The rise of GM crops is deeply rooted in society’s ongoing battle against hunger and food scarcity. To truly understand why GM crops became a necessity, we must journey back through history. In the early 19th century, English economist Thomas Robert Malthus proposed a population theory that sent ripples through intellectual circles. His theory, in its simplest form, argued that while food production increases at an arithmetic rate, population growth follows a geometric progression. This disparity, he warned, would inevitably lead to devastating food shortages.
But Malthus’s prediction was not successful, partly due to the innovations leading to the invention of artificial fertilizers.
Green Revolution
Over the years, humanity has faced this looming crisis with ingenuity and determination. A pivotal moment came after the Second World War, when agriculture underwent a transformative phase known as the “Green Revolution.” This revolution introduced a suite of innovations—high-yield seeds, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, advanced irrigation, and modern farming techniques—that dramatically boosted food production and reshaped agriculture forever.
But the story doesn’t end there. As challenges evolve, so do solutions, leading us to the age of genetically modified crops—a scientific leap aiming to address the world’s ever-growing food demands.
The Green Revolution took root in 1944 in Mexico, marking a transformative era in agriculture. It began with the development of high-yield wheat varieties, turning Mexico from a food-import-dependent economy into a self-sufficient nation. Before long, the country was not only feeding its own population but also exporting surplus crops—a remarkable achievement in a short span of time.
This revolutionary approach soon spread across Latin America and beyond, reshaping agricultural practices worldwide. Even in Asia, countries like Pakistan and India embraced these methods, unlocking the potential for rapid growth in food production and addressing the urgent needs of their growing populations. The Green Revolution truly set the stage for a new chapter in global food security.
The Green Revolution not only revolutionized food production but also introduced a pivotal shift in agriculture—its integration with industry. This transformation gave rise to what we now call industrial agriculture. Previously, farmers relied on traditional seeds and their deep-rooted knowledge of local environments and seasonal patterns to cultivate crops. However, with the advent of the Green Revolution, a new era began. Commercial organizations entered the agricultural landscape, promoting fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides as essential tools for maximizing yields.
GM Crops in Context of Green Revolution
While this transition led to an undeniable surge in agricultural productivity, it also revealed a darker side. Over time, the extensive use of chemical inputs began to disrupt ecosystems, endanger biodiversity, and pollute the environment. Global concerns grew louder as the very “poisons” designed to eliminate pests found their way into the food chain, affecting humans and other living beings alike.
As worries about the Green Revolution’s environmental impact grew, advancements in molecular biology opened new doors. It was at this crossroads that genetically modified (GM) crops emerged as a potential solution.
“GM crops are dangerous—they’ll insert viruses, bacteria, or even microchips into our bodies, and eating them could cause cancer.” Such alarming claims often make the rounds in conversations and online debates. But how much of this is actually true? Most of these fears lack scientific backing. Many arise from misinformation, some from a deep-rooted belief in traditional methods, and a few do highlight valid concerns.
When discussing the benefits and drawbacks of GM crops, we often blur the lines between what is “natural” and what is “safe.” Even traditional farming methods involve artificial selection—a process designed to ensure the presence of desirable traits. Yet, we seldom question its “naturalness.” This confusion often colors our perception of GM crops, making it essential to separate fact from fear.
When it comes to GM crops, several logical concerns often come to light. Let’s break them down:
1. Impact on the plant itself
Will genetic modification genuinely benefit the plant? Even if it doesn’t cause harm, could it potentially diminish the plant’s natural vitality or resilience over time?
2. Effects on ecosystems and biodiversity
How will these crops affect the delicate balance of nature? Could targeting harmful pests unintentionally harm beneficial pollinators like bees and butterflies? What happens if GM crops cross-pollinate with nearby non-GM crops? Furthermore, could the antibiotic-resistant genes used as markers in GM crops spread to harmful bacteria, creating new risks?
3. Safety of GM crops
Can humans safely consume these crops? Or do they pose potential health risks?
