FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Team Food For Thought

March 3, 2017

HCDE 300, Ribes

 

Controversial Corn

American grocery markets have been stocked with genetically modified products

including altered corn since the 1980s, and with the varying advantages that the process brought, agricultural interest has continued to promote genetically modified corn production throughout the United States. Corn, became one of the most popularly adopted crops to undergo genetic modification, since the crop contributes to the majority of foods littered throughout supermarket shelves. With farmers immediately noticing the altered crops’ increased herbicide, disease, and insect resistance, the biotechnology remained locked in until present day, and plans to perpetuate into the future (Pickut, 2015). The process of genetically modifying crops also helps scientists and farmers produce crops much faster than cross-pollinating in order to isolate a specific gene (T. Bradshaw, Interview, February 22, 2017). Results of genetically engineered crops debuted in the 1980s, when grocery shoppers were presented with foods that were not entirely what they appeared to be. The release of genetically modified fresh produce, and artificial snacks that contained traces of GMOs was controversial because many consumers were not aware that they were purchasing genetically modified food (Rogerson, 2017). When the distribution of GMOs began with no transparency between scientists and consumers, buyers began to combat the situation with labelling movements, to ensure that people had knowledge about the composition of their foods. The battle between the consumer and the scientists continues today, as the divide between positive and negative perspectives are formed due to different understandings of the altering process, sources and people.

The conversation surrounding the acceptance of genetically modified corn in society

has maintained two separate and extreme perspectives. According to University of Washington Biology Professor, Toby Bradshaw, “both in law and science, nobody uses the term genetically modified”, since the term often refers to genetically engineered products (T. Bradshaw, Interview, February 22, 2017). The public opinion that genetically engineered and genetically modified entail the same process and result is wrong, and has scientists, similar to Bradshaw, motivated to take every moment to share his knowledge about GMOs, with anti-GMO people who reject the technology entirely. With the term “ingrained in the popular lexicon” spreading awareness about the differences between genetically engineered and genetically modified products is important to the future adoption and acceptance of bioengineered crop variations (T. Bradshaw, Interview, February 22, 2017). In Bradshaw’s experience, “people have made up their minds on the issue, mostly without understanding any of the evidence” (T. Bradshaw, Interview, February 22, 2017). With people uncertain about the processes of creating genetically modified products, outrage and immediate opposition sprouted from the lack of transparency between scientists performing the process and consumers buying the products. Clarity is a necessary component to making the adaptation and acceptance of genetically modified foods successful, and since media presences often “focus on alarming incidents in which GMOs produce unfavorable results,” it is clear why there are many extreme perspectives on modified corn (Rogerson, 2017). Media outlets are responsible for the majority of public opposition because the attraction of media articles is created from the few incidents where modified corn underperformed. As these articles are more commonly read than scientific journals, it becomes easier for negative perspectives to be formed from media selected information. These intentionally selected stories have caused modified corn to emerge as a harmful and dangerous crop that could potentially not only have human health dangers, but also environmental health scares. Forming opinions on genetically modified corn should derive from scientific explanations and experiments that test the abilities of genetically modified corn against traditionally grown corn. The current methodology that many sadly use to form an opinion about genetically modified foods in the grocery store, is based off of media covered incidents, rather than scientific experiments and journals proving the true capabilities of the crop.

In addition to modified corn creating extreme perspectives on the corn itself, the

