Biotechnology Companies Pushing Farmers to Jump on the GM Bandwagon

Genetic engineering is already providing a more stable solution for agricultural production in the economy to stand on. In nine years (i.e. 1996-2005), profits from genetically modified crops were twenty-seven billion dollars. Those twenty-seven billion dollars were not just in the United States or countries like it, but the profits almost split half and half between first and third world countries (O'Neill 19). In India, for example, cotton yields have jumped to one hundred-fifty percent from the use of genetically modified crops, vastly increasing the farmers’ profits (19). The planting of these crops can really help farmers know what they are going to make every year and plan accordingly. Also, helping the farmers’ expenses is the lack of chemical pesticides needed on the crops and reducing time spent using the pricey traditional breeding methods (Mannion and Morse 749-751). Even if genetically modified crops are not planted in every field, adjoining fields can benefit due to the “halo effect.” The “halo effect” is the ability of pest protection on the genetically modified crops to affect the non-genetically modified crops due to the lack of insects in the genetically modified field (754). Genetically modified crops affect the economy in a positive way and should be seen as a smart

By genetically modifying traits in plants, biotechnology allows for higher food production in a wider array of places without the use of chemicals or limited resources. The increased crop availability results in economic profit, not only in the United States, but in developed and non-developed nations around the globe. A study to support this claim from Iowa State University shows that without GMO’s, global prices would be nearly 10% higher for soybeans and 6% higher for corn, two largely grown crops throughout the world. The net economic benefit for farmers in 2011 was $19.8 billion (PG Economics, 1996-2011). This results in an average rise in income of $329 per acre. For the entire 16-year period since the introduction of GMO’s, the increase in global

We are keeping our food reliable through the use of GMOs. GMOs can provide food that can be helpful for conditions in the world. They can be manufactured to fit to threatening conditions, such as drought. They can also be used to withstand diseases that have the potential to cause famine. Blights can cost millions in damages, and with new resistance technology being tested we could save millions of dolars and millions of crops. "Blight-resistant potatoes would be one of the first major foods genetically engineered to incorporate defenses against plant diseases, which annually destroy some 15 percent of the world’s agricultural harvest." These foods can even be modified to prevent bugs from consuming or ruining a crop yield. This resistance to famine can help us become less concerned about starvation due to unfavorable conditions. The crop yield can remain the same. Those opposed to GMOs may claim that they increase pestacides and harm the environment. This is completely false. "It is a matter of fact that GM crops have drastically cut the use of such pesticides. GM cotton, containing a built in insecticide, uses 50% less chemical insecticides. In 1998 around 1000 tonnes less insecticide was used in the US cotton belt than before the introduction of GM cotton. That insecticide was mainly sprayed from planes. Only a small percentage reached its target. The rest drifted into the wider environment killing

In contrast, the counter argument claims that GMOs are unsafe for human consumption. However, GMOs actually improve human health by reducing the amount of pesticides needed for successful crop production. With the use of GMOs in crop production, the amount of pesticide and herbicide application has decreased. To resume, successful crop production is essential to a farmer’s success, which could be why over 18 million farmers throughout the world utilize GMOs. The successful production of crops can be achieved by genetically modifying crops with resistance against insects, weeds, and other threats. Resistance to different stressors has reduced pesticide applications by 8.1 percent. Additionally, crops that are modified to be resistant to specific

Genetically engineered crops in the United States cover almost one quarter of all the cropland. Soybeans, cotton, and corn are the products that tend to be the most modified. GMOs do not only have the purpose of solving world hunger, but also to cure diseases and create vaccines. John and Cheryl talk about Monsanto and DuPont, another big company involved in the production of GMOs. These two companies claim that their products have the purpose of feed the world and at the same time reduce the use of pesticides and stop the production of erosion. Nonetheless, researches have shown that the claims of these companies have no support, since biotechnology has been improving quickly and the current study to prevent bigger mistakes in the future is

Now what happens if you can’t buy the best available seed treatments in technology? No problem. According to the website Beale (2015) it states,“If farmers can be helped to obtain simple technologies, income can rise, and they can accumulate bank balances and collateral” (p. 1). As shown, you don’t need all the high expensive technology to make a profit, all you need is something simple in technology to change your yield productivity for the better. For many years farmers have dealt with problems during plantations season whether it be droughts, insects, or other issues, but what if technology could help you with that? “GM traits, such as insect and herbicide tolerance, help to increase yields by protecting the yield that would otherwise be lost due to insects or weeds” (Do GM crops increase Yield?, 2012, p.1). Thanks to recent help by technology, farmers have been able to reduce this problem by using genetically modifying crops, allowing them to increase their yields dramatically for the better. If it wasn’t for all these extraordinary technological help that there is today in the world of farming, it wouldn’t be as easy or efficient for farmers, thus not allowing farming to be where it is today.

