Frankenfood has Potential, but Isn't Ideal

In his piece "Can Frankenfood Save The Planet," Jon Rauch makes the argument that genetically modified food has the potential to be embraced by environmentalists and societies around the world as the future of agriculture, that can sustain ballooning populations. I must agree with his first point, that agriculture inevitably affects the environment. We have known throughout our history as agricultural beings. In general, I think his piece makes really good points. I think that if it comes down to the desperate situation where we don't have enough food to go around (something I don't really buy: we have enough food, we're just not sharing it globally) to support the world's population, genetically engineered agriculture may be the way to go. As it stands, however, I think that there are objections which should compel us to resist embracing it as the next best thing to happen to humanity since fire.

First, I would argue that genetically modified food may in fact be very different from other foods. This relates to the "conventional" (industrial/high-input) agriculture vs. organic agriculture debate. It has been found that food grown organically has higher nutritional value than food grown "conventionally." I believe that the food created through genetic modification may in fact turn out to be very different from the food to which we are accustomed, which means we wouldn't be substituting our production methods, but instead re-designing our diets. Second, I would argue that genetically engineering crops to be able to grow in polluted or otherwise non-ideal conditions (such as salinized soil) is a technological fix that allows for us to ignore the roots of the pollution in the first place. If we can get away with destroying land because Monsanto will make some corn that can grow there anyway, we have no incentive to not destroy the land in the first place. Third, I don't believe that GMOs will feed the planet. Rauch seems to want to address this, but doesn't fully articulate it. He acknowledges that the incentives for created GMOs are purely economic, and that farmers in areas of the world who most desperately need food most likely cannot cough up the cash to warrant the research creating these GMOs would take. Inequitable food distribution will only be worsened by the universal application of more technology to agriculture, because those with the money to support biotech already have access to food.

Lastly, this is not a personal objection I really have, but I think someone might bring up: GMOs may allow us to manipulate natural limits to growth that would prevent our population from exploding and thus are unethical because they create the potential for even more overpopulation.