Concerns on GM Crops
One well-known example is the Cry gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which enables crops to produce a toxic crystal protein to combat pests. While hailed as a breakthrough in genetic engineering, this innovation also stirred significant debates.
The primary concern revolved around whether the crystal protein might be harmful to humans. However, research has shown that this protein requires an alkaline environment to function—a condition found in insect guts but not in the human digestive system, which is highly acidic due to gastric juices. Additionally, the protein binds to specific receptor cells present in insect intestines, receptors that humans do not have. As a result, Bt crops have been deemed safe for human consumption, alleviating initial fears about their potential harm.
Another major concern surrounding GM crops focused on biodiversity. In 1999, a group of scientists reported laboratory findings suggesting that pollen from Bt crops could harm certain species of butterflies. This wasn’t entirely unexpected—scientists had already theorized that the same protein designed to kill pests might also affect other insects, like butterflies. However, the study sparked outrage among environmental organizations and fueled public fears about the ecological impact of GM crops.
The fascinating twist came when the research moved beyond the lab. When researchers replicated the experiments in actual crop fields rather than controlled laboratories, many of their initial fears turned out to be exaggerated. They found that the amount of pollen exposure required to harm butterflies would affect only a very small fraction of the population. After two years of rigorous research, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in 2002 that growing Bt crops would have minimal impact on biodiversity. This finding underscored the importance of field-based studies in understanding the true environmental implications of GM technology.
In January 2014, Bangladesh took a bold step by approving the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) Bt brinjal, a crop designed to resist fruit and shoot borers. At the time, similar research in India and the Philippines had stalled due to widespread protests and concerns, preventing their governments from allowing its open cultivation. In contrast, Bangladesh’s swift, government-supported introduction of Bt brinjal raised eyebrows among environmental groups and critics alike.
Key questions emerged: Was the crop thoroughly tested before its release? Were legal standards and safety protocols followed? And were the potential risks to public health and the environment adequately considered? Despite the initial skepticism, subsequent media reports revealed success stories of Bt brinjal cultivation in various regions, highlighting its potential to transform agriculture and reduce pest-related crop losses in the country.
Critics of genetic engineering have long voiced concerns that introducing foreign genes into crops could trigger allergic reactions in humans. This fear became a reality in 1996, when a study published in the renowned New England Journal of Medicine provided concrete evidence. The research focused on a gene transferred from Brazil nuts, native to South America, into soybeans.
The findings were alarming: the transferred gene caused allergic reactions in certain individuals. This revelation prompted swift action, ensuring that this specific transgenic soybean variety never reached the market. The incident underscored the critical need for rigorous testing and evaluation in genetic engineering to safeguard public health.
This incident highlights a key concern: Can genetic engineering always guarantee safety? Critics argue that this case proves the risks are real—new genes can create proteins that may harm unsuspecting consumers.
Proponents, however, see it differently. They acknowledge the risk but emphasize that it was effectively managed. Rigorous scientific processes identified the issue early, preventing the product from reaching the market—a testament to the system’s safeguards. Most experts, however, agree on a reassuring point: while risks exist, the likelihood of GM crops causing widespread allergic reactions remains very low.
Weeds in crop fields often compete with the main crops for vital nutrients, posing a significant challenge for farmers. To tackle this, herbicides are commonly used, with one of the most popular being Roundup. Its active ingredient, glyphosate, is highly effective at controlling weeds by targeting a specific enzyme called EPSPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase). This enzyme is crucial for producing amino acids and other biochemicals necessary for plant growth.
But here’s the downside: glyphosate doesn’t discriminate. While it eradicates weeds, it can also harm the crops themselves. This forces farmers to apply the herbicide either before planting or with extreme precision if weeds sprout again during the growing season, adding an extra layer of complexity to crop management.
Certain bacteria possess enzymes that can break down glyphosate, a discovery that revolutionized weed management. Scientists identified the gene responsible and, through transgenesis, introduced it into cotton and soybean plants. This breakthrough led to the creation of transgenic glyphosate-resistant crops, allowing farmers to use glyphosate freely in their fields, targeting only weeds without harming the crops.
