FIelds 1

Environment Impact of GM Crops

Everyone loves Monarch butterflies, right? Well, Pool, Robert, and Joan Esnayra,

researchers at Cornell University, say their population is in trouble because of the Bt-toxins, a

natural pesticide produced by some plants, brought to the masses through genetically modified

(GM) crops. Milkweed plants are the only source of food that these butterflies have, which

have been covered by the Bt pollen produced by corn crops (1). The corn’s Bt-toxin is targeted

at the European Corn Borer, a close relative to the Monarch, and in a study, they found that the

toxin could also affect the Monarch Butterflies (“The Seeds”). However, in later field studies,

scientist placed Milkweed plants in a corn field, so they would be covered by Bt pollen.

Monarch caterpillars were placed on the leaves of the Milkweed and covered with a mesh to

keep out predators. They let the caterpillars eat the leaves until they turned into larva. Finally,

they took the leaves back to the lab and measured the concentration of Bt-toxin that had been

consumed and found that, while present, there was not enough toxin to produce a toxic effect

(“The Seeds”). Thus, concluding that Bt-toxin producing corn was not the reason for falling

population numbers of Monarch butterflies. GM crops have a bad reputation for “being bad for

the environment” or “bad for humans,” but the fact of the matter is that, just like with the

Monarch butterflies, this just is not true. GM crops have less of an impact on the environment

than more traditional or heirloom breeds. The rising use of GM crops is reducing the impact of

commercial agriculture on the environment.

 FIelds 2

To be clear there are two different types of GM crops; those produced in a lab and those

that have been bred for certain traits. GM crops have been breed since humans first learned

how to grow food, but transgenic crops produced in a lab are fairly new, encompassing the last

forty or fifty years. For future reference, in the rest of this paper I will be talking about

transgenic GM crops. Transgenic crops are made when a foreign gene is inserted into that crop.

This is only possible through the use of a bacterium that causes tumors on rose plants called

Agrobacterium Tumefaciens. This bacterium works by injecting a small piece of DNA into the

plant causing it to grow rapidly (“The Seeds”). Robert Fraley, vice president of Monsanto and

Chief Technology Officer, and a few of his colleagues figured out how to replace the DNA in the

bacteria and use it to infect the plants with the new genes (“Genetically”).

Now equipped with the tools they needed, Scientists were able to make new plant

breeds like the Bt corn and Roundup© ready crops. Monsanto makes Roundup©, which is one

of most widely used and effective chemical herbicides on the market today. They also make

their own line of GM crops which are Roundup© ready, which means they can be sprayed with

the herbicide and not be affected. These new plant breeds are very controlled. Farmers have to

sign a contract with Monsanto stating that they will plant traditional breeds alongside the GM

breeds. In corn, twenty percent of the total crop planted must be traditional non-GM crops.

This is done so that insects that feed on these plants have something to eat. Another rule

stated in the contract is that the seeds generated from their crops will be infertile (“The

Seeds”).

Why would Monsanto make their crops infertile? They did this so that if a weed were to

cross-pollinate with one of their crops it wouldn’t be able to reproduce and spread the
 FIelds 3

resistance gene around. This is a growing concern, that one-day plants might be unaffected by

Roundup©, which has glyphosate as the active ingredient. A total of 32 weeds are starting to

show resistance to herbicides, of which 14 are specific to glyphosate (Brookes and Barfoot).

There is one thing that most people forget about:

All weeds have the ability to develop resistance to all herbicides and there are
hundreds of resistant weed species confirmed in the International Survey of
Herbicide Resistant Weeds (www.weedscience.org), and reports of herbicide
resistant weeds pre-date the use of GM HT crops by decades (Brookes and
Barfoot).
The Bt-toxin gene that these companies insert is safe for human consumption and has

no side effects. However, this toxin is extremely deadly to target insects. This is because most

mammal digestive systems are acidic, thus killing the protein before it can activate. In Insects,

however, they are very basic with a pH of about nine, which is just enough to activate the

protein. The protein activates and expands when it reaches the digestive system. This

expansion blows up the insides of the insect killing it (“The Seeds”).

We are able to reduce our environmental impact of agriculture through the use of less

fuel. When fuel usage is lowered that means less carbon dioxide in the air and in-turn less

global warming. Before GM crops, farmers would have to till the ground every growing season

to kill all the weeds, and this required massive amounts of machinery and many hours. Now,

thanks to herbicides they rarely till their land. Another big reduction in fuel use is, instead of

spraying three or four herbicides and pesticides every few weeks, they now just spray one. With

the advent of Bt crops, pesticides are rarely used (Brookes and Barfoot).

