Category: Genetic Modification

The World Food Program estimates that 795 million people worldwide – mostly in the third world – experience hunger. Starvation may worsen in events of global climate-change effects like drought (Effiong & Noor, 2019). Indeed, recent natural disasters in major food-exporting nations in Africa and Asia could aggravate adverse food situation (Qaim & Kouser, 2013). Fortunately, recent scientific discoveries have shown that genetic modification of food and gene-editing can provide effective ways of addressing starvation. This paper shows that GM food can indeed be an effective way of solving starvation in the third world.

Genetic Modification and Gene Editing

Traditionally, the production of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) involved an insertion of desirable foreign genetic materials into an animal or plant’s genome (Jamil, 2019). On the other hand, gene editing involves the modification of plant or animal genomes without having to introduce foreign genes (Effiong & Noor, 2019).

Food Security and Starvation

Food security is a term used to refer to a situation when significant proportion of a population within a certain geographic space have economic and physical access to safe, quality, and adequate nutritious food. It is partly concerned with eradication of starvation and malnutrition, which are rife in some third world countries (Qaim & Kouser, 2013). Nearly140 million children, particularly in South East Asia and Africa, experience Vitamin A deficiency due to malnutrition. This may often lead to blindness. Indeed, up to 500,000 children with Vitamin A deficiency are estimated to turn blind each year. Nearly 50% of them die within the first year after turning blind (Jamil 2019).

Addressing Starvation in the Third World

GM crops may boost the production of food crops, and as result improve the potential of food insecure third world countries to access food in bountiful amounts. GM technologies contribute to the conception of higher-yielding crops that are resistant to pest and droughts (Qaim & Kouser, 2013). This may stabilize and boost the supply of food, which is significant in terms of supporting the high demand for food in the midst of water and land scarcity, and climate change effects like drought. This could strengthen the overall productivity as a result providing developing nations with a capability to sustain food demand and curtail starvation. Studies have shown that GM technologies can increase corn yields by more than 10 percent by transforming a gene that boost growth rates of plants, in spite of the adversity of climatic conditions (Stokstad, 2019).

Second, GM technologies contribute to the conception of crops with newer traits that are linked to food safety risks. For instance, they can assist in breeding foods crops that contain high levels of micronutrients, as in the case with provitamin in Golden Rice (Qaim & Kouser, 2013). Genetic modification has made it possible for scientists in Switzerland and Germany to come up with a rice variety that excels in the production of provitamin A. The rice contains three new genetic materials, one from a bacterium and two from daffodil. The rice is currently undergoing mass distribution in famine-stricken developing nations in Africa and South East Asia (Jamil 2019). In addition, a biotechnology company called Calyxt made a remarkable breakthrough through gene editing in managing to extend the shelf life of potatoes. They disabled a single gene that encourages sugar accumulation in the tuber. They also used the technique to reduce the generation of acrylamide, a cancer-promoting agents often triggered when potato is fried. This can be particularly useful in a number of developing countries in Africa like Burkina Faso that depend on potatoes as their staple (Effiong and Noor, 2019).

Conclusion

Overall, recent scientific techniques capable of improving food production would indeed be a good thing for the world. Besides contributing to increased food production and improved accessibility to food, GM foods also contribute to improving the quality of food and composition of nutrients.

This response will analyse and evaluate the scientific studies discussed in a source related to using genetically modified crops to alleviate world hunger. Suggested improvements and extensions to the investigation will be made as well as a conclusion.

Introduction

Gerry (2015) proposes that genetically modified crops can be utilised to assist in solving some of the world’s most worrisome issues such as world hunger, which affects over 800 million people worldwide. Crops can be genetically modified to grow in more extreme weather conditions such as droughts, and become resistant to pesticides, insects and diseases which greatly increase yield and could considerably reduce the number of undernourished people. Genetically modified soybeans, maize and cotton have been proven to contribute to a 22% yield increase, 37% pesticide use decrease, 39% pesticide cost decrease and a 68% profit increase regardless of the higher cost of genetically modified seeds. Farmers in underdeveloped countries received yield and profit gains between 14% and 60% higher than yield and profit gains in industrialised countries. GMO (genetically modified organism) crops will be of great use to feed a growing world population that “could reach 11 billion by 2100” (Carrington, 2014 cited in Gerry, 2015) and assist farmers in providing food during global warming, which may obstruct food production.

Analysis

This graph shows that GMO crops increased yields, decreased pesticide use and therefore decreased pesticide costs, and dramatically increased the farmer’s profit despite the higher cost of GMO seeds which only increased the production costs by 3.3%. This study measured the mean percentage difference of the yield, pesticide use and cost, production cost and profit. These specific crops were genetically modified to be insect-resistant thus the decrease in pesticide use. A cited article states that “yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide tolerant crops” (Klümper, 2014 cited in Gerry, 2015). Sample sizes and measures of variance were not reported in several studies used in this data collection which places doubt on the accuracy of these statistics. Overall, GMO crops have proven to be beneficial in increasing yield and profit dramatically which could assist in alleviating world hunger.

Figure 1: Overall Effects of Farming with GM Crops

Feeding the World One Genetically Modified Tomato at a Time: A Scientific Perspective

Evaluation

Gerry (2015) states that genetically modified crops can increase yield, decrease pesticide use and increase profits dramatically although, several studies used to collect this data were not entirely precise. Some sample sizes and measures of variance were not reported in several studies used in this data collection resulting in the lack of knowledge of how dispersed each set of data was from the mean. However, 147 studies in total were executed to collect this information therefore, there were an abundance of reliable studies to nullify the unreliable because this study was based off of average yield gains, etc. It was also noted that heterogeneity was evident in the crops’ study inspection which could have affected the consistency of the results (Klümper, 2014 cited in Gerry, 2015).

In the future, it should be made sure that all studies measure sample sizes and variance or information from studies that do not comply should be exempt from the statistics to ensure complete accuracy. Gene editing techniques also need to be developed further to ensure homogeneity in edited genes for consistency in results.

Conclusion

Despite the proven success of GMO crops’ ability to produce higher yield and profit, and lower pesticide cost, it may be many years before they will be used to assist in alleviating world hunger due to the primitive GMO technology that may cause inconsistencies in results.

In this article of Food Technology Magazine– we look at the facts, examples, ethics, social implications and research into genetically modified crops to help solve world hunger – Anjali Grillo states multiple examples of how GMO foods can help solve world hunger and examines the social and ethical advantages and disadvantages surrounding GM foods.

Part 1:

Rice naturally photosynthesizes through the C3 pathway which is less efficient than the C4 pathway utilized primarily by grass crops such as maize and sugarcane. Converting the cellular structure of rice from C3 to C4 will grant support more people than is currently possible. While a single hectare of land in Asia produces enough rice to feed 27 people, the International Rice Research Institute has estimated that by 2050, using GMOs, that same hectare will require to produce enough rice to feed 43 people, addressing world hunger.

The original advancement in the development of Golden Rice was the result of a collaboration between Peter Beyer and Ingo Potrykus, and was acquired around Easter 1999. This new grain, commonly known as the “grain of hope” around that time, announced the development of a genetically modified “golden rice.” This new strain of GM rice has genes from viruses and daffodils interwoven into its genetic instructions.