By 1996, the use of glyphosate-resistant crops in the U.S. had surged dramatically, turning glyphosate into a dominant herbicide. However, this rapid adoption came at a cost. Traditional, time-tested weed control practices, once a hallmark of farmer expertise, were quickly replaced by the commercial agenda of herbicide manufacturers. As farmers increasingly relied on glyphosate, concerns began to grow about its potential harm to both the environment and human health, sparking a heated debate that continues to this day.
The chemical, by contaminating soil and water, can eventually enter our food chain. But what are the long-term consequences of this contamination? Toxicity tests on animals have confirmed its harmful effects, yet the debate continues: Is it truly carcinogenic to humans?
Several international organizations have classified it as a “probable carcinogen.” In multiple U.S. states, individuals who have suffered health damage from this herbicide have taken legal action against Monsanto, the company behind Roundup herbicide and herbicide-resistant seeds. In several cases, Monsanto has been forced to pay compensation. But how far will the legal and scientific scrutiny go? The company has also faced serious accusations, including manipulating scientific data, funding dubious research, and marketing products without fully informing consumers.
Unfortunately, the widespread cultivation of glyphosate-resistant crops led to an unintended consequence—the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds. A particular mutation in the EPSPS enzyme turned into a game-changer for these weeds, giving rise to the so-called “superweeds.” These resilient invaders have been reported in countries like the United States, Argentina, and Brazil. The challenge they pose remains unsolved, as researchers and farmers alike continue to search for an effective solution to this escalating problem.
Genetic engineering brought a beacon of hope in the fight against malnutrition with the invention of Golden Rice, often hailed as Super Rice. This revolutionary variety was genetically modified to produce beta-carotene, a pro-vitamin that our bodies convert into vitamin A. In the developing world, where vitamin A deficiency blinds thousands of children each year, this rice promised to be a game-changer. For countries like ours, where rice is a staple food, Golden Rice held the potential to eliminate blindness and combat iron deficiency with every meal.
But is the solution as straightforward as it seems?
Long-term research revealed a critical challenge: beta-carotene must dissolve in fat to be absorbed. In diets lacking sufficient fat, particularly among malnourished children, this miracle rice may fail to deliver its full benefits. Despite being ready for large-scale farming just two years after its development, by 2011, Golden Rice had yet to find its way to widespread cultivation. The promise remains, but the journey toward its acceptance and impact continues.
The challenges surrounding GM crops aren’t just scientific or technical—they’re deeply economic too. In the era of neoliberalism, multinational corporations have become powerhouses, often wielding undue influence over weaker nations with the help of donor agencies and international organizations. Critics warn that the rise of GM crops might pave the way for corporations like Syngenta and Monsanto to tighten their grip on agriculture, turning a fundamental human need—food—into a profit-driven enterprise.
Take Monsanto as an example. This corporate giant currently controls around 90% of the U.S. market for soybeans, cotton, and corn. As discussed earlier, Monsanto profits from a two-pronged monopoly: it sells glyphosate-resistant seeds with one hand and the glyphosate herbicide with the other. These seeds are significantly pricier than traditional ones, creating a financial strain for farmers.
Historically, the bond between farmers and seeds has been sacred, akin to the relationship between a parent and child—built on care, trust, and self-reliance. But Monsanto’s entry disrupted this age-old tradition. After introducing herbicide-resistant soybeans, the company reportedly deployed investigators to ensure farmers weren’t saving seeds from their harvest for replanting. This move effectively locked farmers into a cycle of dependency, raising questions about fairness, autonomy, and the future of agriculture.
The practice of saving seeds is one that farmers have followed for generations. This age-old tradition not only reduces their costs but also fosters self-reliance. However, Monsanto’s patenting of genetically modified (GM) seeds has upended this system, leading to numerous lawsuits against farmers accused of saving seeds for future planting.
This has sparked widespread protests across several countries, with farmers demanding their right to save and use seeds without interference. The growing reliance on foreign GM seeds poses a significant challenge, particularly for developing nations, where such dependency could become an economic and social burden.
