Time to Ban Deep Sea Trawling?

Les Watling writes, “deep water trawling should be consigned to history.” Deep-sea fishing’s most destructive form around the world, deep sea trawling, is effective in the fishing industry but extremely harmful overall. This month, the European commission has a critical vote to determine whether or not to prohibit the fishing technique. Although deep-sea trawling has positive economic benefits, the process indiscriminately eliminates thousands of non targeted species. Technology’s force continues to deplete many species, despite European fishing industry’s lobbying against the proposed ban. Although the potential ban will cause fishing companies to face economic downfall, fish stock recovery and deep sea conservation should take precedence.


While many argue eliminating deep sea trawling will cause large European commercial companies such as Scapêche, Euronor and Dhellemmes to face huge economic losses, and prohibit our ability to discover new forms of life in the deep sea, it directly impacts fish populations and benthic communities. (Watling) It has been found that trawling can alter the physical properties of the sea-sediment since the process drives sediment erosion, displacement, and transport, which, in time, modifies the shape of the landscape, reducing its original complexity (Nature 489). Furthermore, studies in recent years have shown that the deep-sea environment is more sensitive to human activity than previously thought (Davies).

Figure 1: (C) is portraying an untrawled dropstone with diverse coral and epifauna. (D) is depicting a trawled dropstone. Source: Science Direct 


Bottom trawling has raised international concern over the damage of habitats that it creates. While shallow-water trawling bans prohibit certain techniques being used in those environments, the diminishing reserves of hydrocarbons in these shallow waters are pushing exploration into deeper waters. Without any guidelines limiting deep-sea trawling, depletion of rare and little-known habitats may occur. (Davies) Previous bans on these fishing methods had not been placed because the production of fisheries had remained fairly stable. However, recent catches have been greatly declined, and fishermen have been able to cover these up with the exploitation of normally unfished species. (Davies) It has become evident that many deep-sea fisheries have been greatly overexploited, leading to collapse of these fisheries or a warning sign of serious population decline.



Those who are opposed to the ban argue the economic repercussions that would follow if the ban passed. They claim that the French deep-sea fishing sector is a crucial employer that operates sustainably and efficiently. (Watling) Additionally, it benefits greatly from large subsidies from both the EU and the French government. However, the three largest French companies -- Scapêche, Euronor and Dhellemmes—in the last four years have received over 15 million dollars in said subsidies, but have showed more than 11 million dollars in losses. Moreover, each company does not truly affect the job market directly. Each of the three organizations employ a relatively small number of fishermen for each vessel – only about 112 men. (Watling)


Deep Sea Trawling Boat.
Source: Nature 

Lastly, conservation cannot be achieved simply through alterations of technology. Those lobbying against the ban argue that the creation of a lighter trawl can limit damage. However, most deep-sea species are light and delicate tissues, unable to protect themselves from heavy net and steel (Nature 489). In order for the trawls to reach the depths needed to meet fishing collection quotas, the trawls must be heavy enough to reach 800 – 1500 meters to the sea floor, thereby making it difficult to alter the equipment used.



Heavy Deep Sea Trawling Equipment
Source: Flickr 

While deep-sea trawling has been an effective means of commercial fisheries for many decades, it has ignored the apparent and evident environmental effects. Passing a ban on deep-sea trawling would be the first of its kind, and would send a message about the importance of long-term conservation and sustainability. If the ban is not passed, however, international organizations must come together to discuss ways in which the environment can remain stable and underexploited.

Works Cited:

Davies, Andrew, Murray Roberts, Jason Hall-Spencer. “Preserving deep-sea natural heritage:   Emerging issues in offshore conservation and management.” Biological Conservation. Volume 138, 299-312. (2007). Web. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320707002285>.

“Ploughing the Deep Sea Floor.” Nature. 489 (13 September 2012): 286-289. Web. 16 September 2013. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/nature11410.html>.

Watling, Les. “Deep- Sea Trawling Must Be Banned.” Nature. 501.7. (4 September 2013). Web. 13 September 2013. <http://www.nature.com/news/deep-sea-trawling-must-be-banned-1.13656>.

