Smith,
2003).
Not only had Professor James already made the decision to accept and approve these
GMO's, so had the ministry, two years earlier, around the time that Pusztai's research grant had
been awarded. The actual hope had been for Pusztai to provide the ministry with some
comforting platitudes to pass along to the over 58 million people of Britain who had been
unknowingly eating genetically modified produce for nearly two years (Smith, 2003).
[I]ts often not clear which consumables have been genetically manipulated. This
is because currently, in the United States, food companies are not required to tell you if
their products contain GMOs. The federal government has declared its their choice, not
yours, to know whats in the food you eat (Group, 2006).
In the United States, GM crops are not required by law to be labeled as GMOs not list
warnings for the products used in their creation process. In fact, the United States regulatory
system is equipped to deal with problems occurring with genetically modified foods only after
they occur. (Dach, n.d). The government has yet to agree on what is meant by genetic
modification, genetic modified organism, or even living modified organisms. And the definition
is complicated further with the expansion on products that are part of the genetically modified

GMOs and the Hungry World

12

process it is no longer as simple as dichotomy (safe vs. not safe) when looking at the amounts of
arsenic in foods. Now one must question how much is safe and what, then, is the definition of
safe (Mc Hughen, 2000). When more than sixty percent of all processed foods on U.S.
supermarket shelves contain ingredients from engineered soybeans, corn, or canola, this is not an
insignificant consideration (Hart, 2001).
Most of the health and environmental risks of genetically modified organism are ignored
by the few superficial regulations and safety assessments in place. The reason for this tragedy is
largely political. The United States Food and Drug Administration does not require a single
safety study, does not mandate labeling of genetically modified organism and allows companies
to put their genetically modified foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Secret
agency memos, made public by a lawsuit, show that the overwhelming consensus even among
the Food and Drug Administration's own scientists was that genetically modified organisms can
create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. However,
the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology. The agency official in charge
of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsantos former attorney, later their vice president. Hes now
the United States Food Safety Czar. (Richards, 2010).
Many citizens and scientists alike are concerned about the amount of secrecy this lack of
regulation permits companies to maintain (Dach, n.d.). With genetically modified foods being
able to pass over the labeling process the consumer does not know what they are eating and has
no option of choosing not to buy foods with genetically modified ingredients. If the consumer
does get sick from a genetically modified food, with fewer ingredients and components tracked,
it will be more difficult to trace the illness back to its source (Vernon, 2007).

GMOs and the Hungry World

13

The confusion even extends to the international scale. Because of international

negotiations and mass confusion about official definitions there is much debate regarding what
should be allowed into countries that do not support genetically modified crops (McHughen,
2000). In 2006, Japan suspended long grain rice imports from the US after tests revealed that
the rice contained trace amounts of GMO that were not approved for human consumption
(Group, 2006).
Many countries attempting to ban genetically modified organism fall foul of free trade
laws. Europe banned the import of United States beef treated with growth and other hormones,
and the United States lodged a formal world trade organization complaint. Europe had based
their ban on a scientific report showing that the hormones added to United States beef were
cancer-causing, yet another health risk of genetically modified products. However, the World
Trade Organization ruled that Europe did not present a valid scientific case to refuse import, and
Europe was forced to pay $150 million annually for lost United States profits (Victor, 2001).
The expressed will of the majority of countries in Europe and much of the rest of the
world has been trampled upon for the gain of private genetic companies. No international legal
framework exists to deal with these new technologies, and developing countries in particular are
calling for a fair liability and compensation system.

The differences in forging policies

concerning genetically engineered foods are causes of many protests and create a large amount
of propaganda for both sides of the issue (Cummings, 2010).
Theoretically, by creating labels for genetically-modified crops and requiring their use in
supermarkets, GMO and non-GMO foods can co-exist in the free market. Monsanto themselves
work hard to convince food distributors and merchants that genetically modified organisms, nongenetically modified organisms, and organic crops can co-exist, hoping to leave the issue to

