GM produce versus Conventional produce

Browsing the refrigerated section for food, Lily finds that she needs milk for her Frosted Flakes. She stops, puzzled, because her favorite 2% is significantly cheaper than the competing 2% organic milk. Inspired by her drastic savings, she decides to research the contents of the advertised GM and finds that the milk contains Chymosin, a genetically created enzyme. She traces the milk back to the corresponding cow, and finds that the cows were fed with soy beans: 60-90% are Genetically Engineered (Compass). You see, conventionally grown foods are a dying aspect; they require much more time, production cost, and the yield is dependent on environmental conditions. The reality is, conventional foods lack the production yields required to support our ever growing population, as Verena Seufert, the author of the article Comparing the Yields of Organic and
Conventional Agriculture believes; however GMO’s provide a limitless future source of sustainability in the produce market (Seufert). In order to keep up with the exponentially increasing population, Genetically Modified (GM) produce are the only plausible option to counter the shortcomings of conventional foods: GM produce, unlike conventional foods, are cost efficient, have limited cross-pollution,and are able to sustain a growing population.


The majority of people who “hate” GM produce are local farmers that have been using organic farming methods their whole lives, says author of Sweet Sustainability (Farm). I’m not sure if hate is an appropriate word to use in this context; I believe fear is quite fitting. People fear that these GMOs are not understood enough to be allowed into the natural gene pool. Instances such as that of pesticide resistant maize articulating into other farmers corn, tend to bring fear into the general public (Dalton). Currently, people are questioning how much is known about GM produce. Do people really not want to buy GMOs because they support conventional farming, or is it because they don’t understand them? In a recent poll conducted by Charles Noussair, a random group of French consumers were asked about their willingness to purchase GMOs: the study found that 35% of participants are unwilling to purchase products made with GMOs because of unfamiliarity, 23% are indifferent or value the presence of GMOs, and 42% are willing to purchase them if they are sufficiently inexpensive (Survey). Is this because French people hate eating French grown food, or is the picture something much simpler then that?

Picture from Wikipedia Commons

Conventional foods cannot offer the same amount of yield that GM produce can. This is primarily because GM produce can be immune to insects, herbicides, and certain diseases (Benefits). The author of GMOs Needed argues that the advantages of GM produce are much greater than those of of conventional foods, and needs to be embraced (Economic). We can all agree that produce is immensely important to the developing world. The author includes that the area used in GMO farming has increased 100-fold from 1.7 million hectares to 173 million hectares worldwide because of the ample benefits of planting GMOs. The reason many farmers are choosing to invest in GM produce is because of three significant cost-efficient factors: They offer more net by-product, less germination time, and most importantly, pest resistance (BioForum). Now when looking at all of these advantages, it is quite obvious why GM foods are indeed cheaper than their counterparts of conventional food.

Rex Dalton, the author of Genes Spread to Local Maize, states that cross contamination of genes has always been routine for GMOs. He goes on to state that this mimics the same gene pollution that occurred in late 2011(Dalton): sixty-nine women reported to have notably high Bt Toxin accumulation in their blood, which was thought to be caused from pesticide pollution (Quebec). The year following, a French farmer sues Monsanto for chemical poisoning caused by pesticide pollution. Of these peculiar claims, they all focused on that GMOs were uncontrollable, but in fact, the primary claim against GMOs is that they have no means of regulation (Nature).


Since these incidents, GMO technology have had a breakthrough, according to author of Kept on a Leash. More specifically, the author addresses that the current technology of GMOs have increased 10-fold in the means of control. These headlines show that research has proven GMOs can be synthesized to where they cannot exist without specific regulatory proteins known as "catabolic inhibitors". This allows GMOs to be controlled, such that the protein is removed when wanting to denature, or make inoperative (Nature). If utilized correctly, as the author believes, organisms can be controlled by a biological leash, giving a means of control. Now when comparing to conventional foods, GM produce now has an Achilles Heel, of which author Rex Dalton failed to mention.

