Humans have selected, improved, and crossed organisms since the advent of agriculture. Some people believe that genetic engineering is just like conventional breeding techniques albeit at a faster pace, but this is not true. Genetic engineering often recombines genetic material in the laboratory between species that do not interbreed in nature. At the advent of genetic engineering it was thought that this new technique would be much more exact, because we could take a single gene, or a single attribute, and simply insert it in its new host. Now scientists know that certain qualities are a combination of genes and that the effect of a gene is dependent on its interaction with other genes and on the surroundings in ways that we do not yet fully understand. Traditional cloning required years of observation, measurement, and exclusion from disease. In the traditional crossing and creating of new hybrids nature is allowed to decide which groups of genes are passed on to the new organism and the results are inexact and unpredictable. Genetic engineering uses vectors to break down natural defense mechanisms for inactivating foreign DNA. In current genetic engineering, a gene from a completely foreign organism is spliced randomly into the DNA of its new host that may cause unpredictable effects on its new environment. Many scientists believe that among the greatest potential hazards of genetic engineering are artificially constructed vectors that are extremely good at carrying out horizontal gene transfers and in a worst case scenario capable of causing irreparable, widespread, cumulative and persistent damage to the environment.

The long-term goals for biotech research in this area is to reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides, and to come up with cheaper, better-tasting foods at no expense to the environment. We are still a long way away from these admirable goals. Recognizing the potential for powerful control and gigantic profits, a handful of huge companies have seized the tools of biotechnology and pushed GM crops into the environment before they were proved sufficiently safe. Genetically engineered crops have led to an increase rather than a decrease in the use of herbicides. Pest-resistant Bt crops express toxin throughout their tissues throughout their growing season and are harming non-target species. Vast areas of genetically modified monocultures are environmentally unsustainable and ineffective in combating world hunger.

With far from altruistic motives these powerful and influential companies are investing billions in gaining patents and intellectual property rights to limit the use of biotechnology. These companies not only control a large portion of the global seed market, many are major food processing companies as well as herbicide and pesticide producers. Historically the profits gained from agricultural chemicals have far exceeded those from seeds. Now they are focusing on biotechnology to increase yields as well as tolerance to the agricultural chemicals they sell. As long as these profit-oriented companies retain property rights to biotechnologies as well as control the pesticide and seed industry their marketing strategies will only serve the environment and the needs of society by coincidence.

We can't stop technological advancements, but we can try to control them responsibly. At the moment neither our governments nor big businesses are responding responsibly to the potential hazards. It is up to the public to demand better controls and health regulations to prevent GMOs from being released until they have been sufficiently observed and tested for safety in a closed environment. Solutions to issues like intellectual property rights on living organisms that are introduced into the environment need to be found and corporate abuse of a potentially useful technology stopped.