The result is a form of rice that is a golden-yellow color (similar to daffodil flowers), and also produces beta-carotene, which the human body usually transforms into Vitamin A. Virtually a million children die every year because they are enfeebled by Vitamin A deficiencies and an additional 350,000 go blind. Golden rice, said Time, will be a godsend for the half of humanity that depends on rice for its major staple. Merely eating this rice could prevent blindness and death as well as world hunger for many people. It is at a very early stage to develop GM crops that can produce biopharmaceuticals. Cornell University researchers are currently working on modified tomatoes as a vaccine for the Norwalk virus, which causes severe diarrhoea. Mice experiments have displayed an improved immune response. There have also been experiments with GM potatoes aiming to develop a vaccine against rotavirus and against the bacteria commonly known as E.coli which is the cause of diarrhea. Feeding studies involving mice have already shown valid responses.

In Kenya, as well as in many other developing African countries, sweet potato is a high-maintenance crop grown typically by small-scale farmers. Sweet potatoes can adapt to a wide range of environmental conditions and grow in both fertile and marginal regions. It is the second most important subsistence crop after maize in Africa. However, yields are low. The typical African yield of six tons per hectare is less than half of the global average. Viruses and weevils (a type of beetle belonging to the superfamily Curculionoidea) frequently reduce yields by as much as 80%. Effective controls for these pathogens are not available, and the crop has generally been neglected in international agricultural research. Since 1991 the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), has come up with GM sweet potato strains that are repellent to the feathery mottle virus (sweet potato virus.)

The genetic trait which has a tolerance to a herbicide that can allow farmers to control a variety of weeds while not affecting the modified crop. Herbicide-resistant crops are mainly grown in developed countries. However, more recently, they have also been harvested in some developing countries. In Argentina, more than 90% of the local soybean harvest in 2002 was produced from GM varieties, making it the world’s second-largest producer of GM soybeans. The multinational company Nidera, supplies the majority of commercially marketed soybean seeds (70%). The remainder is sold by six other companies, including Monsanto which originated GM soybeans resistant to the herbicide “glyphosate”, marketed as Roundup Ready soybeans.

Part 2:

Ethically, the benefits of GM crops are linked to the ideals of beneficence and equality in the expectation that GMO engineering will help us enhance food safety and reduce health inequalities as the possibilities of producing foods of higher nutritional content and overall quality. A benefit of them which has been clearly displayed is that when GM crops were introduced, they were adopted more quickly than any other advances in agriculture; with the world’s population rising at an alarming rate, particularly in developing countries, there is a significant threat to food security. The scale of the introduction of GM crops will therefore have a huge positive impact as it relates to the moral guiding principle of justice where an equitable supply of food is preserved. Another benefit gained through the use of GM technologies was the weather-tolerant and the maturation of new crops that can withstand inhospitable habitats. The antifreeze gene from cold-water fish that was launched in plants such as tobacco, potatoes and tomatoes can be seen as a clear example of rising climate sensitivity.

Following the ethical advantages of GMOs, food production has stayed ahead of population growth in the developing world over the past 60 years. This was also the case in many parts of Asia and Latin America where the Green Revolution’s benefits are felt. Nevertheless, there was little benefit in agricultural productivity in Africa and some parts of Asia, and famine persisted. In fact, the Green Revolution’s initial rate of improvement was not sustained between 1985 and 1990. Even in countries such as India, where there are plenty of grocery stores, inequality also causes large numbers of access problems. There is strong case for focusing on agricultural development, particularly as improvements in agricultural productivity contribute to the development of agriculture employment thus raising incomes.

On the other hand, when examining the ethical disadvantages of GMOs one major factor comes into concern. Before being sold to the public as meat, any new organism that has been designed or altered should be tested for safety. The current testing of traditional and modified foods is the same, notwithstanding the fact that about 80% of the food contains some type of adjustment. The likelihood of these engineered foods to produce an allergic response, effect gene expression, or modify the nutritional value of the end product are some of the concerns that should be studied.

Another ethical disadvantage of GMOs is that if GM crops are developed to benefit less developed areas, they will affect the type of farming that is being practiced. Many of those in LEDCs are farmers and rely on agriculture for their income, in the less developed world should practice viable farming methods because disruption would be unethical. If the effect was negative, the problem would be asked whether the income of potential producers and consumers are simply compensation for any uncertainty that may occur.

Correspondingly, the’ unnaturally of genetic modification must be accepted as a justification for disapproving GM crops, because health and environmental threats have been removed, the system must breach some essential boundaries. A professional example of this is found in Ecuador’s Constitution (Art. 71,) this states that nature has the right to: their existence being fully accepted, to maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure and functions, and finally, evolutionary processes. Therefore, GMOs go against this along with many people’s beliefs of nature.

Moving onto the political aspects, developing countries are slowly opening the door to GMO crops research and marketing. Some see a solution in genetically engineered crops as these countries seek to expand their export markets, boost domestic living conditions, and tackle food insecurity. However, only four African nations — Burkina Faso, Egypt, Sudan, and South Africa — approved the use of GMOs in commercial agricultural output until recently; and the only crop permitted to be planted for all but South Africa is Bt cotton, which is an agricultural crop, not a food crop, so it won’t do much for addressing famine. A reason for this disapproval of GMOs is most likely because Africa follows Europe’s lead in its regulatory approach to technology. African countries sell to Europe a lot of agricultural products, and they believe that if European buyers do not want to buy these products, it is better not to grow them at all.

Next, in regions facing environmental challenges, the GMO controversy is also prevalent. It includes the Asia Pacific, where fertile land is changing rapidly due to rising natural disasters and rising sea levels. Countries such as Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines cover the spectrum of attitudes towards GM crops. Regions like Latin America, which, according to the ​International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications​, accounted for approximately 45 percent of biotech crops worldwide in 2016, are already planning for the effect that climate change will have on their ability to grow food in the future. However, the United States of America, a highly developed country made a law, commonly known as the “Farmer Assurance Provision,” was terminated in 2013. The law stated that if the USDA had already authorized (or deregulated) a biotech crop and a court overturned that approval, the law ordered the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a temporary status of legalization at the request of a grower or seed producer in order to allow farmers to continue the production of the plant with the catch that legal challenges for that crop would still be in place which came with conflict, therefore, the law was terminated. Which makes it yet another highly developed country which does not support the GMO market.

Finally, GMOs have provided a financial benefit to farmers in Brazil, according to a recent study on the economic impact of GM crops. GMO soybean varieties have lowered product costs with a $34 per hectare average farm income gain. With an average farm income gain of $58 per hectare, GMO maize has reduced output costs and increased yield. And cotton has reduced the cost of output and increased yield with $91 per hectare average farm income value. Countering this, as Maria Ishii-Eisemann, a senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network, explained at an anti-GMO conference, food independence is ‘our right to save, plant, and produce seeds and crops as we want. The skills needed to genetically modify seeds are so advanced (that only a handful of large companies can take it on. Compare that to the thousands — or, globally, the millions — of seed dealers and seed savers using conventional plant breeding techniques.

