GMO Poem in Two Voices

We Grow Corn

I grow corn I grow corn. . .

on thousands of acres.

on a couple of acres.

It goes to feed livestock It goes to feed. . .

that gets fed to people. . . . people.

My herbicide sprays from

automated nozzles. . .

My big-leafed squash

killing the weeds. keeps down the weeds.

On the organic shelves

shoppers look twice at . . .

Government subsidies lower

the prices. the prices.

Pollen floats on the wind.

I watch what I plant,

but what grows in the end

might not be what I intend

It may be just .05% of my crop, but

I grow GMOs. I grow GMOs.

I don’t avoid it. I can’t avoid it.

It’s the way of the future.

Shh, don’t tell my consumers.

Being part of the system

makes life easier for me.

But even if I’m not totally GMO-free

that doesn’t preclude my

sustainability.

Wait, what is that weed?!

.

GMO Creation Myth

Long ago, cornfields were just a swirling chaos.

Then came chemical and agricultural companies: Calgene, Monsanto, Dow, and many others. They looked at the cornfields and knew that they could bring order to them. So, they found scientists and the scientists shot new genes into the DNA of the corn.

The corn grew strong and golden and pesticide-resistant. The companies were pleased with the corn. Many farmers bought the corn, and their fields stretched as far as the eye could see.

However, some people mistrusted the companies and the corn. They heard about a few mistakes that the companies had made and decided that everything the companies made must be bad. They ate only organic food. The sun set on the fields of golden corn.

The companies saw that these people had turned against them, so they sent out their public relations staff to convince people that all their products were good. Soon, instead of looking at each type of corn for its benefits and faults, the companies and the people fought back and forth over whether all were good or all were bad. The world fell into confusion and conflicting information ruled over the land.

GMO Limericks

Eaten

There once was some corn from Monsanto

that couldn’t be sold at El Rancho.

The GMOs cried,

“We’re not bad inside,

you’ll eat us in Coke if not nachos!”

Conflicted

We’ve read all the papers and looked at the facts,

but we can’t make choices when laws are so lax.

Are GMOs good?

We can’t tell, but we should.

Why has transparency fallen through the cracks?

GMO Expository Essay

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, have spread throughout the world since they were first planted in U.S. soil in 1996 (Q and A). There are currently nineteen genetically modified crops approved by the USDA, eight of which are produced in the U.S (Johnson and O’Connor). Sometimes dubbed “frankenfoods”, gmos have managed to engender fear and distrust from their inception. They have been accused of causing autism, cancer, and diabetes. While scientific research continues to illegitimize the majority of these human health worries, GMOs still face steep opposition, and that opposition is not totally unfounded (Freedman). The ways that genes interact with each other is still not completely understood, and neither are the ways that new plants might affect their surrounding ecosystems. However, the potential problem with GMOs lies not with the artificiality and unknown risks of gene transfer, but with the artificiality and known risks of monoculture that apply to both the field and the societal view of GMOs.

Monoculture is the practice of planting large swaths of land with a single variety of food crops (Altieri). It contradicts one of the most important qualities of a healthy environment, biodiversity. The concept of biodiversity is that the earth contains a large variety of species, ecosystems, combinations of genes, and ecosystem services, like filtering water or taking in carbon dioxide. This incredible variety means that each part of the environment balances another. An ecosystem with less biodiversity is more vulnerable to severe injury from a single disease or natural disaster. In agriculture, greater biodiversity can mean that there will be varieties of crops to match a variety of climates and to combat a variety of pests and diseases. Growing different crop species together is another example of how biodiversity can be applied to agriculture. This is called polyculture and can help combat pests, as well as prevent the soil from being depleted of nutrients. Polyculture has dominated agriculture since humans first began to domesticating plants in around 10,000 B. C. E. (Baker). However, in the 50 years since the Green Revolution, the norm has become high-input monoculture: using large amounts of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides to grow one crop at a time (Miller and Spoolman). Monoculture is efficient, but fragile as well as unsustainable. On average in the U.S. it takes ten units of fossil fuel energy to put one unit of food energy on the table (Miller and Spoolman). This is not a practical way to produce food over the long run.

GMOs have the potential to become the pinnacle of monoculture, both from an agricultural and a societal viewpoint. Large chemical companies patent the genes they place in various species. This makes it illegal for farmers to save seed from the best of their crops and plant it the next year (Food, Inc.). In the past, saving seed was responsible for many small genetic changes that created new varieties particularly suited to a certain region. Although many farmers were already buying seed from agricultural companies long before GMOs became mainstream, GMOs have greatly increased the numbers of seed saving farmers (Charles). What this means is that instead of hundreds of thousands of farmers contributing to greater agricultural biodiversity, there are less than a dozen companies attempting to do the same job. For example, Monsanto, a chemical company, creates many different types of GMOs; more than 90% of the corn and soybeans in America, the U.S.'s two largest food crops, come from Monsanto (Johnson and O’Connor). With so few varieties of key food crops, the American food supply becomes more and more vulnerable to a single parasite or disease, as well as more and more controlled by a few companies.