Develop New Technologies to Control Climate Changes

A recent editorial in Nature says, “Recent temperature trends show that the climate problem is less urgent.” Although the IPCC’s [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] new report argues that natural effects, like La Nina, are causing a hiatus in global warming (Kosaka), we cannot stop controlling climate change because climate sensitivity, which is used to predict future climate change, remains uncertain. Since we are uncertain about the exact pace of climate change, we must prepare for the worst. While governments have pursued ethanol as one potential clean energy source, it remains inefficient. Therefore, governments need to develop new technologies that are cleaner and more efficient.

Scientists who think that the climate problem is less urgent because of the hiatus in global warming ignore an important fact: the metric that scientists use to show climate stabilization remains uncertain. Climate sensitivity is a metric that shows how the global climate system responds to changes in the environment. It is usually defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change when atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles. Clouds are the most important factor in calculating climate sensibility, but scientists are still unsure about their exact effects. Scientists are also still uncertain how aerosols in the air reflect sunlight, making their estimation of climate sensitivity even more inaccurate. (Kosaka) What’s more, there are many other factors affecting the earth’s temperature including non-CO2 greenhouse gasses, internal variability in the climate system, and land use change. (Karl and Trenberth) Due to these uncertainties, I believe we should not rely on the optimistic climate sensitivity data and we should increase our pace to control climate change.



Figure1. All of these processes create a complex climate system. All of these processes affect the calculation of climate sensibility and climate change, so it is really hard to get an accurate prediction of the climate change. Image from here (Karl and Trenberth)

Besides the uncertainty of climate sensitivity, there is another reason for our government to urgently take measures to control climate change. The consequences of modern climate change, including rising sea level, reduced biological diversity and spread of diseases, are fatal. (Karl and Trenberth) We, as humans, don’t want a disaster to happen even if the possibility is small. The most urgent of these problems is the rising sea level. When the global temperature rises, sea water becomes warmer. As it becomes warmer, sea water expands and the sea level rises. The melting Polar ice caps intensify the sea levels’ rise. (Collins) The sea level has risen 4.4cm in the past one hundred years. As a direct consequence, lowlands will flood. For example, the Thames River has risen continuously over the past 20 years; to protect Britain from floods, the British government had to increase the height of their dikes 88 times. One third of the world’s population lives along the coast, and they could forever lose their homelands. Many of the biggest cities in the world, including New York, Tokyo, Shanghai and Hong Kong, could all disappear. The rising sea level has other consequences as well. When sea water goes into land, the salinity in the underground water rises, reducing the supply of drinkable water. Moreover, biological diversity will reduce rapidly. Climate change could change species’ adaptability to the environment, unbalancing ecosystems. (Vitousek) Many species could become extinct, which could even affect agriculture. Global warming could even increase the spread of diseases such as malaria, dengue and cholera. As you can see, government’s actions to control climate changes brook no delays. Despite the apparent hiatus in global warming, we shouldn’t put aside the problem of climate change.

A polar bear lost its home because of global warming. Image from here

Because of these potential consequences, the government should take actions to regulate human influences on global climate changes. Emissions from humans’ energy use are the main factor causing climate change. That’s why the government’s first step should be developing emission–free energy technologies. Ethanol fuel is a good example of the government’s efforts to develop technology to control climate change. According to the data from UNEP [United Nations Environment Program], world ethanol production for transport fuel tripled between 2000 and 2007, from 17 billion to more than 52 billion liters. From 2007 to 2008, the share of ethanol in global gasoline-type fuel increased from 3.7% to 5.4%. Most cars on the road today in the U.S. can run on blends of up to 10% ethanol. If we compare ethanol to gasoline, depending on the production method, we can see that ethanol releases fewer greenhouse gases. (Madson) A National Geographic Magazine overview article (2007) argues that there are 22% less CO2 emissions using corn ethanol compared to using gasoline and a 56% reduction compared to cane ethanol. European climate expert who works for Ford reports a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions with bioethanol compared to petrol for one of their flexible-fuel vehicles.