Bibliography:

1. *, Name. “GMO Information and Ethics.” ​Focus for Health​, 17 Sept. 2019, https://www.focusforhealth.org/gmo-information-ethics/.
2. Acosta, and Luis. “Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States.” Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States | Law Library of Congress, 1 Mar. 2014, https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php.
3. Deutsche Welle. “Genetically Modified Food to Fight Hunger?: DW: 21.11.2011.” ​DW.COM​, https://www.dw.com/en/genetically-modified-food-to-fight-hunger/a-15525069.
4. Diehl, Paul. “How Genetically Modified Food (GMOs) Can Feed the World.” ​The Balance, The Balance, 23 Dec. 2018, https://www.thebalance.com/can-genetically-modified-food-feed-the-world-375634.
5. Editors, The. “Why African Countries Maintain Tight Restrictions on Genetically Modified Food.” ​World Politics Review​, 28 May 2019, https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/27892/why-african-countries-maintain-tight-restrictions-on-genetically-modified-food.
6. “Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Foods.” ​World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 15 Feb. 2017, https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/.
7. Gunlock, Julie. “GMOs Can Help World Hunger.” ​IWF​, https://iwf.org/blog/2805689/GMOs-Can-Help-World-Hunger.
8. “ISAAA Brief 54-2018.” ​International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications – ISAAA.org​, http://www.isaaa.org/.
9. lisa_cornish. “What Are the Political Drivers for GMOs in Developing Countries?” ​Devex​, Devex, 1 May 2018, https://www.devex.com/news/what-are-the-political-drivers-for-gmos-in-developing-countries-92091.
10. lisa_cornish. “What Are the Political Drivers for GMOs in Developing Countries?” ​Devex​, Devex, 1 May 2018, https://www.devex.com/news/what-are-the-political-drivers-for-gmos-in-developing-countries-92091.
11. Lowe, Nicola, et al. “These Super Crops Could Help Tackle Global Hunger.” ​World Economic Forum​, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/scientists-are-breeding-super-nutritious-crops-to-help-solve-global-hunger.
12. Nash/Zurich, J. Madeleine. “Grains Of Hope.” ​Time​, Time Inc., 23 July 2000, http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,50576,00.html.
13. “Pocket K No. 5: Documented Benefits of GM Crops.” ​Documented Benefits of GM Crops | ISAAA.org​, https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/5/default.asp.
14. “Possible Benefits of GM Crops in Developing Countries.” ​Nuffield Bioethics​, http://nuffieldbioethics.org/report/gm-crops-developing-countries-2/benefits-gm-crops-developing-countries.
15. “Possible Benefits of GM Crops in Developing Countries.” ​Nuffield Bioethics​, http://nuffieldbioethics.org/report/gm-crops-developing-countries-2/benefits-gm-crops-developing-countries.
16. Project, Borgen. “GMOs Help Combat World Hunger.” ​The Borgen Project​, Borgen Project Https://Borgenproject.org/Wp-Content/Uploads/The_Borgen_Project_Logo_small.Jpg, 22 Mar. 2018, https://borgenproject.org/gmos-world-hunger/.
17. Riedel, Heidi, and Iryna Semtanska. “Social and Economic Issues – Genetically Modified Food.” ​IntechOpen​, IntechOpen, 16 Jan. 2013, https://www.intechopen.com/books/food-industry/social-and-economic-issues-genetically-modified-food.
18. Robbins, John. “Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?” ​HuffPost​, HuffPost, 1 Oct. 2011, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gmo-food_b_914968?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHMwNrOxzQ8roFo4iXkV4PJ-uK5mX74ZEpe2kPmu010x9aZDsH-2fY3jzw4rRsW4-MVc_3h8X5mJ4DwVSlDordq1uPgBLmMWJ5Eikl5AbQETDOTZx0Z3_Q7Mq3i58wVAHBXC1JDQ501fLtBba G2vHPoZmsoWwmyt0TfZnyGPjBK9.
19. Rose, Nick. “Expert Analysis: Will GM Foods Solve World Hunger or Just Increase Corporate Profit?” ​The Feed​, 11 July 2018, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/expert-analysis-will-gm-foods-solve-world-hunger-or-just-increase-corporate-profit.
20. Santa Clara University. “Risks and Benefits of GMOs.” ​Markkula Center for Applied Ethics​, https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/risks-and-benefits-of-gmos/.
21. Weale, Albert. “Ethical Arguments Relevant to the Use of GM Crops.” ​New Biotechnology​, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 30 Nov. 2010, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20850572.
22. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gmo-food_b_914968?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHMwNrOxzQ8roFo4iXkV4PJ-uK5mX74ZEpe2kPmu010x9aZDsH-2fY3jzw4rRsW4-MVc_3h8X5mJ4DwVSlDordq1uPgBLmMWJ5Eikl5AbQETDOTZx0Z3_Q7Mq3i58wVAHBXC1JDQ501fLtBbaG2vHPoZmsoWwmyt0TfZnyGPjBK9.
23. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gmo-food_b_914968?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHMwNrOxzQ8roFo4iXkV4PJ-uK5mX74ZEpe2kPmu010x9aZDsH-2fY3jzw4rRsW4-MVc_3h8X5mJ4DwVSlDordq1uPgBLmMWJ5Eikl5AbQETDOTZx0Z3_Q7Mq3i58wVAHBXC1JDQ501fLtBbaG2vHPoZmsoWwmyt0TfZnyGPjBK9.
24. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gmo-food_b_914968?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHMwNrOxzQ8roFo4iXkV4PJ-uK5mX74ZEpe2kPmu010x9aZDsH-2fY3jzw4rRsW4-MVc_3h8X5mJ4DwVSlDordq1uPgBLmMWJ5Eikl5AbQETDOTZx0Z3_Q7Mq3i58wVAHBXC1JDQ501fLtBbaG2vHPoZmsoWwmyt0TfZnyGPjBK9.
25. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gmo-food_b_914968?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHMwNrOxzQ8roFo4iXkV4PJ-uK5mX74ZEpe2kPmu010x9aZDsH-2fY3jzw4rRsW4-MVc_3h8X5mJ4DwVSlDordq1uPgBLmMWJ5Eikl5AbQETDOTZx0Z3_Q7Mq3i58wVAHBXC1JDQ501fLtBbaG2vHPoZmsoWwmyt0TfZnyGPjBK9.
26. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gmo-food_b_914968?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHMwNrOxzQ8roFo4iXkV4PJ-uK5mX74ZEpe2kPmu010x9aZDsH-2fY3jzw4rRsW4-MVc_3h8X5mJ4DwVSlDordq1uPgBLmMWJ5Eikl5AbQETDOTZx0Z3_Q7Mq3i58wVAHBXC1JDQ501fLtBbaG2vHPoZmsoWwmyt0TfZnyGPjBK9.

Science fiction texts use many different ideas and messages to explore possible futures. These ideas and messages warn the audience about a possible future and make a comment on the present. Gattaca, a movie made in 1997 by director, Andrew Niccol, and Movement, a short story by Nancy Fulda, both use ideas and messages to comment on the present and predict dystopian futures. They both use the idea that genetic modification will lead to a loss of free will. However, Gattaca focuses more on discrimination, predicting that genetic makeup will control everything about an individual, including how they are treated by society, whereas Movement focuses more on how genetic modification will lead to a loss of identity. Both science fiction texts explore possible futures and comment on the present by presenting ideas and messages that speculate a future to the audience.