Even the public debate over GMOs has the ring of a monoculture. According to the Monsanto website all GMOs that have gone through some sort of regulatory process are safe in all ways, while according to every hysterical news article published after some sort of health scare proclaims that all GMOs are evil, rather than blaming a specific pesticide (Commonly Asked Questions, Harmon). Every new variety of GMO has its own potential health risks to both people and the environment. Some of the most important risks include toxicity, ability to cause an allergic reaction, nutritional side effects, ability for genes to spread into conventional crops or wild varieties (FAQs on GMOs). When crops are genetically modified to either produce a certain pesticide, or be resistant to an herbicide, the risks become potentially a lot higher. Now, the risks include the possibility of killing non-target organisms and the effects of pesticide buildup in the soil. These risks vary widely depending on the GMO. An apple that is genetically modified to stay white when cut has much fewer risks associated with it than with corn that is genetically modified to be resistant to an herbicide, because human-grown apples are replicated by grafting, while corn pollen travels on the wind. This means that it is much easier for the GMO corn genes to spread. Also, the apple will not help to create superweeds, nor will it encourage farmers to use more herbicide. Therefore, to recognize no difference between the risks associated with the apple and the corn is to put on blinders to both dangers and benefits.

Genetic modification is not a problem nor is it always a solution. It is a tool that has the potential to create many good things, but must be used carefully. The best way to help ensure the safety of the American food supply is to not rely on any one thing, whether that is a company, a variety of corn, or an ideology. Polyculture in either agriculture or ideas is not always easy or economically efficient, but it is sustainable. For something, like food production, that needs to last forever, more sustainable is better.

Works Cited

Altieri, Miguel A. "Modern Agriculture: Ecological Impacts and the Possibilities for Truly Sustainable Farming." Agroecology in Action. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 May 2015.

Baker, Donald G. "A Brief Excursion into Three Agricultural Revolutions." Kuehnast Lecture. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 May 2015.

Charles, Dan. "Top Five Myths of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted." NPR. NPR, 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 19 May 2015.

"Commonly Asked Questions about the Food Safety of GMOs." Monsanto. Monsanto, n.d. Web. 19 May 2015.

Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. 2008. Film.

Freedman, David H. "Are Engineered Foods Evil?" Scientific American (2013): n. pag. Print.

Harmon, Amy. "A Lonely Quest for Facts about GMOs." New York Times 4 Jan. 2014: n. pag. Print.

Johnson, Dave, and Shiobhan O'Connor. "These Charts Show Every Genetically Modified Food People Already Eat in the U.S." TIme 30 Apr. 2015: n. pag. Print.

"Pocket K No. 1: Q and A About Genetically Modified Crops." International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. ISAA, n.d. Web. 19 May 2015.

Pollan, Michael. The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World. N.p.: n.p., 2001. Print.

Stokstad, Erik. "Can Biotech and Organic Farmers Get Along?" Science 8 Apr. 2011: n. pag. Print.

GMO Cover Letter

In his exploration of plant domestication, The Botany of Desire, Michael Pollan chooses four plants that match up with the four human desires that brought about their domestication: sweetness for apples, beauty for tulips, intoxication for marijuana, and control for potatoes. While the first three are more or less straight forward, Pollan takes a bit of a leap with potatoes as a representation of control. Although he does deal with their role in providing the Irish with control over their food supply, he mainly uses potatoes as the example crop for control as expressed through genetic modification.

After taking environmental science for a year, this was the part of the book that piqued my interest the most. We had talked about GMOs briefly in class, but I thought that I really did not have the whole picture. I was less interested in the potential health risks of GMOs, which we had covered in class, and more in how they contributed to the American agricultural system. I ended up focusing on the idea of monoculture, growing a single crop variety, and how GMOs are particularly suited to monocultures both in the field, and in the societal conception of them. I tried to balance my explorations of both the real and the metaphorical monoculture in my various genres. The poem in two voices and the painting focus on monoculture in agriculture, while the limericks and the creation myth layer the perception of GMOs on top of that.

The Problem of Monoculture

In his exploration of plant domestication, The Botany of Desire, Michael Pollan chooses four different plants that match up with the four different human desires that brought about their domestication: sweetness for apples, beauty for tulips, intoxication for marijuana, and control for potatoes. While the first three are more or less straight forward, Pollan takes a bit of a leap with potatoes as a representation of control. Although he does deal with their role in providing the irish with control over their food supply, he mainly uses potatoes as the example crop for control as expressed through genetic modification.
Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, have spread throughout the world since they were first planted in U.S. soil in 1996. There are currently nineteen genetically modified crops approved by the USDA, eight of which are produced in the U.S. Sometimes dubbed “frankenfoods”, gmos have managed to engender fear and distrust from their inception. They have been accused of causing autism, cancer, and diabetes. While scientific research continues to illegitamize the majority of these human health worries, GMOs still face steep opposition, and that opposition is not totally unfounded. The ways that genes interact with each other is still not completely understood, and neither are the ways that new plants might affect their surrounding ecosystems. However, the potential problem with GMOs lies not with the artificiality and unknown risks of gene transfer, but with the artificiality and known risks of monoculture.