GMOs and the Hungry World

14

consumer choice. Relegating the issue to consumer choice keeps the challenge fair only if
people are really concerned and educated about what they are consuming (Vernon, 2007). The
segregation of genetically modified organisms and non- genetically modified organisms is such a
complicated process that it would require doubling the work and expense for the FDA approval
process (McHughen, 2000).
For genetically modified foods to be used safely, total reform is needed from the state
level to the international level. An effective protocol must give states and countries the right to
individually apply the precautionary principle when deciding whether or not to allow the import,
introduction, transfer, handling or use of genetically modified foods or their products within their
territory. Similarly all states should be able to take full account of socio-economic impact within
their territory when taking decisions on genetically modified foods and their products
(Cummings, 2010).
But better testing protocol and application procedures first must be approved and put into
effect. The story of Dr. Pusztais research grant is altogether too common. Genetically modified
foods are approved for public use on the basis of insufficient and incomplete research. Recently
in Australia, an audit was conducted of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (also known as
FSANZ) to determine the effectiveness of their process for reviewing GM foods. The Auditor
found that FSANZ has no procedure for ensuring the data provided by corporate applicants is
actually correct and complete. They found gaps in supporting data and evidence that some
applications were approved (ANAO, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2010), despite
these gaps (Cotter, 2011).
These things might seem obvious, but they are directly opposed by the biotech industries.
Monsanto and other sponsors of biotechnology continually tell the public that genetic

GMOs and the Hungry World

15

engineering is necessary for the worlds food supply is to keep up with population growth. But
even with nearly one hundred million acres planted, their products have yet to do anything to
reverse the spread of hunger. There is no more food available for the world's less fortunate. In
fact, most of their testing fields grow transgenic soybeans and corn that are destined for livestock
feed. Neither Monsanto nor any of the other genetic engineering companies appear to be
developing genetically engineered crops that may solve global food shortages.
Monsanto knew the risks and costs of producing golden rice, as well as the
ineffectiveness of its vitamin A compound. Yet Monsanto and their cohorts still spent fifty
million dollars on the golden rice ad campaign. Thats more than the company spent on
developing the rice in the first place. Imagine if that money had been spent on irrigation projects
in sub-Saharan Africa, or given as microloans to start-up farmers in Southeast Asia. Monsanto
and the other biotech companies aren't developing these seeds with the intention of giving them
away in efforts to benefit the world (Taverne, 2007).
These are for-profit companies creating these seeds with the intent of licensing them for a
profit. At the end of the day, for Monsanto along with all the other major corporations, the main
objective isnt solving world hunger. Its making money. The companies invest millions of
dollars in developing genetic crops so they can patent them and recoup their investment.
(Taverne, 2007). The companies that create GMOs work hard to maintain control of them, vastly
limiting who has the ability to benefit from them. Genetic modification technology permits
companies to ensure that everything America eats is owned by them. These companies can patent
the seeds and the processes which give rise to them. The companies can make sure that crops
can't be grown without patented chemicals, prevent seeds from reproducing themselves, and buy

GMOs and the Hungry World

16

up competing seed companies to close them down. In this way, just one or two companies can
capture the entire food market, the biggest and most diverse market of all (Hart, 2001).
In January of 1999, an employee of Arthur Anderson Consulting Group, the marketing
firm which had been representing Monsanto for some time, came forward and explained how his
company had helped Monsanto to create and carry out a plan to do just that:
First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in fifteen to twenty
years. Monsanto executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds
genetically modified and patented. Anderson Consulting then worked backward from that
goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with
the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in
which natural seeds were virtually extinct" (Smith, 2003).
The first action was for Monsanto to buy up as many other bio-tech companies and seed patents
as they could. The purchase of about twenty-three percent of the worlds seed companies,
including the company that produced the Flavr Savr tomato, left Monsanto the global leader in
patents on genetically modified foods. They hold roughly ninety-one percent of the world GM
food market (Smith, 2003).
The ownership by large companies of biotechnology genetic information is crippling
public-sector efforts to use this technology to address the needs of subsistence farmers. The large
companies that control the industry are not devoting significant resources to developing seed
technology for subsistence farmers because the investment offers minimal returns. Genetic
modification has created a surplus of first generation crops, also referred to as staple crops. The
major first generation crops are corn, soybean and cotton. These are not the primary crops of
human food production.