In both science fiction texts, Niccol and Fulda use that idea that genetic modification will lead to a loss of free will and a restriction on everyone in society. In Gattaca, Eugene is forced to live a perfect life, due to his perfect genetic makeup. This idea placed onto him by society restricts him as his free will is taken because he is forced to achieve greatness. When he can’t live up to the extremely high standards placed on him by society, he tries to commit suicide. He reflects on how he couldn’t live up to his expectations when he shows Vincent his silver medal, saying that, “Jerome Morrow was never meant to be one step down on the podium.” This shows that he cannot live with himself knowing that he has not achieved what he was expected. Similarly, in Movement, Hannah is restricted by society because she is seen as something that needs to be fixed. She is almost forced into changing her genetic makeup by her parents, because society does not tolerate people who are ‘broken’. She does not feel she has a choice. In these ways, both Gattaca and Movement comment on our present society by suggesting that our current scientific progress in genetic modification will lead to a loss of free will.

In Gattaca, Niccol predicts that genetic modification will lead to a society where genetics control everything, including the way you are treated. The idea of discrimination based on genetics is explored during the investigation for the mission director’s murderer. During the investigation, the first suspect is Vincent, labelled as an invalid in society. He is the first suspect because he is an invalid, and the investigators believed that no one with perfect genetic makeup in this society would commit a crime like murder. They jump to the conclusion that Vincent is the murderer based on his faulty genetics, with only his eyelash as evidence, and chase him down. They never consider the fact that the murderer could be the director, who is a valid and has perfect genetic makeup. This is emphasised in the scene when the words ‘Invalid’ appear on the screen as a close up shot shows Vincent Freeman’s name instead of Jerome Morrow. Discrimination is currently present in our society, and these examples in Gattaca show that discrimination will only be enhanced by the advancement in genetic modification.

In contrast, Movement explores the idea that genetic modification will lead to a loss of identity. Hannah is a unique individual who has an issue fitting in with the rest of society. She is scared to undergo a procedure to make her the same as everyone else, because she does not want to lose her own identity. This is shown when she describes the life of a flytrap, saying that even though it is beautiful, with a ‘magnificent blossom’, it doesn’t have a sturdy stem, which separates it from all the other plants, and therefore cannot survive. This is a metaphor for her own life, because she is unique, but in order to survive she needs to be the same as everyone else. She is scared that she will lose her identity, but knows she has to in order to survive. She is aware that the procedure to change her genetic makeup will result in a loss of her own uniqueness and loss of identity. In that way, Movement comments on the present society by suggesting that advancement in genetic modification will lead to a loss of individuality and identity.

Overall, both Gattaca and Movement use similar and different ideas and messages to comment on the present and predict possible futures. Both explore the idea that genetic modification will the lead a loss of free will and restrict everyone in society, which makes a comment on how our current advancement in genetic modification could negatively affect society. Gattaca suggests that a society ruled by genetics will only worsen discrimination in the world, while Movement proposes the idea that genetic modification will lead to a loss of individuality and identity. These science fiction texts use varied ideas that all comment on the present by suggesting that society’s current advancement in genetic modification will ultimately lead to a dystopian future.

Basically, this movie is based through a lifetime event of Starr Carter, a sixteen-year-old who witnessed two tragic deaths and couldn’t let go without making justice. Furthermore, the plot starts where she accompanied her friend Kenya, who she shares a half-brother with. She accompanies her to a spring break party where she met her childhood crush and the one who gave her the first kiss, Khalil Harris. While having interacted for a couple of minutes, a shooting happened and they had to leave the party in order to arrive home safe. Khalil decides to take Starr so he makes sure she arrives home safe. While on their way they continue talking and he decides to stop to talk to her much better and to look into her eyes. During the stop they start reminiscing about their childhood memories and the games they used to play such as Harry Potter with Natasha, Starr’s best friend. While Khalil drives, he explains rapper Tupac Shakur’s idea that ‘Thug Life’ stands for ‘The Hate U Give Little Infants F—- Everybody’. Since that moment Starr tends to believe in that powerful acronym. After that, they head home and at that instant a police car stops them and asks Khalil to lower his music volume but he refuses. For such a refusal, the police officer, One-Fifteen requests for Khalil driver’s license and asks him to get out of the car. Khalil hands him the license and gets out of the car while the officer heads to his police car Khalil decides to get his hair brush to comb his hair then there was a sudden shot. One-Fifteen shot Khalil thinking that instead of grabbing the hair brush he grabbed a gun. He did this because to the whites the color of a Dark skin is always a threat to them. The officer hurriedly gets back and handcuffs Starr and asks where the gun is, but Starr stays speechless and just continues to sob, then One-Fifteen realizes that it was just a hair brush and realizes what he had done. Starr asked him to help Khalil and call an ambulance but the officer just stood there without knowing what to do. Moreover, this is the second incident Starr witnessed and she wants to make justice for Khalil since she couldn’t help Natasha who also got killed. The main characters in ‘The Hate U Give’ are Starr, her dad (Mr. Maverick Carter) Khalil, Ofrah, who is Starr’s lawyer and wants Starr to protest and King Lord. She knew that they will be rebuilt, and she vows to continue fighting for justice for Khalil and all the black people that were killed at the hands of the white police.

<

Rationale

Godfrey (2000) in the Lancet claimed that “it is unknown whether the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture affects human health”. While the article discussed uncertainties of GM foods, it stated the USA has a broad range of modified nourishment already but lacks case study on the affects for those who digest the genetically modified food and those who do not, as research upon human test subjects violate the ethical code of conduct.

Subsequently, with preliminary investigation, a general research question ‘Does genetically modified tomatoes affect human health?’ was established based on the claim. This was developed further to reflect genetically modified tomatoes (GM tomatoes), are tomatoes that have had genes altered using genetic engineering. An overview of this alteration and particular research question is stated below.

The term ‘genetically modified tomatoes’ refer to them as a whole, there are quite a number of ways that scientist have genetically altered the tomatoes; adding certain genes, inbreeding tomatoes with each other etc. The most known method is by subduing two enzymes (beta-Hex and alpha-Man) which are both associated with ripening, thus pushing the shelf life of genetically modified tomatoes to last up to forty-five days before turning mushy, this genetically altered tomato is also known as the Flavr Savr, the earliest form of GM tomatoes (Rao, 2010). This new variety of tomato produces large amount of health-boosting compounds-along with anthocyanins and flavanols. It includes identical amount of resveratrol to the equivalent of 50 bottles red wine. (Stoye, 2015). As a result, this essay states the resulting research question: ‘How does neutralizing the enzymes (‘beta- Hex’ and ‘alpha- Man’) affect human health by the consumption of genetically modified tomatoes?’.

Background

For the duration of ripening, various fruits, including tomato, deconstruct components of its cell wall, ensuing the softening of the developed fruit. The subcellular localization of the -Hex and -Man were both discovered to be parts of cell wall proteins, and thus when neutralized, enhances the tomatoes shelf life. (Meli et al. 2010)

According to articles, genetically enhanced tomatoes have only been on the market since 1994, thus lacking information on the effects of long-term consumption. But compared to an average tomato, the genetically modified technology has considerably enlarged crop yields and farmers wages in the preceding 20 years. While also decreasing the use of pesticides. (McDivitt, 2017) But with the lack of knowledge whether the genetically altered crops affect human health, the public is unwilling to purchase the produce, unless of course certain company’s fail to inform buyers that the produce they are acquiring have been scientifically modified. Which has been debated to be unethical as the public has a right to know what they are procuring.

