Essay GMO 1 1/2 Pages APA Formatting In-Text Citations

BOS 3551, Environmental Issues 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VI Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

1. Outline important environmental problems and debates. 1.1 Summarize arguments for and against genetically modified organisms.

5. Discuss global attitudes and behaviors related to sustainable development.

5.1 Evaluate the potential of organic, conventional, and high-tech agriculture to be part of global sustainable development.

5.2 Discuss the role of aquaculture in the sustainable management of marine fisheries.

7. Recommend solutions for environmental problems. 7.1 Explain the major threats and potential solutions to food security issues in the coming

century. 7.2 Summarize the primary threats to marine fisheries and potential solutions to the depletion

of those fisheries.

Reading Assignment Unit 4: Food and Population, pp. 215–249

Unit Lesson Commercial Fishing In Unit V, you read two articles on population. One argued that our growing human population is not a problem, and the other argued that it most certainly is. Whichever side you agree with on the topic of population, the fact is that the more people we have on the planet, the more food we need from not only the land but also the oceans. This unit’s articles on the future of commercial fishing do not disagree about whether the world’s fisheries are in a perilous state. They agree that fisheries are overexploited, but one is more optimistic than the other. Carl Safina (2009/2016) believes that conservation and restoration of fish populations to a sustainable state is possible. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) argues that despite progress, there is still cause for concern regarding the state of the world’s fisheries. The report states that there will need to be continued growth in aquaculture to meet the demand for fish (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 2010/2016). The FAO’s cause for concern is shared not only by Safina but also by many scientists, managers, and conservationists. Both freshwater and marine species face many threats. Fertilizer runoff from agricultural operations increases nutrient levels in water bodies, causing algal blooms. As the algae die, they are consumed by bacteria in the water, which use up oxygen in the decomposition process. This creates dead zones where aquatic life cannot survive. Increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause oceans to become more acidic. When ocean water is more acidic, marine life cannot make shells as effectively, and coral bleaching occurs. Corals provide a habitat for many fish species, so the destruction of coral reefs causes a decrease in biodiversity in the ocean. A less biodiverse habitat has a decreased capacity to withstand stress, making the ecosystem more vulnerable to collapse. A more direct threat to fisheries is that there are simply too many fish being harvested. A fish population must have a minimum number of fish to sustain itself, and when catches are above the minimum needed to maintain this population, the species is said to be exploited. The FAO report states that “most of the stocks of the top ten species [of fish] … are fully exploited (2010/2016, p.223). The FAO report points out that there has

UNIT VI STUDY GUIDE

Commercial Fishing, High-Tech Agriculture, and Genetic Modification

 

 

 

BOS 3551, Environmental Issues 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