In the 1930’s there was a major disaster caused by humans. We now call it the “Dust

Bowl”. This happened because of over tillage of the soil. When you till soil it is flipped onto
 FIelds 4

itself, the soil on the bottom is brought to the top. This breaks the root systems making the soil

loosely tied together. Lastly, the sun dries out the dirt making it very fine, like dust. All of this

bundled together with drought and wind erosion were the factors that lead up to the Dust

Bowl. Since then farmers have tried to minimalize the need to till their land, and with GM crops,

this could be more so.

There were many promises that GM crops were supposed to bring to the table, but they

have yet to happen. Monsanto promised bigger yields, drought resistance, and cold and heat

resistant crops (“Genetically”). This is an argument that a lot of people hang onto as something

against GM crops. Although these things have not happened, GM crops have not done anything

wrong. These crops have not fulfilled their promises yet, they will eventually play a key role in

our fuel supply.

Our decency on oil is a major driving factor of biofuel research, because we are running

out of oil. Our use of biofuels is slowly rising as more and more cars use flexible-fuel

technology. The United States has passed legislation concerning renewable fuels:

United States law required 13 billion gallons of renewable fuels (ethanol) by

2009 and an additional 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022 (qtd. by
Sheldon).
This may sound like a large ambition, but these measures need to be taken because we are

running out of easy-to-access oil, additionally the production of biofuels has less impact on the

environment than drilling it from the earth. These biofuels can come from a variety of crops

and different parts of plants. In the past we have turned excess corn into alcohol also called

ethanol, which we could burn in cars. Currently, we are working towards using crop byproducts

such as stalks and hulls, also called lignocellulosic biomass, so that we do not have to use our
 FIelds 5

food supply to make fuel (Sheldon 15). Although the United States is producing vast amounts

of biofuels it still only amounts to a mere eight percent of the U.S. transportation fuel

consumption (Monty viii).

One major problem that still plagues the industry is herbicide and pesticide runoff.

When GM crops were first planted glyphosate had a toxicity rating per hectare acre of

16.86/ha, which was is a measurement devised by Cornell University, comparatively now that

has gone down by 0.6-7 kg/ha (Brookes). That may not sound like much, but over millions of

acres, it amounts to a lot less with GM crops. The runoff, before and after, kills untold amounts

of grass, trees, and bushes. That is an enormous loss of habitat for thousands of animals.

Although glyphosate is not “harmful” to animals it still has a huge impact (“The Seeds”).

There is a little-known fact about how severely GM Crops are regulated. They are

treated less like food and more like pharmaceutical products. It takes years for a new GM crop

to make it to the market (“The Seeds”). This is the major reason why we do not currently have

GM animals (“Developments”). If a GM crop has a known allergen it is terminated. For example,

if broccoli was scrutinized the same way as GM crops are it would be off the shelves almost

instantly. This is because broccoli contains many compound and molecules that are either

known toxins or allergens (“The Seeds”).

The USDA thinks that GM crops could eventually become a plant pest, or a weed, if the

crop is able to make its way out of farmers’ fields. Every GM crop species must go through a set

of field trials before it can be certified for commercial use. These trials are regulated under the

Plant Protection Act of 2000. The goal of the trials is to ensure that they are not a plant pest
 FIelds 6

and that the pose no threat to other agriculture or the environment. After it passes the trials a

petition is made to determine if that crop no longer needs to be regulated. For the government,

all this testing was not enough so in October of 2008 they added more regulations to GM crops.

Among the things proposed one of the major items was the ability to revoke previously non-

regulated crops (Grossman 263-6).

The USDA is not the only regulatory organization for GM crops, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is another major player. The EPA gets their regulatory power from the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (FDCA). They concern themselves with plants that produce pesticidal substances such as Bt-

toxin, in addition, they test the food produced for pesticide residue. Besides just regulating the

plants they also regulate the pesticides used on them, every pesticide on the market has been

tested and registered before it was released. For a pesticide to pass it cannot ‘cause

unreasonable adverse effects on the environment’ (Grossman 269-72).

