The latest movements in the scientific Field of agriculture have been to genetically modify the DNA of plant organisms. This involves deleting bad genes and or adding genes to make the organism act in a certain way. An example of this would be deleting genes in corn that tell the organism to stop producing a hormone which encourages growth. The result of this would be a type of corn that is far bigger than the average stalk of corn. Naturally, agricultural companies are interested in this phenomenon as they see it as a way to make their product better than normal. What could be wrong with genetically modifying plants? After all it seems like the golden path down man-kinds road to furthering our species. Unfortunately, there comes controversy among genetically modifying plants in certain cases. It seems that although the idea of genetically modifying plants can be seen as advantageous, we should not mass produce them if there is evidence that it will harm the environment. In this post, I will present a lawn-care company that has manufactured their own product of genetically modified grass, and then present the ideas of an environmental group that opposes genetically modified plants in principle.
In a recent article titled “Growing Pains” published in the magazine Nature the author tells about a lawn-care company based in Ohio, in which the researchers have genetically engineered Kentucky Blue grass to have a natural herbicide secreting from it’s roots. The reason they sought this product was because there is a high demand for Kentucky Blue grass across the country yet it is hard to maintain because it is so short that weeds will grow very easily. In order for the company to grow enough of this grass to sell across the country, it would require large amounts of herbicide that does not pass inspection by the USDA which is a department that makes sure companies are not using harmful amounts of herbicides or pesticides in their products. The company then responded by discovering a way to genetically modify this Kentucky blue grass to secrete a natural herbicide that exists in certain plants from its roots into the soil. In the perspective of the lawn care company, this was a genius idea. Now the USDA could not prohibit the production of their Kentucky blue grass as they were not using any herbicide other than what was naturally formed. Therefore, the USDA had no choice but to let the lawn-care company start selling it’s crop with no oversight. Although this idea can be seen as clever and almost genius, there is a strong opposition to the use of genetically modified plants across the country.
In another article posted by the CIIR Environmental Action group, they explain a variety of reasons that these genetically modified crops such as the Kentucky blue grass should not be used. One argument that is made by advocates (such as the Lawn care company mentioned above), is that these genetically modified crops are good for the environment since they will reduce the amount of pesticides and herbicides that need to be used in crop production. However, in the article published by the CIIR Environmental Action group, they state “the claim that GM crops require fewer herbicides and pesticides has been proved wrong. They require fewer chemicals than conventional crops in the short term but gradually they need significantly more.” On top of this, it is also stated that genitcally modified plants threaten plant diversity. This is because once they are planted, they take over and contaminate the native crops morphing all the species into one. And lastly, another reason that these plants such as the engineered Kentucky blue grass is bad is because, as stated by the CIIR, “the introduction of GM crops in countries will endanger small farmers’ livelihoods, undermine poor people’s ability to feed themselves, and increase the pressures on already damaged and vulnerable environments.”
So in theory, genetically modified plants seems as if it would produce very sustainable products and be nothing but beneficial to the human species. The lawn care company in Ohio seems to think so, as they flaunt their genetically modified grass that couldn’t naturally grow anywhere, until now. But in that companies perspective, I think it is very likely that they are only focused on the success of their company and the profits they could be making. Although the USDA has cleared them for the production of their product, I think it could be beneficial for them to consider the possible harmful effects that they could be inflicting as stated by the article published by the CIIR. Because if the harmful effects that were stated are to be true, then I believe that the idea of the genetically modified Kentucky blue grass isn’t as genius as it seems and should not be mass produced in order to avoid possible negative effects.
No comments:
Post a Comment