been progress in exploitation rates in some areas, but habitat degradation and increases in demand will continue to put pressure on fish populations as the population increases to nine billion by 2050 (FAO, 2010/2016). Safina (2009/2016) agrees with many of the pressures on fisheries discussed in the FAO report. However, he points out several ways in which these pressures can be alleviated and the fish populations harvested at sustainable levels. One tool he suggests is tradable fish shares. Fishery managers can allot an allowable catch for each fisher, and they can also change the total allowable catch from year to year, depending on the state of the fish population. This method of fishery management has worked well in Alaska, where tradable shares were used to manage the halibut population. For severely threatened stocks, the complete closure of a fishery is necessary to allow a population to recover. However, if the population is less exploited, mixed zoning allows for certain areas to be fished in any way at any time, others to be fished using only methods that do not involve dragging gear along the seafloor, and others that are entirely closed either periodically or permanently (Safina, 2009/2016). In addition to these management tools, Safina (2009/2016) calls for scientists, fishery managers, and fishers to work together to reverse the depletion of the world’s fisheries and better inform the public of the problem. Increased awareness of the overexploitation of fish populations is certainly important—especially when we consider the warning of marine research scientist Dr. Boris Worm, who has stated that if current trends continue, all fish stocks will collapse by 2048 (as cited in Kareiva, 2010/2016). Other marine scientists have called such claims alarmist; however, events such as the collapse of the Grand Banks cod, in which not a single school of cod could be found in a once-abundant cod fishery, should give us reason to take such claims seriously (Pearce, 1996/2016). High-Tech Agriculture The two articles on commercial fishing discussed the potential of the world’s fisheries to provide enough food for our growing population, while Fedoroff et al. (2010/2016) and Aher, Swami, and Sengupta (2012/2016) argue their views of the best path forward for the land to provide the same. As with most other issues we have discussed in the course, one central aspect of this issue is the fact that our population is projected to reach nine billion by 2050. Currently, most agriculture is conventional agriculture. This form of agriculture relies upon high inputs of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to increase yields. Crops are planted in a monoculture, which is the planting of a single species of crop in a field. A monoculture is more vulnerable to stress from weeds and pests, so the maintenance of such a crop requires more chemicals and fertilizers than would a polyculture. The manufacture of fertilizers requires high inputs of fossil fuels. Aher et al. point out that “greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector account for 10-12%…of the total anthropogenic annual emissions of CO2-equivalents” (2012/2016, p. 232). This number only accounts for emissions directly from agricultural operations and does not even account for the emissions from pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing or the fossil fuels used for machinery (Aher et al., 2012/2016). To make agriculture more sustainable, Aher et al. argue that we can use resources more sustainably and decrease the amounts of greenhouse gases emitted from the agricultural industry. Organic agriculture avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic agriculture also positively impacts soil quality, requires less energy input, and can produce yields that are as high, if not higher, than those of conventional agriculture (Aher et al., 2012/2016). Although there are many positive aspects to the concept of organic agriculture, the actual practice does not always measure up in the real world. For example, many people buy organic produce because they think that the produce is free of pesticides. However, organic farmers do use certain approved pesticides that are derived from natural sources. These pesticides are not necessarily safer for consumption or better for the environment, and they can sometimes even be worse. Additionally, although Aher et al. (2012/2016) state that organic yields are the same, if not better, than conventional yields, other studies indicate that organic yields are only 80% that of conventional yields. If organic yields are lower, conventional, this means that much more land would be needed to produce the same amount of food if organic agriculture were widely used. Fedoroff et al.(2010/2016) do not address whether or not organic agriculture could feed the world, but they argue that we must take the coming effects of climate change into account in making decisions about what agricultural approaches we choose. In 2003, a heat wave in Europe, with temperatures only 3.5 degrees C above normal, caused grain yields to decline by 20-36% (Federoff et al., 2010/2016). Since these temperatures may become averages by 2050, these declines are quite alarming. Additional effects of climate

 

 

 

BOS 3551, Environmental Issues 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

change include the flooding of fertile, low-lying areas and altered stream flows, which would further reduce the amount of arable land. Federoff et al. (2010/2016) believe that we need to foster the use of new agricultural technologies, such as integrating agriculture and aquaculture, dryland and saline agriculture, and even genetically modified crops. Clearly, given the growing population and potential threats of climate change to food security, we must take action to create a food system that maximizes output while minimizing negative impacts to human health and the environment. The textbook presents the choice between conventional and organic agriculture as an either/or proposition. Perhaps a better way to frame the argument is to not frame it as an argument at all:

You can appreciate the upsides of rotating crops and how GMOs might improve output and nutrition. You, the wise and intelligent consumer, don’t have to buy into either side’s propaganda and polarize to one end or another. You can, instead, be somewhere along the spectrum, and encourage both ends to listen up and work together to improve our global food resources and act sustainably. (Wilcox, 2011)

Genetically Modified Organisms Farmers have been breeding plants for favorable characteristics, such as high yields or pest resistance, since farming began around 10,000 years ago. About 30 years ago, scientists developed the technology to insert such characteristics from one plant species to another, and they can now insert even non-plant genes into crops. The process of inserting genes from one species to another is genetic modification, and the resulting organisms are called genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Many researchers see GMOs as our best hope to feed our growing population, but GMOs also have staunch opponents who believe that there are serious health and ecological concerns with GMOs. Vandana Shiva, an Indian physicist and environmentalists, is one of these opponents. Shiva (2013/2016) argues that the use of GMOs in India, specifically Bt cotton, has failed to increase yields and has caused an increase in pesticide use. Worst of all, Shiva (2013/2016) claims that the financial devastation caused by the higher costs of Bt cotton combined with failed crops has caused a significant increase in the number of farmers committing suicide in the areas of India where Bt cotton was planted. Bt cotton contains a gene sequence from a soil bacterium, Bacillius thuringiensis. This bacterium produces a pesticide that kills the bollworm, a common agricultural pest. When the genes are inserted into plants, the plants produce the pesticide themselves, making them resistant to the bollworm. Upon the introduction of Bt cotton to India, the price of seed jumped 8000%, without an accompanying increase in yield to offset costs (Shiva, 2013/2016). Shiva (2013/2016) claims that field studies done by her research foundation have also found a 13-fold increase in the use of pesticides following the introduction of Bt cotton. Therefore, Indian farmers borrow large sums of money to buy the Bt cotton seeds, do not get higher yields to offset the cost, must also increase their use of pesticides, and end up in such desperate financial situations that they commit suicide. Keith Kloor (2014/2016) disputes the GMO-debt-suicide connection made by Shiva. Kloor (2014/2016) cites multiple studies that show that Bt cotton has actually reduced pesticide spraying, increased yields, and saved money for Indian cotton farmers. Kloor (2014/2016) argues that Indian banking policies, social and interpersonal problems, and preexisting mental illness are the causes of the suicides. He also maintains that Shiva’s opposition to GMOs stems not from the scientific evidence but from an ideological opposition to global free trade, which she and her foundation view as a system that benefits only large corporations (Kloor, 2014/2016). Kloor believes that Shiva and other vocal Bt cotton opponents use the narrative of “evil GMOs” to promote their agenda, and that their demonization of GMOs will stall or block advances that could actually help Indian farmers. Certainly, there are legitimate concerns about GMOs. Pests can develop resistance to pesticides. So, whether they are sprayed on the crops or manufactured by the crop themselves, crop losses occur when resistance develops. Although the anti-GMO movement claims that there are health risks to GMOs, the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe for human consumption (Genetic Literacy Project, 2013). As with conventional versus organic agriculture, GMOs are another example of a polarizing issue. Again, we do not have to pick sides. Are all GMOs so dangerous that we should ban them? Certainly not. Are they all so harmless that we should start using them with abandon? Certainly not. After you read this unit’s article and complete the GMO assignment, think about how we can intelligently and objectively address this issue