While burning ethanol is significantly cleaner, producing ethanol fuel emits a large amount of carbon dioxide. The calculation of exactly how much carbon dioxide is produced in the manufacture of ethanol is a complex and inexact process, highly dependent on the method by which the ethanol is produced. (Madson)



UK government calculation of carbon intensity of corn bioethanol grown in the US and burnt in the UK. Image from here, (from Brinkman, N., Halsall, R., Jorgensen, S.W., & Kirwan, J.E).

Coal is the main source of fuel used to process corn into ethanol. As we can see in the chart, however, most of the carbon dioxide emissions are from the coal used to manufacture the ethanol. (Brinkman) Here comes a paradox: we want to produce more ethanol energy to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, but the process that we use to produce ethanol energy actually causes more emissions. Since we understand the importance of controlling climate change, the government now should start to develop technology that produces ethanol energy with fewer carbon dioxide emissions. If researchers can use other methods instead of coal to produce ethanol energy, ethanol energy could have a far greater impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

While ethanol is a promising technology, there are blueprints for even better energy sources in the future. Car companies are experimenting with compressed air as a fuel source. French automaker PSA Peugeot announced in 2013 that it will build a hybrid gasoline vehicle that can store energy as compressed air. (Coren) Although this technology is not practical now, researchers should continue developing ideas like this. We should face climate change seriously and develop technology actively to protect the earth------our unique home.


Reference

Brinkman, N., Halsall, R., Jorgensen, S.W., & Kirwan, J.E., "The development of improved fuel specifications for methanol (M85) and ethanol (Ed85)." SAE transactions103.4 (1994): 361-374.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16406158

Gonzales, Alan Dale C. "Overall stocktaking of biofuel development in Asia-Pacific: benefits and challenges." background paper for “Policy Dialogue on Biofuels in Asia: Benefits and Challenges,” Beijing (2008): 24-26.http://e.unescap.org/esd/Energy-Security-and-Water-Resources/energy/dialogue/biofuels/benefit_challenges/documents/Overall%20Stocking%20of%20Biofuel%20Development-Final.pdf

Madson, P. W., and D. A. Monceaux. "Fuel ethanol production." The Alcohol Textbook. Nottingham University Press. Nottingham, Reino Unido (1995): 257-268.
http://www.bioethanol.ru/images/bioethanol/Fuel%20ethanol%20production%20-%20Katzen.pdf

Malte Meinshausen, Nicolai Meinshausen, William Hare, Sarah C. B. Raper, Katja Frieler, Reto Knutti, David J. Frame & Myles R. Allen. “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C” Nature 458, 1158-1162, 30 April 2009
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08017.html

Mat Collins, Soon-Il An, Wenju Cai, Alexandre Ganachaud, Eric Guilyardi, Fei-Fei Jin, Markus Jochum, Matthieu Lengaigne, Scott Power, Axel Timmermann, Gabe VecchiAn, Drew Wittenberg. “The impact of global warming on the tropical Pacific Ocean and El Niño” Nature Geoscience 3, 391 - 397 (2010) Published online: 23 May 2010
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/abs/ngeo868.html

Michael J Coren “What fuels Peugeot's latest car? Air” Scientific American January 03, 2013
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-fuels-peugeots-latest-car-air-2013-01

Peter M. Vitousek. “Beyond global warming: Ecology and global change” Ecological Society of America Ecology 75:1861–1876 Volume 75, Issue 7 (October 1994)
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.2307/1941591

Thomas R. Karl, Kevin E. Trenberth. “Modern global climate change” Science 5 December 2003:ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719.short

Yu Kosaka, Shang-Ping Xie. “Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling” Nature (2013) ISSN: 0028-0836 EISSN: 1476-4687
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html

Germany: Lost in Transition

Image from this site

 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel made headlines and charmed the public two decades ago as an East German spokesperson supporting the reunification of the country. Now, she is making headlines for completely different reasons. She began an environmental revolution when she spearheaded an aggressive new platform to increase clean energy, stating that "'Oh, we will try our best' will not work." While Energiewende, Germany’s plan to transition to clean energy industries, is certainly admirable in its ambition, proponents of the plan, like Merkel, underestimate the public’s objection to the massive financial cost, unreliable power generation from renewable resources, and destruction of natural landscapes, ultimately setting the program up for failure.