So far, experiments upon whether genetically modified crops affect health have only ever been performed upon animals, disturbingly several of these experiments have resulted in a cascade of failures that associates genetically modified foods to inflammation, reduced fertility, liver and kidney malfunction and altered metabolism. Within one investigation, several generations of hamster’s nutrition consisted of genetically modified soy and as a result; the third generation of hamsters began losing the capability to produce offspring, only able to produce half the amount of pups in comparison to the non- genetically modified soy (Mount, 2019).

Evidence

A study performed found a lack of significant alterations of total mineral, vitamins and protein content and toxic glycoalkaloids between the parent tomato and the genetically modified tomato, thus deemed “substantially equivalent”. Further experimenting found there to be a lack of acute toxicity when digested by female and/or male rats, by being tube-fed the homogenized genetically modified tomatoes (Bawa, Anilakumar, 2013).

Though there was no ‘significant’ difference of total minerals, vitamins and proteins, there were indeed adaptations. Additional research of genetically engineered mice that are created to express human CRP (C-reactive protein) were fed a diet consisting of genetically modified tomatoes.

CRP is created in the liver; it is a blood test indicator focused on inflammation within the human body and is not detected unless inflammation of some degree is present within the body (Stöppler, 2019). Enlarged levels of CRP indicates the onset of cardiovascular disease and type-2 diabetes.

By supplying the peel of genetically modified tomatoes as sustenance to the genetically engineered mice, researchers were able to study the potential human health consequence of digesting genetically modified tomatoes, as the skin comprises of more than ninety five percent of flavonoids. Rein and colleagues reported that the diet of CRP mice consisted of 4 g per kilogram of tomato skin, which is equivalent to the average daily human consumption of 230 g of fresh tomatoes or 2-3 grams of tomato skin. Which is said to be an achievable portion within the human diet (Health24, 2015).

Consequently, after seven weeks of feeding the CRP mice the respective diets, Rein and co-workers measured the levels of cardiovascular risk and general health, such as cholesterol levels, and plasma CRP. It was observed that the digestion of tomato skin was associated with a substantial decrease in human CRP levels. With the GM ‘significantly exceeding’ the result of normal tomato (respectively 56 to 43 percent of reductions) while the HDL-cholesterol, also known as the ‘good’ cholesterol, levels had risen within both tomato groups. After a two-week washout period, the CRP in the genetically modified tomato had risen back to baseline levels.

The evidence obtained from within the study validate that a genetically modified fruit can have anti-inflammatory and other positive results, far exceeding its counterpart wild-type. Though regardless of these positive results upon the mice, it’s still unclear whether similar effects would be acquired within humans as a result of digesting genetically modified tomatoes and would remain so, due to the ethical side of experimenting upon humans and the negative consequences in doing so.

Evaluation

There are problems linked with the evidence obtained however. Health24 was the only source of information upon the experimentation of genetically modified tomatoes on CRP mice, and as it is a secondary source, it could be assumed that the journalists were not interested with the specific numeric data that was tracked throughout the experiment by the scientists, hence the lack of quantitative data. As a result, the absence of sources and statistics of evidence limits the reliability of the article.

It is also stated that only after seven weeks did the scientists measure cholesterol levels, plasma CRP, cardiovascular risk and other general health issues. The results of the CRP mice digesting the genetically modified tomatoes is not sufficient enough to determine and provide further in-depth analyzing as it’s unknown whether maybe the genetically modified tomatoes reacted negatively with the mice before they became immune to it within the seven-week period, nor is it known if sustained consumption of the tomatoes over yearly periods would hold negative consequences for the digestive track and other human health issues.

Conclusion

To conclude, the claim that ‘it is unknown whether the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture affect human health’ is not entirely supported, as the claim is wide-ranging and requires experimentation on all agriculture than is possible. The specific research question that is considered also cannot be appropriately supported. Due to the evidence provided for the research task comprehending entirely upon experiments that have been tested on animals, and not humans, while also lacking sufficient numeric data on the effect of the genetically modified tomatoes upon the certain aspects of the mice’s health.

A more suitable study may perhaps be performed to include actual quantitative data and track human health over a yearly period time of digestion. In addition, further research could be performed to better understand the affect genetically modified tomatoes has not only on human health but future generations and its offspring.

References

1. Godfrey, J. (2000). Do Genetically Modified Foods Affect Human Health? Retrieved from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)74043-5/fulltext. Last accessed 20/7/2019.
2. Rao, S. (2010). Genetically Modified Tomatoes Can Last 45 Days on the Shelf. Retrieved from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/02/02/genetically-modified-tomatoes-can-last-45-days-on-the-shelf/#.XTKgEPZuKUl
3. Stoye, E. (2015). Gene-Modified Tomatoes Churn Out Healthy Nutrients. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gene-modified-tomatoes-churn-out-healthy-nutrients/
4. Meli et al. (2010). Silencing of a-Man or B-Hex Enhances Tomato Shelf Life. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Silencing-of-a-Man-or-b-Hex-enhances-tomato-shelf-life-A-Transgenic-T-0-and_fig3_41408513
5. McDivitt, P. (2017). Disease-Resistant GMO Tomato That Could Eliminate Need for Copper Pesticides Blocked by Public Fears. Retrieved from https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/10/11/green-technology-disease-resistant-gmo-tomato-eliminate-need-copper-pestic
6. Mount, R. (2019). How Do Genetically Modified Foods Affect Your Health? Retrieved from http://www.oprah.com/health/genetically-modified-foods-affect-health-and-body
7. Bawa, AS. Anilakumar, KR. (2013). Genetically Modified Foods: Safety, Risks and Public Concerns—a Review. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/
8. Stöppler, M C. (2019). C – Reactive Protein CRP Test, Ranges, Symptoms, and Treatment. Retrieved from https://www.medicinenet.com/c-reactive_protein_test_crp/article.htm#what_is_c-reactive_protein_crp
9. Health24. (2015). GM Tomatoes Boost Heart Health. Retrieved from https://www.health24.com/Diet-and-nutrition/Healthy-foods/GM-tomatoes-boost-heart-health-20120721
10. Misha, K. (2015). Human Experiments – the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/human-experiments-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-39876

Food plays an important role in the people’s life because people always need food to eat to get the energy so that they can do the movements, live and work daily. By seeing that food is very important for every life, they try to find modern method, such as genetically modified food, in order to increase both quality and quantity of food for people around the world. Genetically modified food should be encouraged to use because it gives many advantages to the people.

First, genetically modified food can make the people economic. The farmers will not spend much water for growing the GM crop because it uses less water. It can be grown all seasons even in the dry season. Moreover, it takes less land to grow more food. GMO crops can be grown to produce higher yields from the same croplands, so the farmers can grow many kinds of crops in the single piece of land and earn many profits. Anyway, the farmers will not need to spend a lot of money to buy the pesticides for their crop because GMO crops are more resistant to pests, weeds and other threats. It means that the famers can save and make more money because they will get more profits from their crops.