 

 

 

BOS 3551, Environmental Issues 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

without falling into the trap of choosing an ideology instead of using our critical thinking skills to assess the true merits and potential dangers of emerging agricultural technologies.

References Aher, S. B., Swami, B., & Sengupta, B. (2016). Organic agriculture: Way towards sustainable development. In

T. A. Easton, Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 232– 234). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Reprinted from International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 209–214, July 2012)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2016). World review of fisheries and aquaculture.

Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. In T. A. Easton, Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 222–224). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Reprinted from The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 3–6, 8–9, 192–193, 2010)

Fedoroff, N. V., Battisti, D. S., Beachy, R. N., Cooper, P. J. M., Fischhoff, D. A., Hodges, C. N., . . . Zhu, J. -K.

(2016). Radically rethinking agriculture for the 21st century. In T. A. Easton, Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 229–231). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Reprinted from Science Magazine, 833–844, February 10, 2010)

Genetic Literacy Project. (2013). GLP infographic: International science organizations on crop biotech safety.

Retrieved from https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international- science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/

Kareiva, P. (2010, November 29). Why do we keep hearing global fisheries are collapsing? [Blog post]

Retrieved from http://blog.nature.org/conservancy/2010/11/29/fisheries-apocalypse-ocean-fish-stock- peter-kareiva-ray-hilborn/

Kloor, K. (2016). The GMO-suicide myth. In T. A. Easton, Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental

issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 243–248). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Reprinted from Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 2014)

Pearce, F. (1996). The grand banks: Where have all the cod gone? New Scientist. Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/education/upload/The-Grand-Banks-Collapse.pdf Safina, C. (2016). A future for U.S. fisheries. In T. A. Easton, Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental

issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 218–221). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Reprinted from Issues in Science and Technology, 43–46, Summer 2009)

Shiva, V. (2016). Seed monopolies, GMOs, and farmers’ suicides in India. In T. A. Easton, Taking sides:

Clashing views on environmental issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 239–242). New York, NY: McGraw- Hill Education. (Reprinted from http://www.navdanya.org/blog/?p=744, 2013)

Wilcox, C. (2011, July 18). Mythbusting 101: Organic farming > conventional agriculture. Scientific American.

Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science- sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming- conventional-agriculture/

 

Suggested Reading This study examines the extent of biodiversity loss of ocean fisheries. Worm, B., Barbier, E., & Beaumont, N. (2006, November 3). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem

services. Science, 314. Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/schillerstation/pdfs/AR- 024.pdf

 

 

 

 

BOS 3551, Environmental Issues 5

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

This article provides an in-depth look at the GMO debate. William, S. (2015, July 15). Unhealthy fixation. Slate. Retrieved from

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_ag ainst_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

In order to access the resource below, you must first log into the myCSU Student Portal and access the GreenFILE database within the CSU Online Library. This article studies food production and biodiversity in organic and conventional agriculture. Gabriel, D., Kunin, S. M., Benton, W. E., & Steffan-Dewenter, T. G. (2013, April 3). Food production vs.

biodiversity: Comparing organic and conventional agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(2) 355– 364.