The implementation of Energiewende is not random. In fact, it has been a long time coming. Getting its origins from the backlash of the 70s energy crisis, demand for environmental change increased after Chernobyl and skyrocketed after the Fukushima disaster, instilling the fear of unstable nuclear power in Germans. Supporters of this drastic plan have valid points. Nuclear energy is dangerous. Burning fossil fuels is dangerous. However, what supporters seem to be overlooking is the danger of a country filled with citizens who can’t pay for a government program they don’t agree with.

Originally, Germany was deemed the perfect location to implement Energiewende due to its relatively successful economy. When the government decided to subsidize renewable resources, citizens of all geographic and economic backgrounds rushed to install solar panels and wind turbines, patiently waiting to receive their compensation. This sounds like an efficient plan, but all it really does is lessen the pool of money the government can pull from. As a result, a tax is tacked on to every citizen’s energy bill, hiking up the cost of power and electricity. Over the past three years, household fuel bills have increased to 50% above the average European household. As the number of renewable resource construction projects increase, so will the price German citizens will have to pay-- and so will their frustration.

To make matters worse, citizens could find themselves paying for power that isn’t even being generated. When research suggested that offshore wind turbines could be more productive than those on-shore, a wind farm was constructed—with Germans’ tax money—on the island of Borkum. After the first report, it was found that no wind energy had been produced at all and carbon emissions actually increased due to the burning of coal to keep the machines running.

Not all solar panels and wind turbines are ineffective. Many hillside wind farms are able generate large amounts of power. The problem with this is that most Germans do not live on hillsides but in cities, where the majority of industrial production is also located. This begs the question of how power generated in rural areas will be stored and transported hundreds of miles so that it can actually be used. The massive European power grid was already inconsistent at transporting fossil fuels, which, although harmful, are relatively efficient. Citizens now fear citywide blackouts due to calm, cloudy days when solar and wind power will not be generated. An increase on taxes for usable power may be tolerable for some Germans, but it is unlikely anyone will be willing to pay for power they can’t even use.

Another factor that has to be taken into consideration is the destruction of natural landscapes in Germany. As mentioned previously, the majority of wind turbines are located on rural hillsides or along coasts. Coincidentally, these locations are also the most popular tourist destinations in the country. Constructing more and more unsightly turbines may strip rural Germany of the rustic charm that draws tourists to visit. This may seem like a small price to pay for the implementation of clean energy resources, but when German tourism is contributing nearly 30 billion euros to the total revenue, economic consequences must be thoroughly evaluated.

Image from this site

 

Energiewende is a great idea—in theory. It has potential to serve as an example to countries worldwide that clean energy is possible and doable. In reality, however, implementing such an intensive task is simply not viable, nor will it ever be, unless major gains are made in technology and economics to ensure that the country will have power and that its citizens won’t go broke paying for it. Until then, Chancellor Merkel can only hope that, along with her transition in energy, her popularity among German citizens doesn’t see a transition as well.






Sources

http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1663317_1663319_1669897,00.html

http://www.economist.com/node/21559667http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c5b9815a-1c44-11e3-a8a3-00144feab7de.html#axzz2gKYDdrIB

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/c5b9815a-1c44-11e3-a8a3-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fc5b9815a-1c44-11e3-a8a3-00144feab7de.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=#axzz2gKYDdrIB

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21579149-germanys-energiewende-bodes-ill-countrys-european-leadership-tilting-windmills

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/2013/aug/28/wind-turbines-clutter-north-german-countryside/

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/20b822a6#/20b822a6/22

The Human Sleep Project

The Human Sleep Project


Because people are losing sleep more now than ever before, we should eliminate effects of poor sleeping patterns. Negative effects include insomnia and social jet lag. Till Roenneberg’s “Sleep Project” offers us the best understanding of sleep behavior by logging sleep patterns better than those studies conducted in laboratories. Roenneburg conceptualizes human circadian rhythms as it applies to sleep habits by logging the ineffectiveness of a complete 8 hours of sleep, and observing the benefits of napping to improve productivity, health, and quality of life.