What it all comes down to is the concept of biodiversity: the earth contains a large variety of species, ecosystems, combinations of genes, and ecosystem services, like filtering water or taking in carbon dioxide. An ecosystem with less biodiversity is more vulnerable to severe injury from a single disease or natural disaster. In agriculture, greater biodiversity means that there will be varieties of crops to match a variety of climates and to combat a variety of pests and diseases. Growing different crop species together is one example of how biodiversity can be applied to agriculture. This is called polyculture and can help combat pests, as well as prevent the soil from being depleted of nutrients. In the 50 years since the Green Revolution, the norm has become high-input monoculture: using large amounts of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides to grow one crop at a time. Monoculture is efficient, but fragile as well as unsustainable. On average in the U.S. it takes ten units of fossil fuel energy to put one unit of food energy on the table.

GMOs have the potential to become the pinnacle of monoculture, both from an agricultural and a societal viewpoint. Monsanto, a chemical company, creates many different types of GMOs; 93% of the soybeans in America come from Monsanto. This is an example of a successful monopoly of both the soybean industry, and the soybean genes. If soybeans dwindle down to just a few varieties, the American food supply will be vulnerable to a single parasite or disease. Even the public debate over GMOs has the ring of a monoculture. When millions of bees die in Canada beside a freshly planted field of GMO corn, the genetic modification itself was blamed rather than the pesticide.

I know I start to trail off a bit at the end, but here is a word vomit-esque idea of where I want to go with my essay.

The Botany of Desire

In his nonfiction book, The Botany of Desire, Michael Pollan turns traditional views of the difference between natural and artificial selection on their head by considering whether the human domestication of plants is really any different than the mutualistic relationship between a bee and a flower. He chooses four different plants, and traces how they have evolved to satisfy four basic human desires, in order to further the spread of their genes. These plants are the apple, the tulip, marijuana, and the potato. Respectively, they satisfy the basic human desires for sweetness, beauty, intoxication, and control. Almost as much philosophy as biology, in each section Pollan explores the definition of each desire as well as its relationship to the domestication of each given plant.

No matter which plant he focuses on, Pollan ties his ideas together with his own “golden thread”: the balancing act between agriculture and wilderness as symbolized by the Greek gods Apollo and Dionysus. Apollo is the “god of clear boundaries, order, and light, of man’s firm control over nature” while Dionysus is a “able to dissolve ‘all the rigid and hostile barriers’ between nature and culture” (37). With the apple, Pollan mostly focuses on Dionysus. He calls John Chapman, the real basis for the folk hero Johnny Appleseed, the “American Dionysus”. Chapman lived alone in the wilderness, but spoke effortlessly with all people, and brought the American settlers the gift of the cider orchard just as Dionysus was said to have given the ancient Greeks wine (36).

Moving on to tulips and marijuana, Pollan explains how the combination of order and spontaneity create a greater whole than one quality on its own. Tulips are an iconic flower. Pollan describes them as “so many blobs of pigment on a stick” and says that a real tulip matches the idea of a tulip that people carry in their heads more than any other flower (62). At the same time, the most beautiful tulips are those that are “broken”, the word growers use for the beautiful feathering effect that contrasts with the main tulip color. It is this combination of orderly expectation and sudden contrast that makes the tulip so beautiful: “Great art is born when Apollonian form and Dionysian ecstasy are held in balance,when our dreams of order and abandon come together” (106). Likewise, Pollan discusses the improvements to marijuana growing in the last few years. He visits a greenhouse in Amsterdam where he sees dozens of dwarf clones packed together with precise allocations of soil and light and thinks “ There was also something bizarrely anomalous about this totalitarian hothouse, with its strict monoculture of genetically identical plants growing in lockstep-- such ferocious Apollonian control in a garden ostensibly devoted to Dionysus” (137). In this case, the balance is temporal. Strict order during growing results in a greater breaking of boundaries later on.

According to Pollan, the genetically engineered potato is the closest humans have come to escaping that Dionysian wilderness altogether, and he does not think that is a good thing: “Apollo is the god, then, of monoculture, whether of plants or of people. And thought Apollo has surely had many more exalted manifestations that this one, he is here too, in every bag of McDonald’s french fries” (229). How far is too far, when it comes to the control humans have over their food, is the most fascinating question The Botany of Desire asks, in my opinion. For my research I want to continue to learn about genetically modified crops and what the effects are of so much control.