Why it's Important to Know About GMOs
The Pesticide Link by Lisa Toy
12 million gallons of Agent Orange, a dioxin-based herbicide, were used between 1962 and 1970 during aerial sprayings in Vietnam. Since then, Agent Orange has been linked to illnesses, including cancer, diabetes II, heart disease and neurodegenerative disorders in soldiers and Vietnamese civilians exposed to the chemical defoliant. Veterans with illnesses linked to their exposure to the defoliant have been granted disability and medical care funds from the U.S government. The U.S. Military's use of Agent Orange was a short-term solution that had longterm consequences; this is something that we see over and over again throughout history.
(Photo: www.yesilist.com)
Cut to today, Dow's 2, 4D, an herbicide and one of the toxic ingredients in Agent Orange, is used on farms across the country. GMO crops, like 2, 4D corn and soy are genetically engineered with the intent to withstand heavy sprayings of dioxin. This means that farmers growing GMO crops can spray their entire farm to kill weeds and pests without killing their crop. Cool! But wait, what's the catch--why is this bad?
Well for starters take the example of Roundup Ready crops, which led to super-weeds that were herbicide resistant. These super-weeds called for stronger and more toxic herbicides in order to kill them, thus creating a chemical treadmill of sorts. Round Up no longer effective? Let's try 2,4D. Oh...2, 4D is no longer effective? No worries, let's try Dicamba. And so the cycle continues with more and more chemicals being used, more resistance, more contamination, more risk and...you get the picture.
(Source: Ian Heap, International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds www.weedscience.org/graphs/soagraph.aspx (2013).)
Here's a good example of pesticide resistant pests:
(Photo: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/1/image_pop/l_101_02.html)
If that's not enough, let's consider the potential health risks of 2, 4D resistant GMOs and the use of agrochemicals. Rachel Carson in her book, Silent Spring, wrote, "Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poison on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should not be called ‘insecticides’ but ‘biocides." The chemical industry would disagree with this statement and as it seems, we are still alive after decades of chemical exposure. What gives? Factors to consider:
1) Bioaccumulation: We need to take into account the risks associated with continued low-dose exposure to pesticide residue on foods and in water. Also important is the chronic long-term bioaccumulation potential of agrochemicals.
(Photo: http://connectingthecoast.uwex.edu/Investigate/cpPersistantPesticides.html)
2) Adsorption and Mobility: Pesticides/herbicides have a high adsorption quality (the binding of pesticides to the surface of soil particles) and ability to move and persist in surface waters, add wind to the mix and this allows them to contaminate areas hundreds of miles from their initial site location.
(Photo: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/pubs/fs152-95/atmos_1.html)
3) Tragedy of the Commons: The Earth's capacity to support populations (of people, plants, animals etc) is affected, in large part, by natural occurrences. But, human choice also plays a significant role as a limiting factor. The choice to use pesticides/herbicides can, over time, lead to a depletion of shared resources ("the commons"). According to Hardin's theory of Tragedy of the Commons, "we are locked into a system of fouling our own nest." But why would we continue to degrade our resources if it is not in the best interest of the collective whole? Individual interests prevail every time. In a word, profit.
4) Ecological Collapse: Ecological collapse is a work in progress. It doesn't happen today, or tomorrow, it is a reaction that is decades in the making. The overuse of pesticides/herbicides is just one piece of the puzzle. Humans are not living in a way that preserves and conserves our resources. Fossil fuels, global warming, loss of biodiversity, habitat loss, water degradation, land use etc.--put all of these pieces together and...kaboom.
(Photo: http://sustainablepulse.com/)
Can we really deny that human actions have no consequences and don't we already know, in some capacity, what those consequences will be? The controversy surrounding GMOs is a hot button issue in today's world. Proponents argue that GMOs are the future of food and will provide food security in a world that is very quickly becoming overpopulated. GMO opponents argue that more research is needed and recommend a small-scale approach to farming rather than the unsustainable practices of industrial agriculture. Time will tell if GMOs are just another short-term solution, one that could have very real, long-term effects on the overall structure of ecosystems.
Interesting Reads/References:
http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/conditions/ http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.85.4.516
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/10/05/reviews/carson-obit.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016788090100336X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0046817793902348
http://dieoff.org/page95.htm
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1447307178
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038%2Fnature11018