Insomnia, a relatively common sleep disorder, is one effect of poor sleeping patterns. Those with the disorder to tend to have trouble falling asleep, staying asleep, or both, thereby resulting in poor-quality sleep. Acute, short-term, insomnia can be triggered by stress, severe pressure or traumatic events, typically lasting a few days or weeks. On the other hand, chronic, long-term insomnia lasts months for months or even longer. Most forms of chronic insomnia are the symptom of another problem, that can often be triggered by medical conditions, medicines or other sleep disorders. 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Complications_of_insomnia.png


A different effect of poor sleeping patterns is a phrase known as “social jet lag.” Social jet lag is a term coined by Till Roenneberg that explains some of the problems inherent in our current sleep schedules. Roenneberg says that switching sleep schedules is similar to switching time zones. In one of Roenneberg’s studies, it was found that with social jet lag people are at a greater risk of being obese and engaging in unhealthy habits like drinking alcohol and smoking. Social jet lag is caused by the discrepancy between our sleep schedules and the body’s biological clock. In modern society, people pay more attention to their work and what their boss tells them than getting enough sleep. This WebMD article explains the difference between travel jet lag and social jet lag. In travel jet lag, you arrive in a new place and the sun is rising and setting at a different time, but your body can reset its own clock. However, with social jet lag, a person stays in the same place and basically lives their life in a different time zone in comparison to their biological clock.

In order to fully understand sleeping habits and patterns, it is helpful to understand the term biological clock. Biological clock refers more broadly to circadian rhythm. Circadian rhythm is essentially living organisms’ adaptations to solar related rhythms. A circadian rhythm is any biological process that is self-sustained, and can be adjusted. For humans, ours is typically around 24 hours. A circadian rhythm can change according to external cues, the most important being sunlight. Both plants and animals show yearly, monthly, daily, and other rhythmic changes that appear to be innate. The most obvious circadian rhythm can be seen in humans and sleep.

Most people have preconceived notions of the “right” type or amount of sleep. Such notions include sleeping at least 8 hours each night. However, the well-known idea of getting 8 hours of sleep a night is not necessarily the most beneficial sleep strategy. It has become apparent that napping is actually an extremely valuable sleep approach when needed. Studies have shown that as little as 24 minutes napping can improve cognitive functioning. This source is important because it challenges the current opinions on sleep, and provides insight into alternative options for productive sleep patterns.

Adolescent sleep is also helpful in understanding sleeping patterns. Teenagers need, on average, 8 ½ to 9 ¼ hours of sleep each night. Yet, due to school start times and current activity levels, students are only getting around 7 hours of sleep each night. This resource is important because it explains the negative side of not getting enough sleep, and the importance of sleep studies that can help clarify the most effective way to gain sleep.

Understanding sleep habits is crucial to understanding how humans function most effectively, but there are several withdrawals of sleep studies performed in labs, which is why many of the studies are not ideal. Sleep is vulnerable to subjective error. Some of the measurements, such as the EEG, have established the divergence between subjective and objective evaluations of sleep. This source is relevant because it verifies the issues with sleep studies done in laboratories.

Till Roenneberg, a chronobiologist at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, thinks a global “human sleep project” could solve some of the mysteries and problems people have with sleep. Roenneberg points out that part of the reason scientists can’t say for sure how much sleep we need or when we need it is due to the fact that most sleep studies are done in laboratories. His radical solution involves a $30 million global human sleep project that would include online logs of the sleep habits of millions of volunteers as well as DNA tests to derive the origin of those habits.

An article on the human sleep project, as defined by Till Roenneberg delves into the details of the reasons why the sleep project is needed and how we are affected by loss of sleep. On average people are getting 1-2 hours less of sleep each night as opposed to their ancestors 50-100 years ago. Additionally, a graph displays the issue of losing sleep in that many people oversleep on free days and under-sleep on workdays, which causes them to experience “social jet lag.” 