GMOs and the Hungry World

17

These companies are also cheating the free exchange of seeds and techniques vital to
public agricultural research programs, which are already under severe financial constraints. The
majority of production comes from the support of the following companies, Monsanto, DuPont,
AgEvo, Zeneca, Pioneer, and Novartis (Ackerman). Genetic Use Restriction Technology (also
known as T-GURT) is utilized by both Monsanto and AstroZeneca to create sterile plants that
cannot produce their own seed. Even companies that do not utilize T-GURT may require a farmer
to sign an agreement that forbids them from re-planting GM seed. Instead of utilizing the age-old
practice of saving some of the harvest to seed the next years crops, farmers must buy new seed
from these companies each year (Group, 2006).
Furthermore, GM crops often require the use of specialized chemicals, equipment, and
additional water. This mono-crop model is potentially devastating to the smaller, independent
farms who dont have an enormous corporate backing to support themselves with. With
everything invested in hundreds of acres of a single crop a tiny shift of the market could destroy
a self-reliant farmer (Pawlick, 2006).
The GMOs themselves are capable of great adaptation. Genetically modified organisms
can cross pollinate, allowing the seeds to travel and interbreed with unmodified species. It may
be impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution
could easily outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is
huge, threatening the health of future generations. Genetically modified organism contamination
has also caused economic losses for organic and non-genetically modified organism farmers who
often struggle to keep their crops pure.
Because of this, it is nearly impossible for a farmer to produce both GMO and non-GMO
crops separately, even with so-called buffer zones, (an area between the two crop fields), which

GMOs and the Hungry World

18

are useless against the wind and drift seeds (Vernon, 2007). It is also common for a farmer to
blend genetically modified seed with regular seed in order to keep their planting costs down.
Even Monsanto has been accused multiple times of refusing to segregate many of their major
genetically modified crops from those untouched by the process (McHughen, 2000). So, while
the market may be open to GMO and non-GMO products, a farmer must make the choice one
way or the other where it is not legislated for him (Vernon, 2007).
While a farmer may make the decision to raise non-GMO produce, if a neighbor plants
genetically modified seed upwind of his crops, his crop may be contaminated with the GMOs.
And the farmer may have the further misfortune to be sued by Monsanto or whatever company
owns the seed for using their product without paying the license fee. One such company buried a
poor man, who makes a living off cleaning other farmers' seeds, in lawsuits, claiming that he
encouraged farmers to break the patent law.
And the companies arent just taking money out of the pockets of small farms. For years
the U. S. government has been subsidizing staple crops in America and abroad. This expense,
especially given the slow recovery of the global economy, is completely unsustainable. Where
protection against imports can no longer be provided at will and export subsidies will have to be
cut back, there is the danger that domestic subsidies will be used instead (Pawlick,2006). These
companies have a gained a monopoly over America's food industry.
All magic comes with a price, if people can't afford to buy genetically modified seeds, or
if they can't afford the fertilizers, pesticides and water the seeds require, they will not benefit
from the qualities of the foods. Instead the starving will continue to be used as the poster child
for companies to gain the support of the real people who will be consuming these foods, the
overly fed and the wealthy; people forget that hunger and poverty go hand in hand (Taverne,

GMOs and the Hungry World

19

2007). Large companies own the farms, and by extension, the farmers, who often earn less than
the cost of production for the crops and animals that they bring to the market (Weber, 2009).
Much of this is the imposition of agricultural and bio-tech corporations: the global
industrialization of food. And genetically modified foods continue to be its largest contributing
factor. The globalization of agriculture means the rapid transport of food over long distances and
across national borders. This increases the risk of diseases traveling to different parts of the
world where plants, animals and humans may be more susceptible. The global industrialization
of food production pushes small, self-reliant farmers away and replaces them with corporate
chemically-enhanced farms in order to encourage exports in a monoculture crop. It causes many
under-developed countries to rely on other countries: the developed countries with large
companies that have the means to produce the crop. The net effect has been to allow the
powerful monopoly of five grain trading giants to dramatically increase the volume of food
commodities globally, ruining millions of family farmers worldwide in the process, while
maximizing their private corporate profits.
In addition to having massive health and economic effects, the use of GMOs has an
environmental impact. Poor farming practices, deforestation, over cropping and overgrazing are
exhausting the Earth's fertility and spreading the roots of hunger. Increasingly, the world's fertile
farmland is under threat from erosion, salination and desertification. (Christopher, 1988). These,
along with soil pollution and soil degradation ruin land for future generations of farm use. For
example, the miracle crop golden rice cannot grow in the arid soil found in many of the parts
of the world that are facing drastic hunger. To grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilizers
and pesticides, expensive inputs unaffordable to the very people that the variety is supposed to
help. Golden rice also requires large amounts of water (Taverne, 2007).

