Plant breeding has been prevalent for thousands of years. Through various methods, selective breeding of crops was carried out over centuries to achieve unique traits from two distinct variants of a crop into one. Even modern breeding methods, which evolved from selective breeding methods of the past, creates hybrid varieties of seeds, by carrying out breeding within the plant kingdom based on their compatibility. Whereas, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), are produced by infusing a gene from an organism belonging to one species kingdom into the gene of an organism belonging to a different species kingdom.
In the case of Genetically Modified Crops (GMCs or GM crops), there is no breeding between two plant variants like in all other previous breeding methods. Here, a gene from a bacterium is infused into the DNA of a plant nuclei, like in the case of pest resistant variants of GM crops (like Bt Corn, Bt Cotton, etc.). This makes genetic re-engineering of crops different from all other forms of plant breeding. It is an artificially infused surgical job, to imbibe certain traits from a non-plant organism into a plant.
Although genetic evolution happens in nature, it takes a natural course of evolutionary time. And during this natural course of evolutionary time, there is a co-evolution of all organisms, that transact with each other. Genetic evolution in nature sustains a balance in the ecosystem. Now when a man-made artificial attempt is made to alter an organism (its genetic quality), a new organism gets created. It starts influencing the ecosystem in a new way. As an effect, other organisms within its ecosystem, begin to develop new traits to survive the challenges posed by the new organism. Survival instincts appear to be embedded in every organism. Today, in response to the threat created by genetically modified crops, whose insecticidal traits are fostering artificially created evolutionary challenges, new pesticide-resistant bugs have started evolving, very similar to superbugs that have developed resistance to antibiotics.
In an earlier epoch when there was no industrial scale manufacturing of pesticides, farmers were using many simple techniques like crop rotation, growing of wild crops as pest repellents, etc. to tackle the problem of insects and pests. With the introduction of chemical pesticides and now the genetically modified crops, we have made the problem of insects and pests, far more lethal and complex. A farmer has to depend more and more of these to combat them. Eventually, all these pollutants get carried in the crops or shed in the environment, only to be consumed by humans and other species-beings. Even the newly evolving pests from the GM farms are posing a danger to other NonGMO crops in the surrounding farms, which face a threat of getting wiped out.
The agrarian crisis was there in the past too. But it has become too complex a phenomenon for farmers to confront. Farmers who cultivate GM crops are becoming increasingly dependent on the seed manufacturers for the problems they confront, as the pest problems are unique and beyond the wisdom they have inherited through prior experience. So the only way available to them is to stay governed by the crop management program promoted by the seed manufacturer, who not only sells ideas to them but also more products to address the problem. It's like creating a demon and also a God to kill the demon. It's needless to say that the condition only creates more economic opportunity for these corporates to develop and commercialize GMCs with new strains of insecticidal proteins.
Farming was one sector, which had a self-reliant economy. Today attempts are being made to tangle the sector by institutionalizing and monopolizing it. Earlier farmers used to make their own seeds, keep a stockpile of seeds and also share them with each other. Today, as farmers switch to GM crops, Intellectual propriety rights prohibit them from saving seeds. If a farmer tries to save them, the farmer could get branded as a thief. GM seed manufacturers say that royalties for a GMC variant count only for a limited span of years. Like a GM Soybean is going to become royalty free after 15 years. But a new GM Soybean is all set for launch by the same manufacturer. What will farmers go for? An old variant that's becoming royalty free or a new and more promising variant with royalty? Are choices not been manipulated here?
There are just scientific consensus and approval by governmental agencies within their existing guidelines to adjudge the safety of GM Crops. There is no case by case statistics to study the issues concerning GM crops. Science is evolving and so are governmental frameworks and guidelines. They speak for the present time. We see that even medicinal drugs once considered safe are being banned today by governments after several years of commercial sale and public consumption.
The problem here with GM crops is that of science getting commercialized without proper evaluation of outcome, also of an economic monopoly. Both these issues are real. The history of genetic modification of crops is within a bracket of mere 35 years. With short span field trials, how can we ascertain long-term implication the GMCs could leave behind?
