This week in lab we reviewed the article "Under wraps" by Emily Waltz. The article discussed the battle between private industry and academia regarding research on biotechnology (genetically modified crops). The issue is that the companies with the technology, such as Monsanto, Pioneer, and Syngenta, do not allow outside researches to run experiments on their products unless the research is approved by the company. Millions of dollars is spent on constructing these products and these companies want to protect their investments. The last thing they want is some researcher coming in doing a faulty experiment and ruining everything.
In my opinion the companies are in control. I am a little biased though because I am a researcher. I feel that if the product is worth all of the money they put in to it, and it is a good as they say it is, then anyone should be allowed to research it. I think that the public has the right to know the type of information that people are trying to research- such insect resistance, health issues, and impact on beneficials. These topics aren't little topics that can be ignored and swept under the carpet, which it seems like the companies are attempting to do. I think what really got to me was the accusation that researcher are "blowing this out of proportion." If there was nothing to hide, then why is it such an issue to be allowed to further research these products. Another point in the article that made me really feel like the companies are at fault was with the test regarding lady beetles. When the researchers found extremely negative information pertaining to the crops impact of lady beetles, the information was not allowed to be publicized. Then the company, took it among themselves to retest the impact, when clearly they manipulated the methods to allow positive outcomes, avoiding certain aspects (such as legth of time the insects were observed). I feel that researchers, typically approach situations with an unbiased opinion, and I don't feel like the researchers are in any way trying to hurt the companies, they are just trying to provide critical information that may serverly impact our food industry, whether it be negative or positive.
With that being said I feel like there needs to be an outside regulator, such as the government. There needs to be a third party that is educated on this topic to determine which research is suitable, and necessary. In regards to growers being provided with disclaimers, I feel like they should. I feel like if they want to ignore information, then they can, but they should be provided with all of the information pertaining to the product they are investing in including performance data and testing information. To answer the question when should biotechnology be used on the farm, I feel like it should be used once appropriate research can be provided. I feel this way because even if humans aren't directly consuming the product, we are still using it to feed live stock, which humans then eat. How long could this take? Years, but I would rather wait it out and know that a product is safe than use one that will in the long run cause harm (I know that comapanies invest million- probably billions of dollars into these products, and that is why they have a different outlook). Biotechnology now looks like it may lead to increased food security, but what if insects become resistant to these products and backlash and destroy more than 40% of our food? Or what if we have to pay a huge expense, such as our health or harm to beneficial insects just to have that increased food security- in such instances I personally don't think it's worth it.
To conclude, I'm not against biotechnology of crops, I think they could be a good thing. However, I feel like certain research should be allowed on these products regardless of how much companies invested in them. I just think that the long term harm may not be worth it and we won't know the potential of that harm until the products can be researched.
No comments:
Post a Comment