GMOs and the Hungry World

20

The act of watering plants,

when performed on an industrial scale, can bring

difficulties and cause a great deal of damage to a region, from the increased spread of desert
drought to severe flooding. Genetically modified crops need a large amount of water, water that
cannot always be supplied reliably to farms. At least twenty percent of the worlds yearly
renewable water supply is too remote from population to be of use. Many farmers can neither
afford costly irrigation projects, nor have the education or access to be aware of them.
Furthermore, when plants are watered, a large proportion of the water used is lost as run-off,
which can suddenly flood in an area that, because of more arid natural conditions, has inadequate
drainage for so much water. The run-off carries chemicals used on the crops into the surrounding
environment where it contaminates the natural ecosystem. Thus, the creation of heavy
monoculture crops has also affected the biodiversity of traditional agriculture. (Pawlick, 2007).
Herbicide tolerant crops, like those in Monsantos Round-Up Ready line, actively
encourage the over-use of herbicides, and it is easy to contaminate the environment with them.
The environmental impact of the use of glyphosate (Monsantos Round-Up) and glufosinate
(Liberty Links competing herbicide) has been vastly understated until recent years. Not only has
Round-Up shown itself to be toxic to tadpoles and other amphibious larvae, but its effects on soil
microbes can cause nutrient deficiency in the plants it is meant to help. Furthermore the weeds
themselves are adapting and becoming resistant to these chemicals and surviving herbicidal
treatments. When a farmer reacts by spraying again, he not only increases the toxic load to the
environment, he encourages the adaptation of the weeds (Cotter, 2011).
Insects, too, will eventually adapt to our chemical techniques and evolve in order to
continue feasting. Crops are generally engineered to produce a bacterial toxin by the name of
Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt).These crops are based on modifications of single genes that

GMOs and the Hungry World

21

theoretically allow the amount of pesticides to be reduced, as this toxin is commonly sprayed as
an effective and natural pesticide (Taverne, 2007). However, when produced by the crop itself,
the toxin is much stronger and kills far more insects than a single spray application would
(Cotter, 2011). These crops that continuously make Bt toxins may hasten the evolution of insects
impervious to the pesticide (Pawlick, 2006). Furthermore, new pest insects are coming to fill the
niche left by Bt sensitive pests. Such a breed of insect, by becoming resistant to Bt toxins, would
rob many farmers of one of their safest, most environmentally friendly tools for fighting the
pests. For this reason, many farmers like to use beneficial insects instead of or as a supplement to
insecticides. But crops that produce Bt can damage many of these such as green lacewings,
butterflies, ladybugs, and bees (Cotter, 2011).
People are understandably reluctant to the practicality of solving world hunger by
creating a surplus of food merely because the food can potentially shorten the lifespans of the
people who consume it or destroy the land where it is grown. We could always find a way to
make things less dangerous. It would all be worthwhile if we could just solve the global hunger
crisis. At the surface, as many bio-tech companies present it, it seems a simple problem with a
simple solution: If people are hungry, there must not be enough food to eat. By growing more
food, we can be sure that people will have enough to eat. Bio-tech companies often tout the
increased production as a sign of success of the genetic modification industry. If this were true, if
genetic engineering companies were actually creating a surplus of food in order to end, or even
decrease, the hunger crisis, one could then consider the pros and cons of what genetically
modified foods are all about (Australian Government, 2001).
But this is the simple logic of a small village, not of a global society. The evidence that
this is wrong is in the statistics. The World Health Organization estimates that over a billion

