Common App - Biotechnology and Agriculture

Prompt: Discuss some issue of personal, local, national, or international concern and its importance to you.

I'm applying as a plant science major, so I thought this would be a good topic. I really need to shorten it (it's almost 700 words) and add more about why the issue is important to me, so let me know if you find anything unnecessary or uninteresting. Unless you don't think I need to.

Thanks!

Biotechnology is a rapidly progressing field, emerging from the scientific realm into the world of consumers and farmers with a plethora or ethical and dilemmas attached. As a person concerned with global health and food safety, I believe that the ethics and risks of genetic modification in organisms need to be carefully considered, especially those intended for agronomic purposes.

The controversy surrounding the use of biotechnology for food products is important to me because I am concerned about the safety of the world's food supply as well as the biosphere, and I realize that during my career as a scientist, I will undoubtedly encounter ethical dilemmas about which I need to make the correct decision. I do believe that many benefits can and will come from bioengineered crops, but for these crops to be safely implemented, scientists and governing agencies must be prudent.

Throughout history, human development of new technologies has almost always resulted in a net benefit for the individual, as well as for society as a whole. It is naïve, of course, to assume that because biotechnology is a technological innovation, it will have the same type of effects and consequences as the plow, the printing press, or the internal combustion engine. Unlike these machines, biotechnology involves the direct manipulation of the molecular structure of plant and animals, instead of simply reshaping and using metal, wood, or petroleum. Because biotechnology is a relatively recent development, it is necessary to assess risks that have never before been associated with other forms of technology and long-term effects of these genetic alterations, which cannot have been fully observed or recorded. Negative effects of biotechnology may not only result in food safety and moral issues, but also in economic and environmental ones.

Some sources state genetically modified crops could help developing countries in producing more crops of a higher quality, and therefore the countries could begin to export commodities and become a successful part of the world economy. The prospect of a better future for this type of country may sound promising, but in the long-term, any positive effects should be viewed as theoretical at best. If South Africa would adopt American genetically engineered crops, the immediate effect would certainly be a boon in agriculture within the country. Despite this, when the country began to export the surplus, it would not be able to compete with the same products coming from the United States, because national subsidies drive prices too low for any realistic competition. African farmers would be forced to sell their crops at a much less than reasonable price, a situation that certainly could not be described as a benefit of biotechnology. Instead of helping developing nations' economies grow, biotechnology could effectively lock farmers into a worldwide commodity system in which they are unable to compete, while depending on corporate seeds and crops to sustain their meager livelihood. In short, I believe developing nations could become an extension of American industrial agriculture.

The use of genetically modified crops in countries other than the U.S. can also be dangerous for health reasons. The United States Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration are all in place in the United States to regulate food products by testing them and monitoring production. In some other countries, however, until more regulation is present, biotechnology applied to food products could be dangerous. One example of the lack of necessary legislation is in South Africa, where the labeling of genetically modified foods is not required by law. This, in a worst-case scenario, could result in harmful strains of crops being distributed to oblivious consumers in Africa.

A healthy amount of skepticism will certainly aid in the safety of food products as biotechnology is used in different ways, and is spread throughout the world. Biotechnology techniques certainly can be used to increase the yield of crops, but for these advances to take place responsibly, biotechnology needs to be monitored worldwide, and restrained if necessary. Regulations must ensure that new crops are not introduced too quickly without allowing for the full testing and realization of long-term negative effects that could arise through their use.

As you point out, the essay is a good opinion piece, but you do not talk very much about its relevance to you. It seems strange, too, because, while you talk about the topic as one that involves ethical dilemmas and a need for cost-benefit analyses (quite a reasonable stance, btw), your body paragraphs are less balanced, and seem to be more clearly staking out a anti-biotech stance. Assuming that part of your work as a plant science major will involve working with and possibly even creating such crops, this strikes me as being a bit . . . odd.

I think you might greatly improve your essay by making it about just what you say you will be talking about in your introduction -- an ethical dilemma. Look at one particular biotech controversy, and discuss both sides as evenly as possible. Then conclude by saying that you hope that by learning more about plant science, you hope to be better positioned to help solve the dilemma you have been discussing.

For instance, you could look at any of the following issues in-depth, instead of touching on all of them briefly:

Biotech in Africa:

Many parts of Africa suffer from appalling starvation rates. To say that


is therefore both misleading and callous. If the country could produce enough food to feed itself, I am quite sure the people there would not view the positive effects as merely theoretical. Indeed, this very issue was at the heart of the controversy over Zambia's refusal to accept food aid that contained GE crops:

freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/will-the-gr een-revolution-ever-hit-africa/?scp=2&sq=Zambia%20refused%20 GE%20crops%20let%20people%20starve&st=cse

On the other hand, the patenting of biotech crops does lead to valid concerns about the amount of control multinational corporations may have over the lives of farmers in the developing world who choose to grow them.

Labeling of GE products:

At the moment, you contrast America to South Africa, saying



However, the U.S. doesn't require labeling of GE products either: healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/genetically- engineered-foods.htm. Many argue that this prevents consumers from making an informed choice about what to buy, regardless of whether or not the crops are actually safe.

The argument against mandatory labeling, of course, is that foods have never required the particular cultivar of crop to be put on the labels. Forcing GE products to label themselves as such is therefore singling them out so that they can be more easily made the product of environmentalist hysteria and wrath.

Environmental risks of GE products:

A good issue to write about. How do we measure those risks? How do we decide when the expected benefits outweigh those risks? Or, to put it another way, what level of risk is acceptable, and how do we determine this?

Health risks of GE products:

Also a good issue to write about. How do you decide if a GE product is safe for human consumption? What principles do you employ, and what standards do you uphold? Why is this such a concern anyway, given that Americans have been eating GE products for decades now without any noticeable health concerns?