In 2011, more than 66 million hectares of GMO plants were grown throughout the world. These plants were “engineered to produce a bacterial toxin lethal to some insects but harmless to people,” (Carrington 1). By altering the plant’s genes, scientists were able to design the plant in a way so it could control the pest population without the need of using as many chemicals in comparison to pesticides. Therefore altering the plant’s genes proves a method for controlling pest populations because it reduces the amount of harmful chemicals that are used. Pesticide use is dangerous to the environment because of the pollution involved. Studies have found that farmers using GMO seeds use 37% less pesticides, and since “these seeds don’t need to spray as much pesticide, which means less pesticide ends up washing off the fields and into streams” (Horowitz 2). Ultimately, pesticide pollution can endanger entire ecosystems and even threaten human lives. By significantly reducing pesticide use, there would be less dangerous chemicals to threaten local environments. As well as reducing pollution, GMO replacement of pesticides helps increase populations of pest predators. Carrington states that GMOs have the “added benefit of looking after the predators that could have been killed by the pesticides” (2). By substituting GMOs for pesticides, which kill more than just the targeted pest, farmers can help

Monsanto has dominated the seed market, controlling the price. For economic reasons, farmers have no choice but to continue to buy Monsanto seeds because if they don’t, they will be forced to pay extremely high prices for non-GMO seeds. Farmers are also dependent on Monsanto because the company is influential in the subsidized food market as they have enabled farmers to save more money when buying Monsanto brand

Though respondents acquainted the argument for possible positive financial effects of GMOs for farmers and even customers, many articulated that private industry profit was the driving force behind the science. One respondent felt GMOs were not the response to world starvation because “there is world hunger but plenty of food. The crops are not a problem, it’s the distribution of the agricultural

However, these risks are purely speculative: 81 separate studies costing approximately $65 million have been conducted by the European Commission alone and have shown no evidence of any risk linked to GM foods (1). Indeed, the U.S. has concluded that the risk of GM crops is minimal. As a result, in the U.S., genetically altered crops accounted for 93% of planted soybeans and cotton and 86% of corn in 2009. (2). Considering the success and benefits of GM crops in America, developing countries have followed suit. In 2009, India planted 84,000 square kilometers of genetically modified cotton, and Brazil planted 214,000 square kilometers of GM soybeans, a 26% increase from the year before (3). Like the U.S., these countries conducted a risk-benefit analysis and concluded that the economic, health, and food surplus benefits of GM crops offset the unproven risks (4). Thus, agricultural biotechnology is being implemented in farming techniques throughout the world.

In the early 20th century, Monsanto began as a chemical company, producing hormones, fertilizers, pesticides, and toxins. In the 1980’s, their focus switched from chemical production to seed, bio-genetic research, and agricultural products (Anderson, 2014). It was only in trying to enter the British and European Union markets in the late 90’s that there was a significant backlash against the company, the effects of which can still be felt in a continued reticence towards Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Europe to this day. From there, however, Monsanto has spread to almost every country and continent in the world, selling fast growing cotton to India

Many consumers do not wish to eat food that has been dosed with pesticides because of the possibility of health hazards. However, genetically modified foods are quite capable of helping eliminating the utilization of harmful chemical pesticides. Due to this, many farmers choose and prefer to plant biotech produce because of this benefit. In recent news, Sudan decided to take part in planting a type of these crops, Bt cotton. The production of Bt cotton has led to a decrease in the amount of insecticides used by 50%, reducing the risk of exposure to these chemicals. In China, the use of Bt cotton has led to a reduction of 78,000 tons of pesticide which covers about a quarter of what China has sprayed. (ISAAA, http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/default.asp) Furthermore, the uses of these types of biotech crops allow a reduction of risks associated with agricultural waste run-offs. GMOs in these countries show how they are beneficial especially for preventing environmental and human contact damage.

For poor farmers, genetically modified foods increase the yield of the crop and helps lower the amount of insecticides that they need to spray, resulting in higher profits and for some farmers even lifting them out from below the poverty level. Also, because of the diminished amount of pesticide and insecticides used due to GMOs, poisoning in farmers from these substances is decreased such as what happened in China and India after the introduction of Bt cotton (a type of GM crop). He states that there are no risk from GMOs or that they are smaller than believed.

Since 1996, farmers in developing countries have received an extra 70 billion dollars from switching to genetically modified crops as they are able to produce a higher yield (Staropoli, 2016). Globally, farmers have reported that on average, they were able to make back over 3 dollars on every genetically modified plant in comparison to traditional crops. However, that 3 dollars was actually over 4 dollars in developing countries in South America, Africa, and parts of Asia (Staropoli, 2016). For example, corn farmers who had genetically modified insect resistant crops claimed to have a 13 percent increase in their yield, whilst cotton farmers had a 17 percent yield in comparison to conventional farmers (Lendman, 2008). Farmers are able to get a notable yield improvement but at the cost of plant diversity and vulnerable plants.

In this brief, the reader will see the differences between organic and conventional cotton farming spreading from the country of India to the United States. For many years, genetically modified organisms, GMO’s, have been a popular debate topic for people who believe that they are not safe. Different people have different opinions, the purpose of this brief is to provide information about organic and conventional cotton farming. The readers will see the data collected for both types of farming, including yields, costs, and labor. They will be able to understand the public opinion and what they believe is the proper way to farm cotton. The reader will be able to determine which type of farming is best suitable for them, whether they are purchasing cotton products, or growing cotton themselves. Deciding between organic and conventional farming will include the differences in costs, yields, labor, and the environment around the farms, which will be compared in this brief.