GMOs and the Hungry World

22

people suffer from hunger worldwide. That's despite the fact that more food is being produced
than ever before (Hartl, 2011).
The first thing to take into account is that much of the food that makes up that statistic
is never intended to go to any persons plate. More than thirty percent of the world's arable land
is used to grow animal feed - corn, grain and soy beans (Hartl, 2011). GMOs are desirable as
animal feed because it has components to increase the growth rate and the ability to gain fat
quickly (Smith, 2003).
Our land is also being increasingly devoted to gasoline alternatives. In Brazil, Bayer Crop
Science is using sugar cane to produce one such fuel."Sugarcane is the most productive
cultivated plant for cost-efficient renewable energy with the best CO2 balance, says Joachim
Schneider, head of the BioScience department (Hartl, 2011). The genetically modified version
they are working on is expected to contain around forty percent more sugar than traditional sugar
cane (Hartl, 2011).
But even taking into account all of the production devoted to indirect consumption, there
is still an enormous amount of food being produced in the world every year. We must come to
realize that food is distributed across the globe evenly. Its a little easier to notice when you
realize that more than two-thirds of the world adheres to a vegetarian diet, and we spend almost
half of our food production resources producing meat.
Many do not think about their food security, meaning the balance of what and how food
gets delivered from the producer to the grocery store to your home. Roberts explains that while
we have become accustomed to a food industry which efficiently delivers food, we have chosen
this with a cost that is not sustainable. The current food distribution systems are causing more
problems with food delivery as well as potentially destroying farmers lifestyles when they miss

GMOs and the Hungry World

23

a deadline or lose their crop to natural causes (Roberts, 2008). Industrial farming traps people in
the web of food insecurity where they are forced to play endless catch-up through years of bad
harvests due to global warming, the market effects of futures speculation for both agricultural
commodities and biofuels, random changes in public consumption, and the unjust and unequal
way that food is distributed. This problem is not restricted to the Global South. In 2005, one in
20 Victorians [residents of Victoria, Australia] experienced food insecurity (Cotter, 2011).
Even the increase in production is uneven. Global acreage planted in genetically
engineered foods grew nearly 25-fold in the three years after 1996, the first year of large-scale
commercialization. Yet this enormous growth took place almost entirely in only three countries.
In 1999, the United States by itself accounted for seventy-two percent of the growth. Argentina
was responsible for another twenty-seven percent and Canada weighed in with another ten
percent. These three countries together accounted for ninety-nine percent of the entire worlds
genetically modified foods. This revolution left places such as Africa out of food due to the
natural staple crops of their regions being given less priority, and less land (Pringle, 2003). The
GMO revolution has increased food-production worldwide, but the increase was limited to areas
that already had some success in food production. Staple crops only succeed readily in regions
where the crops were able to be grown previously without genetic modification. There is little
help from GMOs where crops are already difficult to grow (Pringle, 2003).
In the starving parts of the world, very little food is delivered to the people from the
Agro-Industrial Complex. Many developing countries lack key agricultural infrastructure, roads,
warehouses and irrigation. The results are high transport costs, lack of storage facilities and
unreliable water supplies. All conspire to limit agricultural yields and access to food. Although
the majority of developing countries depend on agriculture, their governments economic

GMOs and the Hungry World

24

planning often emphasizes urban development (Christopher, 1988). According to the Food and
Agriculture Organization, the countries that are on track to reach the first Millennium
Development Goal have something in common: significantly better than average agricultural
growth (Pringle, 2003).
In the developing world, many small farms can do nothing against the large corporations
that have overtaken the land and destroyed their livelihood. Farmers often cannot afford seeds to
plant the crops that would provide for their people. Some lack the land, or water or education to
lay the foundations for a secure future. The people in poverty do not have enough money to buy
or to produce enough food for themselves and their people. These lands tend to be weaker and
cannot produce enough crops to sell to buy more food. The poor are hungry and their hunger
becomes a method of trapping them them in poverty.
Meanwhile, in the first world, food has turned from a necessity to a commodity: a social
event of feasting that has created a demand for foods that thrive on the genetically modified
process. The change in this attitude toward food opens first-world nations up to increased rates
of heart-disease, obesity, diabetes, and more (Australian Government, 2001).
People do not starve because there isnt enough food to go around. There is an incredible
amount of food that is wasted in the United States every day. Go to any local grocery store or
restaurant and look behind the building. Grocery stores and restaurants always have large
dumpsters. They need them because they throw away a lot of food. In nearby New York City,
large black trash bags full of food often sit on sidewalks, left there by delis or restaurants after
closing. Sometimes people will scavenge the food. More often, it ends up in a landfill. In our
society, ss the amount of food increases, so does the amount of waste, and so does the population
of people who are starving.

