The average farmer can provide enough food for himself, his family and more than 155 other people. Unfortunately, even with that fact, every day in the United States alone, more than 500,000 households will go hungry.

The 2.2 million farmers and ranchers of today are having to constantly innovate and improve the tools in their toolbox to provide for 9 billion people, the population that demographers predict will be here by the year 2050.

To combat this dilemma, we agriculturists have many tools. Biotechnology is one of the most important. This leaves the question, “What is biotechnology accomplishing in the race to feed the 9 billion?”

For those questions to be properly answered, we first have to define what biotechnology is, when it began, and its advantages and disadvantages.

Biotechnology is a science that includes gene splicing, taking a desired trait from one organism and combining it with another to create a modified and superior product.

While genetic modifications have been taking place for more than 10,000 years, modifications at the DNA level are a relatively new development. Some philosophers will argue that biotechnology is merely the human way of adapting to our environment and the rapid disappearance of farmable land.

An example of this is found in Homer’s “The Odyssey” in which humans are referred to as “bread-eaters” numerous times. The reason for calling humans bread-eaters is that bread, in a sense, is what captures our human ingenuity.

We are human because we think, because we reason and because we adapt. Bread would not have existed had humans not bred certain grasses to make wheat which is genetic modification on a primitive scale.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have existed for a long time, that much is indisputable. They are renowned for their improved yields, durability and nutritional content. Of course, the questions as to whether their advantages outweigh the disadvantages still remain.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration heavily restrict the development process of any GMO. A mandatory 3-10 year test period is strictly enforced. There are also other checks and flags in place to keep the food as safe as possible.

Despite common belief, the producer is not the only one to benefit from GMOs. The consumer benefits are numerous. Organic crops have consistently low yields, and considerably shorter shelf lives. While they are guaranteed their permanent niche in the agriculture market, their yields alone cannot sustain a large population.

Genetically modified products can retain their freshness on the shelf for longer periods of time, and the yields are a needed addition to those of conventionally and organically grown crops.

With gene splicing, whole new varieties of crops can be produced. At this moment in time, we can buy locally grown papayas. Papayas are a tropical fruit that normally we would have to import. That was a big problem, due to the fact that 100 percentof locally grown food is checked for safety, while only 2 percent of imports are checked. The imported papayas put the general public at risk because it can’t be certain that they meet safety regulations.

With the U.S. grown, genetically modified papaya on the market, consumers are offered a product that meets those regulations.

As with everything that has its benefits, with those benefits come certain risks and disadvantages. Some bio-engineered products have very narrow gene pools, and unmonitored crossbreeding can occur. There are certain weeds that have developed immunities to sprays and chemicals. Unfortunately, the development of new chemicals is required to rid the fields of these pests.

Another very real dilemma with biotechnology is the rest of the world’s view.

The U.S. cannot export any of its genetically modified crops to Europe. Taking our economy into consideration, we are left with the question of whether or not we should only grow what can be exported. However, with over 90 percent of all of our corn and soy products being genetically modified, an end to biotechnology would result in a severe reduction in the yields of some of our main staple crops.

Recent legislation provides a great example. Take Proposition 37, which was was ultimately defeated.

This proposition pertained to food labeling and would have required that foods containing GMOs would have to be labeled as such.

We are entering the age of the informed consumer. Many individuals want to know what goes into their food. It was not that the general public wished to remain in the dark about their food that caused Proposition 37 to fail, but the fact that the enactment of the requirements of the new regulations are not currently feasible.

The costs to the state would have been increased by more than $1 million, and the cost of the family food bill would have increase by hundreds of dollars per year.

Another reason that the proposed law failed was its form. It was full of loopholes and exemptions that created a bias in the marketing world.

This point leads to the thought of biotechnology’s future. It has both clear advantages and disadvantages. Its increased yields have contributed greatly to the concept of growing more on less land.

The scale is there, but the way the balance tips is left up to the consumer. We are left with the “So what?” factor. So what if we eliminate the use of GMOs? How are we going to provide for the imminent 9 billion?

About the author

Montanna Tarkington was raised in Tulare county by her grandparents and is currently pursuing a degree in agriculture business. Her areas of expertise are gun rights and agriculture.