Overpopulation by Conserve Energy Future

While conventional foods have proven to be a reliable source of food to maintain a steadily growing population, the equilibrium between our population and food production is quickly turning. Reverend Thomas Malthus, who developed population growth theory, hypothesized that “population growth would exceed the growth of resources, leading to the periodic reduction of human numbers. (1798)” Many believe that our world is reaching it’s carrying capacity, not because we are reproducing at a rate that surpasses existence, but because our ecological footprint is entirely unproportional. In layman’s terms, we are running out of resources because each human requires more than ever before. Food being a necessity, is undoubtedly the most jeopardized. I could surprise you with facts like “45% of child deaths is because of malnutrition” (Hunger), but these are much less concrete when compared to “we will run out of food by 2050” (Mirror). Overpopulation is happening, and this is when GMOs becomes of great significance.

Picture from Golden Rice Project Organization

In hopes to take on the challenge of limited food source and malnourishment globally, The Golden Rice Project was initiated in late August 2012. The focus of this organization is to solve the beta carotene deficit, which kills 670,000 children under 5 each year. The genetically modified rice was given it’s name because of an orangish glow caused by the concentrated beta carotene enzymes. These enzymes are used once ingested to make Vitamin A. Most recently, researchers from USDA have determined that Golden Rice is as effective as pure carotene oil, which is rare to extract, and more effective than spinach when it comes to Vitamin A production. One bowl of rice provides a child with 60% of recommended amounts of Vitamin A. (Journal). Globally, there are many GM organizations working to offer potential solutions for world hunger. The BioCassava Plus (BC+) program has developed nutrient-rich African White Corn (zinc, iron, protein, and vitamin A). This is largely important because African White Corn feeds 250 million African Americans daily (Corn). The author addresses three important benefits which are increased shelf life, toxic regulation, and disease resistance that can be applied to almost any GM food. Another example of current GM technology is that plants have been developed to thrive in areas plagued with droughts, primarily Libya and Egypt. These plants have self-enclosing stoma, which is the gate of the plant stem, that are most efficient when water is limited (Drought). Now that plants can be grown to contain the nutrients we want and wherever we want, the limitations of GMOs are quickly thinning.


You may want to look at GMOs vs Conventional foods in a different, more relatable perspective. This is what I mean; pretend that the new iPhone 7 came out today for 299.99$ and you absolutely need a new upgrade from your basic flip phone. This phone is up to date on data storage, wireless internet, and includes a lot of cool useless features that you can brag to your friends about later. You walk into your local cell phone distributor and hear people talking about the iPhone 7, saying there are glitches and sometimes when you turn on hands-free-mode, one of the cool useless features I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t work correctly. Everyone, including myself, is hesitant to invest in such new technology. Your second choice is the original flip phone, you know the first one you got for your thirteenth birthday, and it is on sale for 399.99$. Part of you wants to buy the flip phone even though it is expensive, because it is what you’ve known since you were little, and the other part of you wants to get on technologically-savvy bus. This may seem silly, but this is the reality of the GMO vs Conventional food debate. GMOs have immense new hallmarks when compared to the outdated Conventional farming produce of which including pest and herbicide resistance, weather tolerance, rapid germination, controllable nutrition content, and as of 2011, no cross-pollution between GM produce. When you look at all new technology, of course their are going to be glitches at the beginning, so to speak, but that’s what makes the technology even more flawless at the end. We need to embrace the shortcomings of GMOs and vividly see that conventional foods are growing obsolete. The only possible way we can sustain the exponentially growing population is if we invest in the potential of GMOs and dedicate as much effort into mastering GMO technology as we do debating them. So don’t get caught up on “Do GM Produce have more to offer than Conventional Produce?”, because if you look at the debate from all angles the real question in mind is very different, something more along the lines of “Why do we still farm Conventional Produce?” or “What else will it take to convince the general public that we need GMOs?”


Works Cited

Seufert, Verena. "Comparing the Yields of Organic and Conventional Agriculture." Nature 485.229–232 (2012). Nature. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html

Dalton, Rex. "Modified Genes Spread to Local Maize." Nature 456.149 (2008). Nature. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/2008/081112/full/456149a.html

"Nature." Kept on a Leash 517.7535 (2015): 517. Nature. International Weekly Journal of Science. Web. 30 Jan. 2015. http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/kept-on-a-leash-1.16750

"Economic and Political Weekly." GMOs Needed 12.3 (2014): 1-2. Nature.
HLEAD(GMOs Needed) and Date Is 2014. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=365197&sr=