With an internet-based platform, the human sleep project would allow for more realistic data since factors typically held constant in a lab would now be revealed. The problem, Roenneberg explains, is that $30 million for an undervalued field is a large amount of money to obtain. Yet, many benefits could come from a world-wide sleep project, as proposed by Till Roenneberg. People would be outfitted with a number of different sensors to track their sleep patterns in real-time, and as an added bonus the participants would be given feedback from their own data. This would encourage more people to participate, which would make for a more accurate study. This study would truly capture real-life behaviors, not just studies done in laboratories.

Due to the amount of sleep people are losing, it is crucial that we eliminate the effects of poor sleeping patterns like social jet lag and insomnia. The best current idea for understanding sleep behavior is Till Roenneberg’s “Sleep Project,” since sleep studies conducted in laboratories are less than ideal. By accurately logging sleep patterns, Roenneberg would conceptualize humans’ circadian rhythm as it applies to sleep habits, the ineffectiveness of a complete 8 hours of sleep, and the benefits of napping in order to improve productivity, health, and quality of life.

















Sources:

"Chronobiology: The Human Sleep Project." Nature (2013): n. pag. 26 June 2013. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.

"Funders and Founders Notes." Funders and Founders Notes. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.

Genetically Modified Foods Justify Picky Eating

Image Found: HERE on Oct. 7, 2013

In the 1990s Calgene, a California based company, created the first genetically modified food product to hit shelves in the United States, the Flavr Savr Tomato. The nontraditional tomato, which contained a gene that allowed it to last much longer than your average tomato, instantly captured the nation’s attention. Since then, technology regarding genetically modified food and plant biotechnology has been chugging along, promising to make our lives easier, healthier, and just plain better. Genetically modified foods could provide environmental, social, and scientific benefits, and we should continue to research them. However, such foods also pose significant environmental and health risks, ranging from a possible loss of biodiversity to the accidental creation of toxic substances in our food, and to ensure consumer safety we must research these risks at the same rapid pace as genetic modification itself.


Scientists create genetically modified crops and organisms using genetic engineering, and it all starts at the most basic level with an organism’s DNA, or their genetic traits. Simply speaking, they can use this process of biotechnology to take genes that produce desirable traits in one plant and basically give them to another, thereby giving the second plant a trait that it doesn’t naturally possess (Job 1106). Companies like Rothamsted Research and Monsanto conduct research in the quickly growing genetic modification field. Rothamsted, a United Kingdom based company, has been around nearly 170 years, making it “the longest running agricultural research station in the world.” Despite seemingly intense public outcry, since May 2012 Rothamsted has been piloting research regarding genetically modified wheat with a given trait to resist bothersome aphids, or bugs (“Misplaced Protest”). Another company, Monsanto, most recently made headlines when genetically modified wheat was found in Oregon this past summer. From 1998 to 2004 Monsanto experimented with this exact wheat, which contained a gene making it resistant to the herbicide Roundup, but the project was eventually discarded. According to a New York Times article, the use of plant biotechnology has continued to increase and now includes the genetic modification of soybeans, maize, cotton, corn, canola, and more.
Proponents of genetic modification argue that these crops have the ability to make a tremendous positive impact. Kendall Powell, CEO of General Mills, defends these foods, saying they are not only safe to consume, but could also have a positive environmental effects. The second part of Powell’s statement could be proven true. Growing genetically modified foods naturally resistant to pesky, unwanted insects reduces the need for insecticides, which are harmful to the atmosphere (“Misplaced Protests”). The European Oilseed Rape plant, which is used in numerous ways including cooking and even making soap, illustrates this claim. According to an BBC News Article, Rothamsted Research modified the plant using food coloring to create bright red petals, which deter insects, thereby working toward the elimination of insecticides. Perhaps the most effective argument for genetically modified foods is the assertion that by creating them we can feed third world countries’ growing populations while providing needed nutritional benefits to their citizens. (“Misplaced Protests”). Rothamsted’s overall goals sound promising, with objectives to drastically increase wheat output over the next twenty years, develop energy crops that can absorb more carbon dioxide, improve foods’ nutritional value, and devise a sustainable agricultural system, or a system that supports our needs while still maintaining a healthy environment.

