Biotech, Science, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Science

Biotech

Biotech “I’m beginning to think that what I like best about these particular biotech potatoes, what makes them different – is that I have this choice. And until I know more, I choose not” (Pollan 475). After many months of tending to his New Leafs, and numerous hours of gaining knowledge of them, Michael Pollan still chooses not to consume his New Leafs after harvest. Pollan goes to show in his writing the benefits and risks of farming biotech crops. He included the perspectives of conventional farmers, organic farmers, the biotech industry, advocacy groups, and government agencies in his discussion, but he failed to mention how we as consumers are affected by this new trend of biotech crops. Pollan, as a consumer, in the end chose not to eat the New Leafs, let us evaluate his decision. As consumers, moral issues do not concern us as much, but rather it’s the issue of the price, quality, and availability of the goods. First, let us examine the price of the goods. Since the New Leafs are equipped with pesticides and other toxins at birth, they eliminate the need of additional spraying of these chemicals which are currently the bulk of the cost of farming. “The economics are daunting: a potato farmer in south-central Idaho will spend roughly $1,965 an acre (mainly on chemicals, electricity, water and seed) to grow a crop that, in a good year, will earn him maybe $1,980” (Pollan 468). Now as we eliminate the need to spray these chemicals in costly procedures, in theory the price of the potatoes when the hit they market should be cheaper than average potatoes. But the farmers, who once were barely making profit off of their crops, could also decide to claim these savings for themselves. Even if the farmers wanted to lower the prices, it does not necessarily mean that Monsanto would want to also. “That is, the potatoes I will harvest come August are mine to eat or sell, but their genes remain the intellectual property of Monsanto, protected under numerous United States patents…” (Pollan 460) The New Leafs are patented by Monsanto, giving farmers only the rights to grow one generation of these potatoes, which means that the farmers will have to constantly come back to Monsanto year after year. As the popularity of the New Leafs increase so does the earnings of Monsanto. Since Monsanto is currently the only producer of the New Leafs, and has a patented right to do so, no one else can supply these plants. Consumers have already seen what had happened with Microsoft and the software industry. Many of us would not want it to happen again, especially not with the agriculture. I think the ultimate concern of the consumers will be the final price of the biotech foods on the market. After all, all consumers are economical and we often opt for the lower priced goods. Second, the quality of the goods. “When I called the E.P.A. and asked if the agency had tested my Bt potatoes for safety as a human food, the answer was…not exactly. It seems the E.P.A. works from the assumption that if the original potato is safe and the Bt protein added to it is safe, then the whole New Leaf package is presumed to be safe” (Pollan 467). Although consumers are economical, I do not think many of us would choose to buy a good that has not been assured safe to eat even if it is being offered at a reduced price. Pollan as a consumer did not trust the judgments of the supposedly reliable government agencies and refused to eat the potatoes he had grown. All our lives, as consumers we have relied on the judgments of the Food and Drugs Administration to tell us whether the quality of the good is safe or harmful to us. When the F.D.A. or the E.P.A. can no longer assure us the quality of the food we are about to consume, then we are no longer protected against anything we eat. “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food…our interest is in selling as much o f it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job” (Pollan 468). When the sole motivation of food-producing company is to crank out as many of its products as it can and let the F.D.A. be the judge of the quality of the good instead of pre-testing it for safety in their company, we as consumers begin to have doubt for the safety of that company’s goods. When the company is represented with quotes such as the one listed above, consumers doubt the honesty of the company and therefore turn away from its products. “The real issue here, and one that you ignore, is sustainable agriculture and the growing food demand here and abroad” (New York Times Magazine, 10/25/98). Monsanto in their reply still refuses to address the safety of their product, but instead leads the consumers to believe that they are working for a higher good. Monsanto believes that in order to achieve a higher goal, one such as ending world hunger, losing a few lives to unsafe products is a reasonable cost. As consumers, we care only about ourselves and refuse to see the big picture. Curing AIDS seems like a good idea but we won’t try unsafe medicines to get there. A big problem with biotech foods is that it needs to convince the public to purchase and consume the goods therefore creating demand. Monsanto needs to appeal to the consumers and not concentrate on the big picture. “…On average, a single American farmer today grows enough food each year to feed 100 people. But this accomplishment has come at a price. The modern industrial farmer cannot achieve such yields without enormous amounts of chemical fertilizer, pesticide, machinery and fuel, a set of capital-intensive inputs, as they’re called, that saddle the farmer with debt, threaten his health, erode his soil and destroy its fertility, pollute the ground water and compromise the safety of the foods we eat” (Pollan 460). With the introduction of the New Leafs into the soil, farmers can easily achieve the productivity status quo without the use of the “capital-intensive inputs.” Therefore, batches of New Leafs will be readily available in the markets and all over the world. Farmers will be driven to grow these biotech foods so much so that the problem of world hunger may be solved. Farmers today are unable to outgrow the productivity status quo because doing so would put them in debt and ultimately destroy the soil they live off of, hence destroying their livelihood. But with biotech foods they can grow as much as they can afford to buy from Monsanto and produce enough of these goods on the market which might in turn lower the prices for the consumers since they are so readily available. The excess crops can then be stored for later use, in case of a drought or natural disaster later on. Also, as mentioned before, the problem of world hunger may finally be solved because the supply of food might finally exceed the demand for food, thus there will be enough food for everybody. As a consumer my concerns of biotech foods are largely different than those the concerns of the conventional farmers, government agencies, or the environmentalists, I focus more on the issues that affects me the most. So unless biotech foods can be guaranteed safe, offered at low prices, and readily available, consumers will not tolerate it. And so far it has not been able to meet these requirements and therefore I as a consumer stand with Pollan and chooses not to eat it until I know more about it. Bibliography:

Word Count: 1334