Second, genetically modified food can save the important crop from extinction. It can live in all condition because it is injected the genetic material so that it fits to the environment that it is growing. It will not be impacted by the weather or the environment. In addition, it can against the pest or useless insects because it is resistant to them, so its seed can be stored for a long time and the virus or the bacteria cannot damage it. Furthermore, the people will continue to grow many kinds of crops because they expect to get more products, so all kinds of seeds will not extinct from the earth.

Third, genetically modified food can reduce the food shortage around the world. It can give large amount of product because it is not interfered by any pest and weeds. Hence, it can intake all nutrients from the soil in order to grow fast and produce many products. Also, genetically modified food can be stored for a long time, so the people use it many times and it will be easy to transport to support the food in any place that is far away. Moreover, it is not expensive that all people can buy to support their daily life. Hence, all people will have enough food to eat.

Some people might say that the genetically modified food has bad effects on the people’s health. This point has some merits on the surface. However, genetically modified food can provide better health because it gives the people a complete nutrition. Multiple vitamins and minerals can be built into the crops by making it possible for people to get what they need with fewer foods and lower costs. Hence, the people who live in the poverty can get these food resources to maintain their health. It is important that we really need genetically modified food so that we can support food and maintain health of people around the world, but we still use non genetically modified food that we prefer because it is also grown and sold on the market.

In conclusion, there are many benefits of using genetically modified food such as, it makes the people economic, prevent crops from extinction and reduce food shortages around the world. When the genetically modified food is implemented, the people will not lack food anymore. All people should use it with their own responsibility.

Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods produced from animals or plants whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified. For example, by the insertion of a gene from another organism, in a fashion that does not occur normally. Combining genes from different organisms is known as ‘recombinant DNA technology’, while the resulting organism is claimed to be ‘genetically modified’, or ‘genetically engineered’, or ‘transgenic’. The technology is sometimes referred to as ‘modern biotechnology’ or ‘gene technology’ or ‘genetic engineering’ often as well. Genetically Modified Foods (GMF) and Genetically Modified Crops (GMC) are very closely related as they are genetically modified during the growth phase and before they can be harvested. GMF is focusing the result on the food produced while GMC is basically focusing the modification on the plants. The genesis of DNA alteration technologies can be traced back to 1944, when researchers found that it was possible to transfer genetic material between different animals. Several distinctive texts opened the way for the new study of molecular biology. The double helix structure of DNA was discovered by Watson and Crick in 1954, and the ‘central dogma’, DNA transcribed to messenger RNA, converted to protein, was created. The genetic code was decrypted by Nobel Laureate Marshall Nirenberg and others by 1963. Genetic modification of food is not new. 85% of maize, 91 percent of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton are reportedly genetically modified in the United States. Plus, there are some genetically modified (GM) food ingredients in 75 percent of packaged foods on store shelves. Consumers are becoming concerned about the sustainability of genetically modified crops in the United States. As it is yet to be proved secure, this knowledge comes as no surprise. This report discusses about the features of genetically modified (GM) food, its functions, the causes of its disaster, its impacts of the disaster on the society and recommendations to prevent future disasters.

Descriptions of the Failure of the Innovation

Features of the Innovation

Every GM food have different features, but in general, the common traits that they shared are bigger size compared to the original one, have higher nutrient content, have a resistance to viral infections and have higher durability (last longer before expiration) and also have an interesting appearance.

Functions of the Innovation

GM is a technology which involves inserting DNA into an organism’s genome. For vegetables and fruits, fresh DNA is transferred into plant cells to create a GM plant. Typically, in tissue culture, the cells are then cultivated where they grow into plants. The new DNA will be inherited by the seeds that these plants produce. Its genetic structure and its relationship with the environment decide the characteristics of all living species. An organism’s genetic makeup is its genome, which is composed of DNA in both plants and animals. The genome includes chromosomes, regions of DNA that typically bear protein-making instructions. These proteins are what give the plant its characteristics. For example, genes that hold the instructions for creating proteins involved in processing the pigments that color the petals decide the color of flowers.

Genetic alteration of plants means adding to the genome of the plant a particular strip of DNA, giving it new or different characteristics. This may mean modifying or making it immune to a new disease in the manner the plant grows. The new DNA becomes part of the genome of the GM plant that will hold the seeds that these plants produce.

The first step involves the transfer of DNA into a plant cell to make a GM plant. One of the methods used to transfer DNA is to cover the surface with the relevant DNA fragment of tiny metal particles, and bombard the particles into the plant cells. Using a bacterium or virus is another strategy. There are several viruses and bacteria that as a natural part of their life cycle, transfer their DNA into a host cell. The bacterium most widely used is called Agrobacterium tumefaciens for GM plants. The gene of interest is inserted into the bacterium and the new DNA is then transferred to the genome of the plant cells by the bacterial cells. To produce a new plant, the plant cells that have successfully taken up the DNA are then grown. This is possible because there is an impressive potential for individual plant cells to generate whole plants. On rare occasions, without intentional human interference, the process of DNA transfer will happen. The sweet potato, for example includes DNA sequences that were moved from Agrobacterium bacteria into the genome of the sweet potato thousands of years ago. There are other methods of modifying crop genomes, some of which have been known for a long time, such as selective breeding, while others are recent, such as genome editing. On the other hand, for animals, the commonly used method is by simply injecting the chemicals substances that will work in the animal’s cells and modify its genetics.

Causes of the Disaster

Toxicity, allergenicity and genetic hazards are three important health threats theoretically associated with GM foods. This are the outcome of three alternative causes, the injected gene and its expressed proteins, the secondary or pleiotropic effects of gene expression products, and the likely disturbance in the modified organism of the natural genes.

‘StarLink’ maize offers an example of a nutritional threat that is specifically caused by the injected gene expression. To endow the plant with resistance to certain insects, the transformed plant was engineered with genetic material from Bacillus thuringinensis. An enzyme called Cry9c, is encoded by the inserted gene with pesticidal properties but with an unexpected high allergenicity. Several cases of allergic reactions have been reported in consumers after eating this maize.

Changing the degree of speech of the manipulated organism’s natural components may even intensify allergies. The processing of soybeans enriched with the amino acid methionine is one example. This amino acid’s improved synthesis is the result of a gene isolated from Brazilian nuts. As a result, certain customers with allergic susceptibility to these nuts had allergic reactions to transgenic soybeans.

Secondary and pleiotropic effects can be identified even less readily than the direct effects of the gene or its components. The mutated gene which encode an enzyme involved in the altered organisms’ otherwise normal metabolic pathways. At any ‘metabolic distance’ from real metabolic disruption, such modifications may alter the levels of other metabolites, even toxic ones. Connecting the causative dots suggests an intimate knowledge of the mechanisms of biochemistry and regulation, which could be beyond current understanding.

Another possible danger scenario is that the implanted gene may conflict with the integrity of the plant’s existing genomic details, resulting in the inactivation or other modulation of endogenous genes. Again, such a disturbance may be intended to activate (or disable) or detoxify metabolic processes involving products or toxins. In any case, events are well away from the established and expected effect of the inserted gene, thus confusing our capacity to create a causal connection between the inserted gene and the alleged effect.