Home-grown seed companies and government agencies, which have been seeing the economic opportunity in promoting GM crops also have failed to ascertain the implications GM crops pose to farmers, consumers and the environment. While innovation after a foolproof field trail is welcome, it is criminally offensive to commercialize them sans that.
In the case of Genetically Modified Crops (GMCs or GM crops), there is no breeding between two plant variants like in all other previous breeding methods. Here, a gene from a bacterium is infused into the DNA of a plant nuclei, like in the case of pest resistant variants of GM crops (like Bt Corn, Bt Cotton, etc.). This makes genetic re-engineering of crops different from all other forms of plant breeding. It is an artificially infused surgical job, to imbibe certain traits from a non-plant organism into a plant.
Although genetic evolution happens in nature, it takes a natural course of evolutionary time. And during this natural course of evolutionary time, there is a co-evolution of all organisms, that transact with each other. Genetic evolution in nature sustains a balance in the ecosystem. Now when a man-made artificial attempt is made to alter an organism (its genetic quality), a new organism gets created. It starts influencing the ecosystem in a new way. As an effect, other organisms within its ecosystem, begin to develop new traits to survive the challenges posed by the new organism. Survival instincts appear to be embedded in every organism. Today, in response to the threat created by genetically modified crops, whose insecticidal traits are fostering artificially created evolutionary challenges, new pesticide-resistant bugs have started evolving, very similar to superbugs that have developed resistance to antibiotics.
In an earlier epoch when there was no industrial scale manufacturing of pesticides, farmers were using many simple techniques like crop rotation, growing of wild crops as pest repellents, etc. to tackle the problem of insects and pests. With the introduction of chemical pesticides and now the genetically modified crops, we have made the problem of insects and pests, far more lethal and complex. A farmer has to depend more and more of these to combat them. Eventually, all these pollutants get carried in the crops or shed in the environment, only to be consumed by humans and other species-beings. Even the newly evolving pests from the GM farms are posing a danger to other NonGMO crops in the surrounding farms, which face a threat of getting wiped out.
The agrarian crisis was there in the past too. But it has become too complex a phenomenon for farmers to confront. Farmers who cultivate GM crops are becoming increasingly dependent on the seed manufacturers for the problems they confront, as the pest problems are unique and beyond the wisdom they have inherited through prior experience. So the only way available to them is to stay governed by the crop management program promoted by the seed manufacturer, who not only sells ideas to them but also more products to address the problem. It's like creating a demon and also a God to kill the demon. It's needless to say that the condition only creates more economic opportunity for these corporates to develop and commercialize GMCs with new strains of insecticidal proteins.
Farming was one sector, which had a self-reliant economy. Today attempts are being made to tangle the sector by institutionalizing and monopolizing it. Earlier farmers used to make their own seeds, keep a stockpile of seeds and also share them with each other. Today, as farmers switch to GM crops, Intellectual propriety rights prohibit them from saving seeds. If a farmer tries to save them, the farmer could get branded as a thief. GM seed manufacturers say that royalties for a GMC variant count only for a limited span of years. Like a GM Soybean is going to become royalty free after 15 years. But a new GM Soybean is all set for launch by the same manufacturer. What will farmers go for? An old variant that's becoming royalty free or a new and more promising variant with royalty? Are choices not been manipulated here?
There are just scientific consensus and approval by governmental agencies within their existing guidelines to adjudge the safety of GM Crops. There is no case by case statistics to study the issues concerning GM crops. Science is evolving and so are governmental frameworks and guidelines. They speak for the present time. We see that even medicinal drugs once considered safe are being banned today by governments after several years of commercial sale and public consumption.
The problem here with GM crops is that of science getting commercialized without proper evaluation of outcome, also of an economic monopoly. Both these issues are real. The history of genetic modification of crops is within a bracket of mere 35 years. With short span field trials, how can we ascertain long-term implication the GMCs could leave behind?
Home-grown seed companies and government agencies, which have been seeing the economic opportunity in promoting GM crops also have failed to ascertain the implications GM crops pose to farmers, consumers and the environment. While innovation after a foolproof field trail is welcome, it is criminally offensive to commercialize them sans that.