Naturally yellow Oilseed Rape fields.  Image Credit: Mark Härtl

Despite an array of conceivable, encouraging effects of genetically modified food, we must ask ourselves this: are they safe for consumption? It is meant to be food, and what good is a food that we cannot safely eat? Opponents of these foods occasionally call them “frankenfood,” claiming they are unnatural (Stone 384). Many genetically modified foods are not yet deemed safe for human consumption, but are perfectly fine for animal consumption. However, the article “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods” poses the following question: “..if they are not considered safe for human consumption why should they be approved for animals?” (Dona and Ioannis 164). For years scientists have used animals to test new discoveries’ possible influences on human health, so the effects regarding genetically modified foods between humans and animals could be similar. Moreover, some animals we eat have been fed genetically modified food, possibly leading any negative effects straight into our bodies. Thus, it is important to know genetically modified foods’ impact on animals (Dona and Ioannis 164). Remember the Flavr Savr Tomato by Calgene that I mentioned earlier? Well, rats fed the tomato later developed stomach erosion and necrosis. The mortality rates among the rats also increased, seven out of forty died within two weeks, with little to no other logical explanation (Dona and Ioannis 170). Genetically modified corn led to an eighty percent drop in the birthrates of piglets and the development of significantly smaller kidneys in rats (Dona and Ioannis 170). Increased anti-nutrients found in these foods may also cause infertility in sheep and cattle. (Dona and Ioannis 165). Major concerns for humans include the fear of severe allergic reactions and the accidental creation of toxic substances (Dona and Ioannis 165).


While possible health effects are the top concern when talking about genetically modified foods, environmental risks cannot be ignored. Such risks include significant damage to traditional, or non-modified, crops. Even the slightest mistake might lead to the creation of “superweeds,” which could kill off these crops. Contamination of nearby traditional crops could result in a loss of biodiversity, or the variety of differences in the same crop (Boulter 2). It remains undecided whether or not genetically modified foods’ possible positive environmental impacts outweigh the possible negative ones.


The genetic modification process continues to persist forward at an alarmingly rapid pace. Now, scientists and food industry companies have modified 93% of soybeans and 88% of corn; however, as consumers we don’t realize this because it mostly ends up, unlabeled, in processed foods. Recently, a Washington State ballot initiative seeks to make it a requirement for all products containing genetically modified foods to be labeled. Big businesses, like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Bayer, and BASF, have contributed $11 million to stop the law from being passed. If these genetically modified foods are so safe and wonderful, why don’t their creators want them labeled? What could they be trying to hide? Despite very momentous dangers involved with the creation and consumption of genetically modified foods, those in the industry continue to wholeheartedly deny such risks.

Protestors in Indiana call for the labeling of GM food in supermarkets.
Image Credit: Alexis Baden-Mayer

The article “Moral and Ethical Issues in Plant Biotechnology” argues that nothing is ever 100% safe (Straughan 164). However, shouldn’t we at least research these risks to ensure everyone’s safety? Genetically modified foods pose possible health and environmental consequences too substantial to ignore, and we should allocate intense efforts for researching possible hazards before we risk endangering the entire food supply.

Works Cited

(Below are citations for sources where it would be difficult to provide a direct link to a specific article or page. All other sources are directly linked through the text)

Boulter, D. "Plant Biotechnology: Fact and Public Perception." Phytochemistry. 40.1 (1995): 1-9. Web. 27 Sep. 2013 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003194229500207N>.


Dona, Artemis, and Ioannis Arvanitoyannis. "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods." Food Science and Nutrition. 49.2 (2008): 164-175. Web. 15 Sep. 2013 <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10408390701855993>.


Job, Dominique. "Plant Biotechnology in Agriculture." Biochimie. 83.11 (2002): 1105-1110. Web. 27 Sep. 2013. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300908402000135>.


"Misplaced Protest." Nature. 485.7397 (2012): 147-148. Web. 15 Sep. 2013 <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/485147b.html>.


Stone, Glenn. "The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops." Annual Review of Anthropology. 39. (2010): 381-400. Web. 27 Sep. 2013 <http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105058>.


Straughan, Roger. "Moral and Ethical Issues in Plant Biotechnology." Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 3.2 (2000): 163-165. Web. 15 Sep <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369526699000564#>.