Impacts of the Disaster on the Society

1. Lose faith and build hesitation among the society. The disaster occurred from modified genetic in food has made people to lose their interests and grow concerns on this biotechnology matter. As the current recombinant technology cannot ensure that genetically modified organisms will remain under control, activists oppose genetic engineering. In addition, beyond protected laboratory settings, the use of this equipment poses several undesirable threats to both agricultural and wild habitats. In 1996, a firm called Pioneer Hi-Bred spliced nut genes from Brazil into soybeans. However, some people became so allergic to this nut, they went through anaphylactic shock that can cause death, similar to a serious bee sting reaction.
2. Socio-economic problem. Much of the poor in the world rely primarily on farming for their livelihood. The implementation of this genetically engineered technique may have multiple effects that could intensify socioeconomic issues on wealthy and poorer growers. Legal aspects can be influenced as well. The production efficiency of farmers (the ability of farmers to produce more with less or equal inputs and resources) as well as the frequency of incidents of pesticide poisoning and health effects would also be affected. Many opponents of current genetic engineering realize that the increasing use of GM in crops has caused a power shift in agriculture towards Biotechnology companies, which are gaining more control over the production chain of crops and food, and over the farmers that use their products, as well.
3. Affecting future generations with unknown diseases. David Williams, a cellular biologist who specializes in vision, has complained. “A lot of naive science has been involved in pushing this technology”, he says. “Thirty years ago, we didn’t know that when you throw any gene into a different genome, the genome reacts to it. But now anyone in this field knows the genome is not a static environment. Inserted genes can be transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later”. He insists that the consequences may very well be that highly poisonous and potentially toxic plants slip into research. The consumed GM foods maybe can give a long-term reaction that only can be detected within future generations after undergone mutations. Same goes to the current disease that occurred because of this genetic modification, this problem maybe can lead to something worse.

Recommendations to Prevent Future Disasters

In my opinion, using sustainable and organic farming techniques will help us to fix the harm caused by industrial farming, reduce the unnecessary use of fertilizers, herbicides and other chemicals created by human beings, and make GM food redundant. The implementation of organic farming can help to lower the concerns about GM food among people. The reason is because this method is not involving any modification to the foods produced.

Other than that, special organization or association has to be assigned in order to observe the Genetically Modified Foods (GMF) and undergo tests on them before they can be available on the market for people to buy. Not only the tests in laboratory, but also observe if any effects occur to a community in certain places because there are many factors that can lead to vary and different problems such as the surrounding temperature, lifestyle and regular daily food consumption. In order to make this plan goes smoothly, every country should form their own associations to observe any problems among the local society and liaising with the other countries’ organization. For example, World Health Organization (WHO) can be the head of this plan while the other country will be working under its observation and advices.

Conclusion

Holistically, this report discusses about the features of genetically modified (GM) food, its functions, the causes of its disaster, its impacts of the disaster on the society and recommendations to prevent future disasters. The introduction of genetically modified (GM) food and crops has been a disaster, according to the UK’s Greenpeace website. A huge leap forward was supposed to be the science of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another, but instead they pose a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health. Many scientists believe that there is more than enough food in the world and that issues in food delivery and politics, not development, are causing the hunger crisis, so that people should not be given food that could bring a certain degree of risk. We cannot deny the fact that this innovation, which is genetically modified foods (GMF) had brought disease to humankind, but we also cannot deny the fact that it is still can be improved, and that’s the sole purpose of innovation, to improve our lives by creating and producing something more useful and beneficial to us humans while lower the risks and drawbacks. It seems unlikely that the scientific momentum against genetically modified crops will be halted dead in its tracks, learning from historical experience. Or ought to be. Out of fear of the unknown and unintended drawbacks, the immediate rewards are too real to disregard or put aside.

Genetic modification is the area of biotechnology which concerns itself with the manipulation of genetic material in living organisms and enabling them to perform a specific function. New developments leading to modern genetic modification which took place in 1946 where scientists first discovered that genetic material was transferable between different species. Genetically modified yields have been helpful to both the economy and nature. The worldwide nourishment harvest yield (1996–2013) has expanded by > 370 million tons (Raman, 2017) over a moderately little real estate area. Genetically modified harvests have been recorded to diminish natural and environmental effects, prompting increments in species assorted variety. It is consequently obvious that genetically modified yields have been complimented by farming researchers, cultivators and most naturalists around the world. Nevertheless, significant questions are raised on the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops due to their advancements (Raman, 2017). Genetically modified seed industry has been tormented with the issues identified with human well-being and creepy crawly obstruction which genuinely undermined their helpful impacts. Genetically modified foods are highly demanding, and it raised severe problems for commercial agriculture as the explosive population growth increases the demand for food resources on a global scale.

The agriculture industry has been valued at an estimated US$ 3.2 trillion (Raman, 2017) worldwide and accounts for a large share of the GDP and employment in developing and underdeveloped nations. This industry suffers from various significant problems or setbacks like population growth, pest resistance and burden on natural resources.

The Food and Agricultural Organization extends the worldwide populace to develop to around 9.7 billion by 2050 – a close to half increment from 2013 – and further to an expected 11bn by 2100. Current rural practices alone can’t continue the total populace and kill unhealthiness and appetite on a worldwide scale later on. In reality, the FAO likewise assesses that regardless of a huge decrease in worldwide craving, 653 million individuals will even now be undernourished in 2030. Additionally, different examinations portray the main four worldwide harvests (soybean, maize, wheat, and rice) are expanding at 1.0%, 0.9%, 1.6% and 1.3% per annum individually around 42%, 38%, 67% and 55% lower than the necessary development rate (2.4%/annum) to support the worldwide populace in 2050 (Raman, 2017). Compounded with different issues, for example, improved nourishing measures in the thriving lower-working class and anticipated misfortune in arable land (from 0.242 ha/individual in 2016 to 0.18 ha/individual in 2050) because of debasement and quickened urbanization, fast total populace extension will build interest for nourishment assets.

Yearly harvest misfortune to bugs alone record for 20–40% of the worldwide yield misfortunes. As far as financial worth, handling crop infections and pestilences and obtrusive bug issue costs the horticulture business around $290 million annually. Currently, significant scourges keep on plaguing business agribusiness. It has been anticipated that yield infection and irritation occurrences are growing in a poleward heading (2.7 km annually), showed by espresso leaf rust and wheat rust flare-ups in Central America. These rates have to a great extent been ascribed to an amalgamation of globalization prompting expanded plant, bug and illness development, increment in sickness vectors, environmental change and worldwide warming.

While coordinated nuisance the board and counteractive action procedures to some degree alleviate the bug issue, they are insufficient to combat cross-border demic cultures. The study of disease transmission of the Panama malady (or Panama shrivel), brought about by the dirt organism Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense gives strong proof in such manner. Since the early-mid 1990s the Tropical Race-4 (TR4) strain, a solitary pathogen Foc growth clone, has altogether disabled the worldwide banana industry. In 2013, the Mindanao Banana Farmers and Exporters Cooperation (in Philippines) announced disease in 5900 hectares of bananas, including 3000 hectares that were deserted. In Mozambique, symptomatic plants at present record for >20% of all-out banana manors (570,000 out 2.5m) since the revealing of TR4 in 2015. Also, TR4 misfortunes have cost Taiwanese, Malaysian, and Indonesian economies a joined gauge of US$ 388.4 million. Therefore, a disturbing increment in transboundary yield and vermin infections have expansive ecological, social and financial effects on ranchers and undermine nourishment security.