public has also questioned the rapid adoption and immediate use of the new bioengineered farming technique. With Bt-corn capable of producing its own insecticide, farmers have little maintenance to perform in order to keep their crops safe and ready for roundup. The ultimate benefit of growing genetically modified corn goes to the farmers and the manufacturers of benign herbicides, since majority of advantages occur during the actual growth of the crop. With the specific example of Tanzania, scientists have witnessed “a field trial of drought-tolerant maize intended to benefit small-scale farmers suffering the effects of climate change” (Lynas, 2017). The added ability to help African farmers grow corn without applying an extreme amount of insecticide is inherited from “the insect-resistant Bt gene stacked alongside the drought gene” (Lynas, 2017). The isolation of the drought gene has proven beneficial for a variety of countries experiencing the same environmental impacts as Africa, which is one of the main benefits of genetically modifying and engineering crops. With farmers aspiring to produce viable crops during every roundup, disposing of inedible and destroyed crops during climatically challenging situations is unreasonable and costly. The ability to gather and export as much maize as possible, allows African farmers to produce higher and viable yields, ensure food security, and introduce affordable approaches to farming for poor resource farmers (Lynas, 2017). The benefits that farmers have from utilizing modified corn seeds enhances the growth of corn, but does not influence traits that many consumers care about, for example taste and quality. Lack of consumer benefit and interest in the genetically modified corn has even convinced buyers to opt out of the corn and promote GMO free products (T. Bradshaw, Interview, February 22, 2017).

The formation of differing GMO perspectives has influenced the viability of the

product when it was released to the consumer. Scientists and corporations quickly adopted the results of the bioengineered process, without understanding what benefit and interest the consumer would have in the tech. Scientists behind the curtain of genetic modification have understood the lack of consumer appeal, and the origin of public crop distrust. The future of genetic modification is hopeful, and has scientists experimenting with different ways to attract previously anti-GMO consumers. According to Bradshaw, the majority of advantageous consumerist characteristics of GMOs are too foreign to the conventional Safeway shopper, which strikes fear in the composition and nutrition of the food (T. Bradshaw, Interview, February 22, 2017). Many attempts to appeal to the consumer have gone astray, and moved away from determining what added nutrition, flavor, or taste consumers would want. With the inability to determine the main characteristic shoppers are looking for, the acceptance and tolerance people have for GMOs will sustain and even decrease. In order to convince society that GMOs are safe to consume and use, the creators must change the technology to suit the public. Spreading awareness about what the technology can do for countries experiencing climate change is important to maintaining a positive spirit in the world of negative media. For the future, reporters must work toward displaying a balance between positive and negative news on GMOs, since the current outlet is skewed toward only portraying the imperfect and harmful image of GMOs.

 

 

References

Lynas, M. (2017, February 17). Drought-tolerant genetically engineered maize poised to

help African farmers adapt to changing climate. Retrieved March 9, 2017, from https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/02/17/drought-tolerant-genetically-engineered-maize-poised-help-african-farmers-adapt-changing-climate/

​

This article was written by Mark Lynas, an author and journalist whose pieces are

typically about worldwide crop biotechnology. His article was part of the Cornell

Alliance for Science. The article was about Tanzania’s current state of crop deterioration due to climate change. Lynas helped provide insight into how GMOs are currently helping poor resource farmers in Tanzania, and how this biotechnology has the ability to alleviate some of the crop stresses from climate change. The article also goes into the controversy of implementing the technology, because of Tanzania’s strict laws prohibiting the scientific study of GMOs.

​

Pickut, W. (2015, October 06). What Are the Benefits of GMO Corn? Retrieved March 10,

2017, from http://www.livestrong.com/article/254564-what-are-the-benefits-of-gmo-corn/

​

Walt Pickut is an author for the Livestrong website, and has published peer reviewed

medical research for over 40 years. His article about the different benefits of GMO Corn reviews the three main traits that engineered corn tends to have, and concludes with facts about traditional corn. His article provided insight into how engineered corn has benefits that encourage farmers to continue buying these seeds.

 

Rogerson, A. (2017, February 27). Dispelling the concerns, misconceptions of GMOs.

Retrieved March 9, 2017, from http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2017/02/dispelling-the-concerns-misconceptions-of-gmos

​

This article was written by Abby Rogerson, who is a journalist for the Daily Cardinal,

which is a print and digital news media at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In

Rogerson’s piece, she writes about the mistrust that people have with GMOs and how it formed. She talks primarily about how the media creates a extreme perspectives on GMOs, depending on whether the person has scientific or publicly formed knowledge about the technology.