GMOs and the Hungry World

25

Why are tomatoes from Mexico and quinoa from Bolivia are being shipped to the US
when those nations cannot feed their own people? Why thousands of acres of farmland here in
the US are devoted to huge amounts of corn and soy beyond our nations consumption, rather
than growing our own domestic tomatoes and quinoa? And as first world consumers grow larger
from the surplus of food, starving nations are still facing the same problems as they were before
(Australian Government, 2001). To solve this, we must not only ask some hard questions, but
also be willing to make some difficult changes.
While nearly one billion people worldwide are overweight or obese, the same
number of people-one in seven of us- cant get enough food to eat. Food is cheaper and
easier to get now than at any time in history, offers the most dramatic proof that the
modern food economy is failing catastrophically (Roberts, 2008).
The way we bring food to our tables has changed drastically in the past fifty years.
America is no longer a nation of farmers. When most areas had many local farms, a farms
annual yield could support about six people. Now, one single farm feeds around 125 people.
People have become removed from the farming process; instead we've become strictly
consumers, the places in which the food being grown are highly mechanized factories. Today,
farmers grow one crop of staple foods such as soybeans, corns, cows, chickens, pigs, etc. in mass
quantities (Weber, 2009).
Food, Inc. stated that there is a "veil" between the consumer and the story behind the
products we see on our supermarket shelves. The companies don't want us to know about their
poor business practices, as it may provoke us to boycott their food. Genetically modified crops
are not only ineffective at fighting world hunger, but are a genuine threat to public health. Even

GMOs and the Hungry World

26

if they became effective at feeding more individuals than traditional farming practices, one
would then have to choose to suffer from disease or starvation (Weber, 2009).
Such statements about the use of GMOs have led to a change in public opinion about
their use over time. Increased attention and concern has led to the funding of new research. A
team of nine hundred scientists and researchers were funded by the World Bank and United
Nations, to create an organization known as the International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. This group was tasked with examining
the complex issue of world hunger, specifically to analyze if world hunger could be ended with a
modified seed. Although the issue of world hunger has a lot of aspects to account for, the group
found that genetically modified crops are not a meaningful solution to the problem (Weber,
2009).

GMOs and the Hungry World

27

References
Christopher, J. (1988). The Hunger Road. New York: Mac Millan Publishing.
Cotter, J. (2011). Busting the Myths. The Conversation Media Group, Retrieved from
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/busting-the-myths-about-gm-foods63080.html
Cummins, R. (2000). Genetically Engineered Food. New York: Marlowe & Compa
Dach, J. (n.d.). Gmo Food Scandal. Natural Solutions with Bio Identical Hormones,
Retrieved from http://seedsofdeception.com/about/
Fedoroff, N. (1999). Mendel in the Kitchen. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Group, F. E. (2006). Genetically Modified Foods. Global Healing Center, Retrieved from
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/nutrition/genetically-modified-foods
(2011). Genetcally Modified Food Explained. Australian Government, Retrieved from
http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/11/genetically-modified-food-explained/
Hart, K. (2002). Eating in the Dark. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hartl, J. (2001). Genetically Modified Food to Fight Hunger. The Hungry World,
Retrieved from http://www.dw.de/genetically-modified-food-to-fight-hunger/a-15525069
Herda, D. J. (1990). Land and Abuse. New York, London, Sydney: Library of Congress.
Lappe, A. (2010). Diet for a Hot Planet. New York: Bloomsbury.
Mc Gonvern, G. (2001). The Third Freedom. New York: Simon & Schuster.

GMOs and the Hungry World

28

Mc Hughen, A. (2000). Pandora's Picnic Basket. New York: Oxford Press.

Nestle, M. (2003). Safe Food. California: California Press.
Pringle, P. (2003). Food inc.. New York: Simon&Schuster.
Pawlikc, T. (2006). The End of Food. New Jersey: Barricade Books Inc.
Richards, B. (2010). Health Scandal. News With Views, Retrieved from
http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron189.htm
Roberts, P. (2008). The End of Food. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Smith, Jeffery M. (2003). Seeds of Deception. Fairfield, Iowa: Yes! Books.

Taverne, D. (2007). The Great GM Food Scandal. Prospect, Retrieved from

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/therealgmfoodscandal/
Tyson, P. (2001). Should We Grow GM Crops. Harvest of Fear, doi: Should we grow
them
Vernon, J. (2007). Hunger; A Modern History. London, Massachusetts: Belknap Press.
Victor, D. (2001). Trade, Science, and Genetically Modified Foods. Council Foreign
Relations, Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/genetically-modified-organisms/tradescience-genetically-modified-foods/p8689
Weber, K. (2009). Food inc.. New York: Participation Media.