Hunger in America is unacceptable, especially because we as a country have more tools than any other country to fight it. We have social programs to fight it, and it’s unfortunate that there are many who would do away with them. People are afraid people will take advantage of them, and that may be true. However, the mantra of the US Army Rangers is “No one gets left behind,” and I feel that applies completely here. However, there is a way to feed the poor and less fortunate without social programs. Its potential is unlimited, but America seems quite content with malnutrition and obesity, because we turn our noses up at the thought of Genetically modified fruits and vegetables. Its opponents are well-versed in the art of manipulation; taking advantage of America’s short attention span, and it’s lust for a “sound byte” that explains everything in 10 second or less. I’m sure that if the food insecure in America were given a choice between GM produce, or eating ramen noodles for month after month, they would choose a tomato that’s much easier to produce, and cheaper than normal. But others, especially people that aren’t food insecure and can afford to buy normal produce, think that it’s their place to make that decision for the food insecure. What those people need to understand is that a genetically modified ear of corn cannot be treated like a genetically modified tomato, because they’ve been modified in different ways. So, potential risks in (humoring the anti GMO people for a sec) veggie A should not make one assume that these risks are present in genetically modified fruit B. People should also understand that even if there were risks present in some GM produce, humans would only be affected negatively after eating these foods for years and years. Exposure for a short amount of time, or even longer amounts of time cannot immediately affect humans.
And, no matter what the effects, present or made-up, I’m damn sure that it’s better than starving, or disease caused by malnutrition.
The process for modifying a fruit or a vegetable genetically varies widely between each plant. No two species of fruit or vegetable is altered in the same way. Corn is modified to naturally produce its own insecticide, protecting it from insects like the European corn borer, which is responsible for $1B crop damage a year. Potatoes are genetically altered to resist the infamous Potato Blight that caused the Potato Famine of the 1840s in Ireland. One is for insects, the other for a fungus. These are two different gene modifications, and they should not be treated like they are the same thing. Yet they are treated like they are the same thing, because people want a simple explanation that completely rationalizes a complex question. And opponents of GMOs are more than happy to give the public what they want. The point made here is that thinking that modifying a food genetically, no matter how, is bad is an egregious falsification.
Let’s humor the opposers of GMOs for a second: Say, eating genetically modified asparagus can increase one’s risk for Alzheimer’s Disease (seriously, fuck asparagus). The media reports on this like crazy, but a spin is put on it to induce even more fear. They make it seem like eating one spear of asparagus will guarantee you’ll be drooling, forgetting where you are or who you are by age 55. The fine print here is that that risk (theoretically, mind you. GM asparagus doesn’t do this) doesn’t become present overnight, Something like that requires a long time of exposure, and in high amounts, too. For example, did you know that bananas are radioactive? All the potassium that bananas famously have, some of that is Potassium-40, an unstable isotope. I’ve eaten bananas before, yet I do not have a third eye growing out of my forehead. However, the workers who pick bananas for decades have a high risk of cancer. This is only because the workers were exposed to radioactivity for years and years. To clarify, I’m not saying in this paper that GM foods should be the same price as non-GMO foods, and that they should be widespread throughout the world. I’m saying that GM foods should be used to feed the poor. If someone has the need for food support, they shouldn’t be staying on it for 10 years, So they can eat the GM foods for say, 2 years, and when they can afford the normal produce, they buy that, and they are no longer exposed to the asparagus. What’s wrong with that?
I promise you, if I was dying of hunger and only had 20 minutes to live unless I ate something, but I was given the option to feast on a lavish meal that was laced with arsenic, you know I’d choose the feast. I’m dead either way, but I’ll live longer and enjoy myself more if I feast on the tainted meal. The point I’m trying to make here is that people will do anything to prevent themselves from starving. Nothing is worse than starving (except arsenic poisoning, but you get the point I was trying to make). People have eaten leather, bone, anything to combat hunger. GMOs aren’t even poisonous, so this makes this even more of a no brainer. Feed the malnutritioned and the starving with GMO produce. It’ll bring down prices for people who are obviously in poverty already, it can’t be assumed that all GMOs (if any) have risks associated with them, people don’t have to eat GMOs every day for the rest of their lives, and it’s better than starving, period. End of story.