Developing a considerate perspective on the environmental risks of GMOs

The following summary was written by senior Kira Rahn.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aslaksen, I. , Myhr, A. I. (2007). “The worth of a wildflower”: Precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs. Ecological Economics, 60, 489-497.

            The topic of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) tends to be a polarizing topic for most people. A quick Google search illustrates this; within the first ten links, there are two prominent websites—the Non-GMO Project’s website, and the Facts About GMOs’ website. The first page lists GMO facts discouraging their usage including statistics, the later lists the benefits of GMOs with links to scientific studies. The argument relating environmental risks and safety with regards to GMOs is by no means resolved.

            After a bioethical nature walk across the Hardangervidda National Park in Norway, a group out of Oslo, Norway, including Iulie Aslaksen and Anne Ingeborg Myhr, went about describing a way in which the environmental risks of GM crops could be better evaluated. They developed their perspective by considering scientific, economic, and social aspects, as well as a cost-benefit analysis; their suggested implementation of this evaluation largely involves stakeholder dialogue.

Photo of Hardangervidda National Park courtesy of Wikipedia.

            Scientists generally agree on the idea of sustainability—that resources should be used in such a way that the state of the world is not worse for future generations. However, GMOs have both positive and negative impacts on an ecologically sustainable future. Herbicide resistance, adverse effects to non-target organisms, the possibility of GMOs becoming invasive species, and the loss of biodiversity are all valid concerns for a sustainable Earth. On the other hand, GMOs can reduce pesticide and herbicide use, aid in soil conservation, and increase the nutritional quality of food. As with most issues, there are pros and cons.

            Economically, GMOs present the issue of intellectual property and the necessity of buying certain seeds to reap the benefits. This overlaps with social aspects, such as aiding developing countries by providing them with this technology; however, this would change the cultural diet of indigenous peoples. Additionally, the concern of the public is an important consideration; they observe, “If early adoption of a new technology is highly profitable, and there is scientific controversy about long-term environmental and health effects, it is likely that public concern is relatively high.” The two opposing views noted in the GMO websites listed above illustrate this, and aid in understanding the need for widespread public understanding of peer-reviewed research.

            A cost-benefit analysis would be a useful way to develop a perspective on GMO usage. However, the value of nature is difficult to quantify. Some researchers have tried to do so, like a study funded by the German, UK, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian and Japanese governments, which estimated the total global ecosystem value to be $125 trillion a year (Costanza, et al. 2014). However, Aslaksen and Myhr argue that the price cannot be determined for lost services—how would one put a value on something that can never be restored to its original state? GMOs, and other products in general, also do not utilize full-cost pricing. This means that even if GMOs are cheaper and make food more affordable in the short term, the value does not account for any environmental risks that they may be affecting in the long-term. This all leads to a fairly theoretical and inaccurate cost-benefit analysis.

            So, then, what do we do with this multi-faceted issue? How do we develop well-informed policies? Aslaksen and Myhr believe that open stakeholder dialogue will aid in this. Stakeholders include everyone concerned with GMOs: scientific experts, industries, lay people, consumers, activists, and politicians. It is recognized that everyone will have their own opinions and worldviews as to how the Earth should be utilized and treated. The scientists can provide a risk assessment and forward-thinking unbiased environmental information. Industries must be able to communicate with those that they sell to about responsibility and profitability. Consumers and lay people can voice their concern for safety and accessibility, meanwhile holding industries and politicians accountable for their actions. Open dialogue can enrich all viewpoints, thereby allowing all parties to develop a considerate perspective on the global environmental risks of GMOs.

Supporting Citations    

Aslaksena, I. , Myhrb, A. I. (2007). “The worth of a wildflower”: Precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs. Ecological Economics, 60, 489-497.

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I. , Farber, S., Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152-158.

The Facts About GMOs. Website From https://factsaboutgmos.org/

GMO Facts. Website. From http://www.nongmoproject.org/gmo-facts/