Wesley Viola Professor James Leonard Expository Writing Research Paper

It is easy to think that organic and genetically modified foods are fundamentally different. The images that organic food evokes green, pastoral fields with farmers working in the dirt and cattle grazing under the sun could be no further removed from the images evoked by scientific term genetically modified organism which brings to mind a white, sterile laboratory filled with dangerous chemicals and strange tools. For many, closely tied to organic farming is a natural, wholesome goodness that is crucial for the health of both the individual and the larger environment and that the unnatural GMOs could not possibly provide. However appealingly simple it is, this understanding is largely unsupported by the science of the matter. The most basic mistake of this view is that the naturalness of something necessarily makes it safe and good. Traditional plants and methods that are given the label organic and regarded as safe and those untraditional plants and methods that are given the more alarming label genetically-modified are often chemically equivalent and therefore identical in their health and environmental effects. Not only is the departure from organic methods often safe, but non-organic practices also increase the fertility of the Earth and are far more sustainable than old methods. All things that are natural are not necessarily good. One can find many poisonous and carcinogenic plants taken from nature that are as harmful as

anything that could come from a lab. For centuries, natural oil distilled from the root of the sassafras plant was widely used to give soda, teas, candies, soaps, and perfumes the characteristic root beer fragrance and flavor. In 1960, this perfectly natural compound was found by the FDA to be a carcinogen and banned from use (Liu, TY). Just as natural things are not always benign, unnatural things are not always unhealthy. Often there is no chemical difference between things labeled organic and things labeled non-organic. For instance, although it might seem that natural manure and synthetic fertilizers are two very different things after all, one comes from a cow and the other from a factory both provide crops with the same nitrate ions that have the same biological functions. A Nobel-prize winning biologist writes, As far as plants are concerned, they cant tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter(Norman Borlaug). This chemical equivalence is also seen in comparisons between genetically modified and organic plants. There is a natural pesticide produced by a bacterium called Bacillus thurgiensis (Bt) that is considered by the Consumers Union to be more benign than many synthetic [chemical] pesticides; it is useful because it kills pest insects while not harming good insects like honeybees and ladybugs (Seeds of Change 43). Corn can be thoroughly sprayed with this pesticide and be labeled as organic, yet when the pesticide-producing genes of the bacterium are inserted into the corn, causing it to produce the exact same pesticide itself, it is alarmingly labeled genetically modified. There is virtually no difference between corn sprayed with

the Bt pesticide and the GM corn, yet many would be led to believe that the unnatural GM corn is in some way less healthy, or even harmful, when compared to the corn labeled organic. It is important to understand that natural and unnatural are loose terms themselves and that they make for unclear distinctions. Though a naturalist might favor organically grown corn because that is the way Mother Nature intended it to be, the corn we know today is very far removed from truly natural corn that existed before humans began selective breeding. The most natural corn today is the product of thousands of years of genetic modification (which is, essentially, selective breeding) that cultivators have put it through. By itself, this unnatural phenomenon has not seemed to ever bring about a health crisis, even with its long history. Non-organic farming methods are often not just chemically equivalent to organic methods, but they are also much more sustainable and realistic for the modern world. With the advent of synthetic fertilizers, agriculture no longer needed to rely on animals for their nitrogen-containing manure. This alternative, nonorganic source of nitrogen essentially raised the fertility of the Earth and made modern agriculture possible. Returning to traditional methods, to using cattle as a source of natural fertilizer, would not only be far more costly and tedious, but also would harm the environment. To sustain all of todays non-organic farms with organic practices, it would require an additional 5 to 6 billion head of cattle that would themselves need a huge amount of wild land to be sacrificed, likely leading to

deforestation (Norman Borlaug). Since cattle are not always raised where their manure is used, transportation becomes a problem in terms of fossil fuel emissions (whereas synthetic fertilizers are pure fixed nitrogen, manure is not, and therefore a percentage of its shipping weight would have extra, unimportant matter). Raising this many additional cattle would also substantially contribute to global warming and acid rain since they produce significant amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas and ammonia, a strong acidifier. Some argue that natural fertilizers should be used instead of chemical fertilizers because synthetic nitrogen is polluting the world. A proponent of this idea, Michael Pollan, writes: The flood of synthetic nitrogen has fertilized not just the farm fields but the forests and oceans, too, to the benefit some species (corn and algae being two of the beneficiaries) and to the detriment of countless others By fertilizing the world, we alter the planets composition of species and shrink its biodiversity (Pollan 3) Pollan writes that these are the environmental consequences for synthetic fixed nitrogen, but really these are the consequences for both unnatural and natural fixed nitrogen. Just as plants cannot distinguish the source of the nitrate ions that they are fed, algae and ecosystems also cannot tell the difference between nitrate ions from organic and non-organic sources. Since this is true, manure has just as much potential as chemical fertilizers to damage ecosystems. What matters is not the naturalness of the fertilizer but rather how it is used; excessive use of either natural manure or artificial fertilizer without measures taken to prevent runoff (such as covering the fertilizer with a layer of dirt or mulch) will harm the environment.

Non-organic crops and methods cannot be considered unhealthy or harmful just because they are unnatural. There are many cases, as with natural and unnatural fertilizers and GM and organic crops, where natural and unnatural things are chemically identical and therefore virtually the same in their health and environmental effects. When evaluating the safeness and healthfulness of organic versus non-organic foods, it is important to understand the complexity of the matter. Otherwise, one might be tempted into simplifying it into a judgment based on the colorful, yet misleading images evoked by the terms organic and genetically modified.

Works Cited Pence, Gregory. Designer Food. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001. Print. Liu, T.Y; Chen, C.C; Chen, C.L; Chi, C.W. "Safrole-induced Oxidative Damage in the Liver of SpragueDawley Rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology 37.7 (1999): 697702. Print. Borlaug, Norman. Taking the GM Food Debate to Africa: Have We Gone Mad? Letter. Independent Newspaper April 2000. Print. Pollan, Michael. "What's Eating America?" The Writers Presence: A Pool of Readings. Ed. Robert Atwan and Donald McQuade. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009. Print. Seeds of Change. Editorial. Consumer Reports Sept. 1999: 43. Print.