Genetically Modified Organisms: A Case Study

Discussing some of the environmental aspects of my job and the climate of the city of Philadelphia, I looked into some of that latest trends of urban organic food growth. Along with that, I wanted to look into what the rest of the world is doing to improve the climate of starvation and hunger. While it rain here, in Australia, they are trying to conserve water and rebuild after the massive brush fire. So many problems, what are the solutions? One step at a time I say.

Ethically, GMO’s may offer an opportunity to feed a global society suffering from hunger. The reason this is a common belief is due to the idea that these genetically modified organisms and produce can be adapted for the arid, inhospitable, or unnaturally useful conditions available for planting. Is it correct to alter the genetic structure of an organism to suit the needs of another? This question’s answer will change depending on the individual asking and the individual or group answering; nevertheless there is always a need for investigating the rational for altering nature and what effects these actions will have on multiple populations of an ecosystem.

In an overview of the facts of GMO, one must evaluate the positives of a solution in the short and long term just as one evaluates the negatives in the same matter. First, it is possible that many humans, such as Europeans whom have been perceived to have what is known as the “precautionary principle”, may see the controlled mutation of these organisms as an abomination or simply unacceptable due to a lack of research. The case study defines precautionary principle as: the conservative principle according to which no new thing is to be accepted until it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be safe and better than what is currently available.

Open societies, or those more apt to changes such as Americans of the United States, being a collage of multiple cultures are more apt to embracing the bizarre, abstract, and are often more trusting of novelty. In the United States popular cultures there is often a saying heard, “it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.” North Americans often endeavor to accomplish a resolution or complete a task before knowing the consequences to his or her actions. From scientific understandings and accepted theories, there are several instances in history in which a species has been the maker of its own evolution, destruction or alteration. Will we be one of the species to do this? Will our GMOs lead to cures, pestilence, evolution or ultimate destruction?

No matter which side one takes in the debate, both proponents (GMO manufactures and naturalists) have concerns of the long term implications of consumption of genetic variations to naturally occurring foods. There is no way to evaluate the outcome of years of individuals of a population consuming genetically altered produce. But one thing is sure, someone must be held responsible for hunger now, just as someone will be held responsible for the outcome GMOs will cause in the future; be it curing hunger or extraordinary environmental mutation.

Newton, Lisa H., Dillingham, Catherine K., & Choly, Joanne. (2006). Watersheds 4: Genetically modified organisms.

Great video about hydroponics in the city. (New York)