Is There a Catch Behind Playing God? by Erik Olsen

 In most first world countries, supermarkets are filled to the brim with exotic fruits from all over the world during any season. There are pineapples sold fresh and ripe during February in Maine, vine ripe red tomatoes in snow covered grocery stores in Alaska... But how did they get there? The article we discussed in class called "How Driscoll's Reinvented the Strawberry" answers this question by using the example of the strawberry. Strawberries have very little variety, as is evidenced by a simple trip to the supermarket. While some fruits have a plethora of different shapes, colors and sizes, strawberries seen in the store generally look fairly similar. The article explains that this is because Driscoll, the largest producer of strawberries in the world, must keep its shelves stocked year round despite the difficulties of growing in climates foreign to strawberries. To remedy this, Driscoll came up with the idea of setting up breeding programs. While some wild strawberries are better adapted to their native climate, Driscoll genetically engineered their strawberries to the red, heart-shaped strawberries we think of today. As other varieties of strawberries are forgotten and not reproduced, the strawberry plant becomes uniform, giving the agribusiness who owns the genetics a monopoly on strawberries. The question of whether or not genetic engineering should exist in the food industry is a controversial topic. While many say that toying with our food's DNA is detrimental to the plant and can lead to its extinction, others argue that genetically modifying our food is vital to survival in modern times with the current population is a necessary evil that allows for agribusinesses to increase the already inexpensive production of food on a massive scale, as well as to ward off pests and diseases that can destroy crops. However, as time and biological change progress, commercializing genetic alterations can turn a healthy industry into the extinction of a widely loved food.
Scientists have found that the genetically engineered crops can "spread undesirable traits to weeds and non-GE crops, produce new allergens and toxins, or harm animals that consume them." This implies that the environmental impact of genetically modifying crops has the potential to disrupt entire ecosystems. As the species becomes more and more vulnerable, the likelihood of ecological change becomes likely. Therefore, ethical legitimacy is discarded in favor of convenient and cheap produce. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, applying genetic engineering in agriculture antagonizes the current problems with industrial monocropping. By tinkering and trademarking a crop's genetics, agribusiness sacrifices sustainability and ecological stability to increase profits and slowly monopolize a market.
In defense of genetic engineering however, these same concerned scientists also believe that while current applications of genetic engineering are harmful, there are feasible solutions and things that policy makers and legislators can do to create a smarter, more beneficial solution to the current problems facing genetic engineering in agriculture.  Some of these solutions include funding research into the risks of using genetically modified organisms, independent verification of applications used for genetic engineering, and providing incentives for creating environmentally and ecologically conscious farming systems, improving agricultural efficiency thereby eliminating the current  excessive dependence on genetic engineering. Instead, genetic engineering would be more useful when focused on other research such as the applications used in pharmaceutical development.
Another ethical concern raised by current applications of genetic engineering focuses on the farmers. As the documentary Food Inc. explains, genetic engineering crops can legally coerce hard working farmers into becoming indentured servants by finding trademarked genetics within certain crops. In the movie, a corn farmer was found to be unintentionally growing corn with genetic traits trademarked my the agribusiness Monsanto. Monsanto controls a majority of the corn industry, which leaves little room for local farmers to be able to grow their own crops and reap their own profits. When a company such as Monsanto takes control of a small farm, it can ruin the farm owner's ability to keep up with the high cost and low profit that comes with maintaining a small farm. People are forced off their land and out of their homes and driven into bankruptcy in an attempt to make an ever expanding amount of profit. When a corporation is allowed to form such a monopoly over an industry as vital as the corn industry, they hold a powerful grip over the entire nation. Corn is used in everything from the ethanol used to produce gasoline, to the high fructose corn syrup found in foods you'd least expect. Government subsidies for the mass production of corn have produced an industry that now has leverage over other industries that fuel the development of western society, as well as the livelihood of the people that depend on the ability to effectively compete with large mega-corporations such as Monsanto.

Proponents of the genetic modification of agriculture argue that tweaking the genes of certain plants have lead to their survival as a species, as well as contributing environmental benefits, and safer alternatives to dangerous chemical pesticides and reducing the amount of machinery needed to process food. In addition, foods can be enhanced to provide better nutritional value to fight worldwide malnutrition problems in society. The article "GMO Food Pros and Cons" cites the development of "golden rice" to help people with vitamin A deficiencies. These points raised by supporters of the use of genetically modified foods in agriculture provide some valuable incentives for limited use of genetic engineering. While it is clear that genetic engineering can be detrimental when used irresponsibly, there are possible valuable and less harmful applications than the sole purpose of immediate profit increase.
In contrast, does changing the genetic code of a food change its legitimacy as a food as well? Many consumers don't appreciate the expansive variety of food available locally because they would never know it existed. Most people will never know a vast majority of produce varieties simply because it doesn't fit with their lifestyle. As time progresses, Society's need for productivity has grows exponentially. People no longer have time to create their own fresh food so they are forced to eat quick, cheap and convenient things including fast food. Being able to sit down and enjoy a meal is a luxury many people don't have. The way our society has structured itself around the mass production of a small number of versatile crops shapes how an industry can grow powerful enough to change the culture around eating. In order for genetic engineering to change for the better, society needs to discover what is most important, whether it's the pursuit of profit, becoming more productive, or enjoying the simple pleasure of a natural, delicious and fresh meal. 

Word Count:1127