We must remain vigilant about the lack of transparency and unethical practices of corporations like Monsanto and others. Before embracing any GM crop, it’s essential to assess its ripple effects—not just on agricultural productivity, but on the environment, local economies, and biodiversity. Yet, does this mean we should dismiss GM crops entirely?
Such an approach would be shortsighted. Ignoring GM crops because of potential risks is like rejecting the internet because of its downsides. Yes, there are valid concerns about side effects and corporate exploitation. But the immense possibilities they offer to address global challenges, like food security and malnutrition, cannot be ignored. Rejecting this technology outright would leave us falling behind in a rapidly advancing world.
As a case in point, Ireland has banned the cultivation of GM crops. This cautious stance reflects their concerns, but it also underscores the importance of balance—embracing innovation while addressing potential risks. The question isn’t whether we should use GM crops, but how responsibly we can harness their potential for a better future.
Ireland has justified its ban on GM crops by citing environmental concerns and a commitment to sustainable farming practices. But how sustainable is their approach in reality? Despite its green rhetoric, Ireland ranks as the second-worst country in the European Union for environmental degradation. In this context, the controlled application of GM crops could have been a game-changer, aiding the country in its environmental conservation efforts.
Consider the remarkable success story from Hawaii. In the 1990s, papaya farmers were on the brink of collapse due to the devastating ringspot virus. They developed a new variety of papaya called Rainbow. This remarkable papaya developed its own natural vaccine against the virus. The results were transformative—farmers saved their crops, the local economy rebounded, and an entire industry was rejuvenated.
Does this mean GM crops are the ultimate solution for balancing agricultural productivity with environmental sustainability? Perhaps not universally, but the Hawaiian experience proves that, when used responsibly, GM technology can turn crisis into opportunities.
Actually, we still lack the scientific ability to precisely predict the effects when the genome of one species is introduced into another. Unlike an Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) code, where its components are encapsulated and isolated, a genome is a complex system. Inserting a new gene into one part can potentially influence other parts in ways we cannot fully foresee. Therefore, any genetically modified product should undergo thorough clinical trials—just like medicines—before being released to the public.
Before any genetically modified (GM) product intended for consumption can reach the market, it must undergo rigorous testing in scientific laboratories. This often involves trials on sample animals, such as rats or hamsters, and sometimes even cultured human cells. These extensive tests, conducted over several months, are crucial to evaluate the product’s safety and toxicity. Only after passing such meticulous scrutiny can a GM food product be deemed safe for public consumption. Without this careful process, there is no way to responsibly introduce it to the market.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which governs the international use of genetic technology, includes many precautionary provisions. Countries that have signed this agreement are obligated to follow specific regulations regarding the use, transfer, and management of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). One key provision is the need for caution when introducing GM crops in their places of origin, as it could harm local biodiversity and disrupt markets. This is particularly true for developing countries like Bangladesh. Bangladesh is rich in agricultural diversity and natural resources.
In light of the changing global landscape, it is important for us to develop biotechnological infrastructure focused on producing crop varieties suitable for our own needs. Bangladesh already has agricultural research institutions in place. It is crucial to ensure that these institutions make important decisions regarding GM crops based on the needs of the country’s soil, water, air, and people. Countries like Brazil and China have successfully developed GMO seeds and increased crop production without the interference of multinational corporations. Their experiences can serve as valuable guidance for us in the future.
Source
- The Truth About GMOs
- বিটি বেগুন : আসলেই কি ক্ষতিকর – বিজ্ঞান ব্লগ
- বিটি বেগুন চাষ বন্ধের দাবি, প্রথম আলো
- Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans
- সারা দেশে যায় কয়রার বিটি বেগুন, প্রথম আলো
- Roundup (herbicide) – Wikipedia
- Weeds Are Winning the War against Herbicide Resistance | Scientific American
Books
- Introduction to Biotechnology (Third Edition) by William J. Thieman and Michael A. Palladino
Leave a Reply