on their development. Although the plants are legally considered
virtually equivalent to conventional crops and therefore require no
testing, they can nonetheless be patented. By using these genetically modifi ed plants, farmers could actually
use less pesticides and help the environment. Farmers were
generally enthusiastic about these new crops because they don’t
have to spend so much money spraying, and their production costs
went down dramatically. Of course, they had to buy the seeds from
the manufacturers, but they benefi ted immensely.
Another consideration is that if all of these genetically modifi ed
crops do well and increase yields even more, that might have an
unforeseen impact on the soil—perhaps completely depleting
its nutrients, which would demand more chemical fertilizers and
irrigation. Just the same way that monocultures disrupt the natural
ecosystem, we have no idea how these new organisms might affect
insects, birds, animals, and humans as part of that ecosystem.
Defenders of genetically modifi ed foods say that if the population
continues to rise, we are going to have to fi nd ways to increase the
food supply to meet the demand, so they are making a humanitarian
claim that only with genetically modifi ed foods will we be able to
feed poor nations in the future. Assuming that the world population
continues to rise, it means that we will have to continually fi nd
new ways to increase the food supply, and short of growing food
in space or harvesting krill from the ocean fl oor, our resources are
necessarily limited.
Another factor is that the new technologies will have to be
purchased from the advanced nations or, more specifi cally, from
a few corporations that hold the patents. Diversifying agriculture
around the world might be a much better way to supply necessary
nutrients, and it also means that one blight wouldn’t wipe out the
single crop being grown everywhere.