On the other side of the pond, in Europe, only about 27 breeds of GM crops have been

approved for food or feed. Of this number only GM maize is the only crop that people can plant

in Europe, which encompasses 17 of the 27 breeds allowed into the country, the rest are

imported. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible for the regulation and

authorization of GM crops in Europe. It is a rigorous journey to get a GM crop approved for

cultivation. Once it has been approved it can be marketed openly without any additional

approval from EFSA, but they must label any item that is or contains GM crops and this excludes

animals feed GM crops (Grossman 280-94).

 FIelds 7

Beyond everything, we as humans must ask ourselves if this process is ethical. Our code

of ethics is not rigid, it is a malleable thing, and it varies from person to person. For example, if

a parent was to find out that their kid had Klinefelter syndrome (KS), a child that has an

additional X chromosome making it XXY and it affects one in six-hundred and sixty kids, during

pregnancy would, if an option existed, chose to “cure” it (JØRgensen 472). This change while it

will initially help the child it could have adverse effects once the baby is born or later on in life,

and there is no way to know unless it is tested.

The ethics of many revolutionary scientists have been called into question by the public

because of their experiments. For instance, Giovanni Aldini, who was an Italian physicist in

London, England, did experiments on fresh corpses with electricity. He believed he would bring

someone back to life with the use of electricity. His pinnacle moment was a presentation in

London on the corpse of George Forster in front of a live audience. The audience was disgusted

by the way the body twitched when electricity was applied, and because of this, he was forced

to leave the country. This story would later become the inspiration for “Frankenstein”. This was

an example of when science pushed too far into bad ethics, but this was not the farthest

science has pushed ethics. (Frankenstein's).

After the development and use of atomic bombs, the perception of science was

changed forever. Science was once openly accepted by all people, but now people fight against

scientific advancement. Until the two bombs that end world war two dropped, science had very

little resentment (Frankenstein's). People were naturally curious about how the world really

works, and this curiosity translated to tremendous scientific advancements. For good or for evil

advancements were made up to that point and beyond.

 FIelds 8

There are many reasons that the commercial use of GM crops has helped the

environment. We feel the instant effects of reduced herbicide and pesticide use through less

loss of habitat. We will continue to feel the effects of less greenhouse gas emissions, which will

delay the effects of climate change. With hope, we will never have to face another Dust Bowl.

Commercial agriculture used to feed our growing population is detrimental to the environment,

but with GM crops, we can try to reduce the effects of this practice. This is yet another field of

science that is plagued by public opinion, but this has not stopped advancement in the field.
 FIelds 9

Work Cited

Brookes, Graham, and Peter Barfoot. "Environmental Impacts Of Genetically Modified (GM)

Crop Use 1996–2013: Impacts On Pesticide Use And Carbon Emissions." GM Crops &

Food 6.2 (2015): 103-133. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.

Brookes, Graham. "Weed Control Changes And Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops

In The USA 1996-2012." GM Crops & Food 5.4 (2014): 321-332. MEDLINE with Full Text.

Web. 4 Apr. 2016.

Developments in the Food Industry: Science, Technology, and the Environment. Films On

Demand. Films Media Group, 2007. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.

Frankenstein's Monster: In Search of Science. Films On Demand. Films Media Group, 2013. Web.

16 Mar. 2016.

Genetically Modified Food: A Debate. Films On Demand. Films Media Group, 2014. Web. 16

Mar. 2016.

GROSSMAN, MARGARET ROSSO. "Protecting Health, Environment And Agriculture:

Authorisation Of Genetically Modified Crops And Food In The United States And The

European Union." Deakin Law Review 14.2 (2009): 257-304. Academic Search Complete.

Web. 31 Mar. 2016.

JØRgensen, Inger Norlyk, et al. "Short Qtc Interval In Males With Klinefelter Syndrome-Influence

Of CAG Repeat Length, Body Composition, And Testosterone Replacement Therapy."

 FIelds 10

Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology 38.4 (2015): 472-482 11p. CINAHL with Full Text.

Web. 25 Apr. 2016.

Monty, Doug R. Agriculture-Based Biofuels And The Feasibility Of Biomass-Based Diesel And Jet

Fuel. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc, 2014. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web.

23 Apr. 2016.

Pool, Robert, Joan Esnayra, and (U.S.) National Research Council. Ecological Monitoring Of

Genetically Modified Crops : A Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.: National

Academies Press, 2001. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 4 Apr. 2016.

Sheldon, Ian M., GianCarlo Moschini, and Colin Andre Carter. Genetically Modified Food And

Global Welfare. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2011. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost).

Web. 4 Apr. 2016.

The Seeds of a New Era. Films On Demand. Films Media Group, 2003. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.