In Amy Harmon’s article “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops” (2014) she explores the perspectives of two different activists regarding the GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) bill that was introduced in May 2013 in Hawaii. The GMO bill that was introduced would of banned the use of genetically engineered crops in Hawaii, except for corn and papaya. The head of the GMO bill, Margaret Wille, believed that the health risks of GMOs have not been thoroughly investigated. She also elucidated that introducing GMOs into Hawaii would disturb the natural ecosystem that the island holds. The counter-arguer of the bill, Greggor Ilagan, believed that GMOs were economically advantageous to the island and to farmers as well. During one of the public hearings of the bill, various people expressed their resentment towards GMOs as a result of “cancer in rats, a rise in childhood allergies, out-of-control superweeds” (Harmon). It is evident that the public community saw GMOs as a threat to the environment due to the negative effects listed by those individuals. However, while the public community had a negative connotation of GMOs, local farmers express their support towards the use of GMOs. Local farmers saw GMOs as beneficial to their crops since it increases the livelihood to survive attacks from pesticide. This argument by the farmers was definitely a good point because their crops have received genes with attributes that can help them (the crop) to become immune to natural diseases and pests. Farmers also explicated how economically important GMOs are, such as Papaya, because it allowed them to maintain a smooth income without being too dependent on the health of their crops. One argument that the farmers could have definitely used to strengthen their point was that with GMOs, they don’t need to rely so heavily on chemicals to use on the land, which is harmful. GMOs allow most of the land to be “recycled” and not be exhausted with excessive chemicals.
Mr. Ilagan saw the use of GMOs as a positive step towards the agricultural success of crops on the island. In contrast, Ms. Wille saw many things wrong regarding the usage of GMOs. Ms. Wille also took an economical view on the matter and concluded differently to Mr. Ilagan. The idea of having GMO Corporations in the island was seen as a nonviolent threat to the people. Ms. Wille has an environmentalist mindset and her ultimate goal is to protect and conserve the natural ecosystem of the island. Introducing GMOs into the environment will only hurt habitats. She also believes their is a more economical advantage to non-GMO products which can be marketed. Corporations are thought to be more interested in the economic income of GMOs rather than the health of the community. Another problem that Ms. Wille noticed with GMOs was the cost of the seeds. GMO seeds are more expensive than conventional seeds. It is almost as if the disadvantageous cancels out the benefits of GMOs. Very poor farmers find themselves buying expensive bioengineered seeds that they can barely afford. As cited by Ms. Wille, GMOs caused “suicides among farmers in India, purportedly driven into debt by the high cost of patented, genetically modified cotton seeds” (Harmon).
As stated by Amy Harmon, President Obama reassured the Hawaiian community that he would take a stance in all issues. Although with his perspective of GMOs and its implementation, he seems to find himself stuck in a weird position where he cannot take a definite stance. This just comes to show the complexity of GMOs. It is a technology that has not been researched enough and more unanswered questions are piling up rather than answered questions with scientific research to back up the claims.
In my personal opinion, I only support the availability and the usage of GMOs that are already distributed in our current agricultural market. Most of us have been consuming GMOs for the majority of our lives; these include soy, canola, and sugar. These common GMOs are proven to be safe for consumption and are not known to have any side effects. However, I do not support the use of untested GMOs that have not been fully researched. Without enough scientific research we are dealing with something that even we don’t fully understand. The drawbacks of such technology still is not clear to the science community so it shouldn’t be fully accessible to the public. Instead, I think research laboratories should conduct studies with a variation of participants who are willing to test different GMOs and observations should be taken regarding the health of the participants. We must understand how GMOs can directly impact the human body rather then rat labs. After GMOs are tested and are found safe for consumption then I will support the use of all GMOs. After all, GMOs are a great way to help fight malnutrition in 3rd world countries and could possibly help sustain the world in the future due to the rapid population growth.
References:
Harmon, Amy. “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.