The FAO’s 2050 projections propose anticipated normal asset shortcomings for crop care. Despite by and large agrarian productivity, unsustainable challenge has increased because of urbanization, populace development, industrialization, and environmental change. Deforestation for horticultural purposes has driven 80% of the deforestation around the world. In tropical and subtropical zones where deforestation is as yet far-reaching, rural extension represented loss of 7 million hectares for every annum of common woods between 2000–2010. Additionally, water withdrawals for farming represented 70% of everything being equal, truly exhausting characteristic water assets in numerous nations. This has especially been seen in low precipitation areas, for example, Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia where water for farming records for 80–90% of the all-out water withdrawal. These patterns are anticipated to proceed with well into the 21st century and in this way increment the weight of regular asset utilization universally.

To further emphasize the impact of GM crops on economies, GM cotton (India). In India, cotton has served as an important fiber and textile raw material and plays a vital role in its industrial and agricultural economy. Nearly 8 million farmers, most of them small and medium (having less than 15 acres of farm size and an average of 3–4 acres of cotton holdings) depend on this crop for their livelihood. In 2002, Monsanto-Mahyco introduced Bollgard-I, India’s first GM cotton hybrid containing Cry1Ac-producing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes for controlling the pink bollworm (P. gossypiella) pest (Raman, 2017). Initially, only 36% of the farmers adopted the new crop however this statistic soon grew to 46% in 200417 after Bt cotton was approved nationwide.

Genetically modified crops can mitigate several current challenges for the modification to improve it. All of these crops deliver benefits not only for farmers, but also for the environment by reducing land use and general environmental impact, and for consumers by supporting global food security. The ability of society as a whole to enjoy the benefits of this technology depends in large part on decision-makers, governments and the regulatory frameworks of each country.

References

1. Akumo D., Riedel H., & Semtanska I. (2013). Social and Economic Issues – Genetically Modified Food, Food Industry, DOI: 10.5772/54478. Retrieved from: https://www.intechopen.com/books/food-industry/social-and-economic-issues-genetically-modified-food
2. Raman R. (2017) The Impact of Genetically Modified Crops in Modern Agriculture, 8(4):195-208. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2017.1413522
3. Norero D. (2018, February 23). GMO Crops Have Been Increasing Yield for 20 Year.

Genetically modified soy has become increasingly popular among food distributors all over the world. In fact, soy is the most genetically modified product on the planet, causing most soybeans we purchase and consume to be genetically modified organisms. These legumes are mainly cultivated as they are high in protein and oils. Since soy is a popular food item, they have been genetically modified to withstand herbicides, allowing farmers to obtain more crops, sometimes two per year which will, in turn, increase their profit. This also saves the time of the farmers as they do not need to prep their ground before planting, without the crops being affected. All these factors allow the public to believe that the genetic modification of soy will prove to be advantageous, however, it can be very harmful to one’s health.

To genetically modify soy for herbicide resistance, we use a complex process using an Agrobacterium that is inserted into the germinating seeds. An Agrobacterium is a gram-negative bacterium that transfers its DNA to a plant through a wound. The process begins by placing sterile seeds on a plate with all of the elements necessary for the plant’s growth (for example, oxygen, nitrogen and zinc). The seeds are then left to germinate for five days. After that time, we cut 7-12 horizontal lines in the cotyledons, creating a wound which allows the Agrobacterium to transfer its DNA to the plant. They are then put back onto the plate and the Agrobacterium is poured over them and will attach to the wounds. We then put the wounded side of the cotyledon down on a piece of filter paper with co-culture media, a cell culture with many types of cells. The insertion of the DNA of the Agrobacterium into the plant cell takes three days. The cotyledons are then put onto a plate with herbicides, that would normally kill them, therefore inserting a new gene allowing them to grow with herbicide resistance. This allows one cell to make genetically modified plants and after two weeks of growth, there will be a cluster of buds. Since this gene is not controlled, it creates several buds, so we apply herbicides to one leaf of each plant and check for damage after five to seven days. The soy plant with no damage is proven to be herbicide resistant and is, therefore, a genetically modified organism. In sum, the genetic modification process of soy occurs due to an Agrobacterium inserted into wounded soybeans that are then put onto a plate with herbicides, allowing one to acquire herbicide resistance.

The genetic modification of soy causes many social factors that have been proven to be a disadvantage for society. Firstly, according to Jennifer Byrne of Livestrong, the tests of consumption of genetically modified soy on animals such as rabbits and mice have proven that has many long-lasting effects on the liver, like liver damage and toxemia during pregnancy. Secondly, it has been discovered through studies conducted on hamsters that consuming genetically modified soy increases the rate of infant mortality, as well as the inability to conceive. Three generations of hamsters were fed with products containing genetically modified soy, there were also three generations of hamsters fed on non-genetically modified soy. The final generation lost all ability to conceive and there was increased infant mortality in each generation compared to the non-genetically modified fed hamsters. Thirdly, another social factor of genetically modified soy is due to their resistance to herbicides, as we choose to excessively treat them with these products. When we consume products made from genetically modified soy, we are in turn absorbing those herbicides which kill the cells of the placenta, umbilical cord and kidneys within 24 hours. All of these factors also occur on humans when they consume genetically modified soy, however, the tests are conducted on animals. To summarize, the consumption of genetically modified soy causes many social factors demonstrating that this type of soy is extremely harmful to the human body.

The consumption and creation of genetically modified soy also brings about a moral factor that is very controversial in today’s society. As mentioned above, according to Livestrong’s Jennifer Byrne, the tests conducted with genetically modified soy are performed on animals, such as rabbits, hamsters and mice. More than half of women and young adults believe that animal testing is not an adequate way of determining whether vaccines, drugs and in this case food, do what they are intended, says Brie Zeltner. They believe this for many reasons, mainly that animals are very different from humans, even chimpanzees, the closest animal to us. These animals have very different brain structure, allowing some results to be inaccurate. Therefore, according to Cruelty-Free International, testing on animals is often misleading, which could cause many human deaths. In summary, genetically modified soy brings out a moral factor for more than 50% of the population due to the animal testing involved.

The genetic modification of soy has proven to have many disadvantages, however, from an economic standpoint, it is an advantage. Firstly, according to Crystal Lombardo, this is due to the fact that we have created genetically modified soy to make it herbicide resistant, therefore it grows faster and in more abundance. This means we have more supply. Finally, due to this increase in supply, we are able to lower the prices of soy, making it advantageous for food producers and consumers. It costs less for farmers to grow genetically modified soy than it does for them to grow organic soy, which allows this price decrease. In sum, genetically modified soy is advantageous for the economy due to its quick and abundant growth.

In conclusion, humans have decided to genetically modify soy to make it more herbicide-resistant while using an Agrobacterium. This process is advantageous for farmers, but can also have many effects on human health. I believe that the science behind the genetic modification of soy for herbicide resistance has performed the way it was anticipated to because many farmers are capable of growing two crops in one year, due to not having to prep the ground to remove weeds. This allows us to have more soy. However, even though the genetic modification was successful, I believe it is incredibly dangerous for society due to the effects we saw on the animals. Also, we start to increase herbicide use on these plants, which is also detrimental to human health.