Category: GMO

Introduction

Food is arguably the most basic need of man and as such, food security is a fundamental goal by all nations. Ensuring that people are protected from hunger that is often the consequence of poverty or drought is therefore one of the major ambitions of most governments. Over the cause of the last century, there has been a population explosion which has resulted in rapid population growth.

This growth has resulted in an unprecedented demand for food to feed the growing population. As a result of this, food security has become difficult to achieve in some countries; especially the developing ones. A solution to this problem has been necessary to avoid widespread starvation.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have proved to be a feasible solution to the food problem and some people even hail them as the miracle of seed science and fertilizers (Coleman, 2005). However, the acceptance of GMOs as the solution to the worlds food problem is not unanimously and there is still a multitude of opposition and suspicion of their use.

This paper shall argue that genetic engineering is the answer to the hunger problems of the world. The paper shall give arguments both for and against the use of GMOs as advanced by authoritative sources. A thought provoking discussion on the matter will then be given so as to reinforce the claim that GMOs if properly implemented are the solution to the worlds food problems.

A case for Genetic Engineering

Food safety concerns are the most paramount and one of the common fears of GM foods is as to their suitability for human consumption. Nelson (2001) shows that GM foods have been under thorough scrutiny for years and the safety of genetically modified food products has been examined by governments and scientists for decades. Even with these many years of research and tests, there has been no specific risk or harm identified from the genetic modification process itself.

Arguably the most appealing argument for GM foods is that they have been dispersed throughout America and the population has been eating these products for a decade without any adverse reaction. Coleman (2005) reveals that as of the year 2005, 60% of American processed foods were genetically engineered.

This figure can only be expected to have risen over the cause of the previous five years. This being the case, it can be authoritatively stated that GM foods do not have any adverse effect on human beings and as such are completely safe for human consumption.

McKinney and Schoch (2003) suggest that one of the most important contributions that genetic engineering has made is to increase the resistance of crops to insect and disease vectors. Considering the fact that one problem that has continually plagued mans agricultural efforts is the problem of pests and diseases, this is a very significant contribution.

All over the world, communities have been known to suffer from hunger as a result of their crops being attacked by pests and/or diseases. While efforts in the form of using pesticides have been extensively used to deal with this problem, this solution has proved to be short term since pests have been known to become immune to chemicals over time.

GM on the other had can be used to create special strains of crops which have immunity over pests and diseases therefore reducing the need for pesticides. This has the double advantage of saving the farmer the money he would have used investing in chemicals as well as safeguarding the environment.

Due to the population explosion that has been witnessed throughout the world, the earth is truly busting at its seams and it is unlikely that man will be able to produce enough food to feed the entire population through traditional means. An increase in food production is therefore necessary for the food demands of the world to be met. GM foods are viewed as surpassing in significance the Green Revolution of 1960 which helped Asian countries tackle their food shortage issues.

This is because GM foods result in higher yields therefore giving nations a means through which they can feed their population. This is as a result of their special genetic make up which ensures that GM foods not only have higher yields but are also produced in relatively shorter periods of time.

As has been noted in this paper, the primary cause of hunger has been the population explosion which has created a strain on the earths resources. Land has been one of the resources that has been adversely affected both by the population growth as well as factors such as climatic change and global warming which have made land that was previously arable useless for agricultural purposes.

Genetic engineering presents a manner by which food can be produced under unfavorable conditions. By use of GM technology, crops can be altered to increase their tolerances to stresses such as drought, cold, heat, or high soil salinities (McKinney and Schoch, 2003).

This therefore means that land that could not be used for cultivation can be used for producing food which is needed to feed the population. By making use of land that could previously not be used for cultivation, GM will result in more food production therefore increasing the likelihood of eliminating hunger in the world.

A Case Against Genetic Engineering

A notable issue with GMOs is that unlike natural organisms, some GMOs cannot be reproduced naturally. Farmer who uses GM seeds will therefore be obligated to keep buying this seeds from the corporations which sell the same as opposed to the natural seeds which can be used over and over.

McDonagh (2005) quips that with such realities in play, the farmers will never own their food and will always be at the mercy of the corporations which cannot be trusted to have the farmers good at heart. This is not a baseless fear since with the prevalence of GM crops and the introduction of the Technology Protection Systems, farmers will become completely reliant on big corporations which produce the GM Seeds (McDonagh, 2005).

While most of the proponents of genetic engineered (GE) foods advance that the technology has favorable environmental implications, this is a stance that is questionable. McDonagh (2005) demonstrates that hybrids seeds which are produced by genetic engineering are expensive and heavily reliant on fertilizers and pesticides.

This is a claim that is substantiated by Nelson (2001) who notes that despite the numerous claims that GE crops will help the environment, the current emphasis of biotechnology is the creation of herbicide resistant crops and pest and disease resistant crops.

The author notes that this results in the more extensive usage of pesticides with time due to the inherent resistance nature of the crops. Studies conducted on the relative usage of chemicals on GE crops revealed that while there was substantially reduced pesticide use in the first years, GMO required increased pesticide usage over time (Mcdonagh, 2005).

Proponents of GM assume that food problems in the world are solely caused by poor conditions that result in poor yields. However, this is not the case and Mcdonagh (2005) authoritatively asserts that hunger and famine around the world have more to do with the absence of land reform, social inequality& than with lack of agribusiness super-seeds. This being the case, it is evident that introduction of GM seeds in such an environment will have little impact since the core causes of hunger and famine (land reforms and inequality) will still remain prevalent.

To reinforce his claim, Mcdonagh (2005) reveals that one of the worlds largest food exporter, Brazil, has over 30million hungry people within its borders. As such, hunger is not due to a lack of food in the country but rather as a result of unequal distribution of food and resources therefore leading to a scenario where a large number of people are landless and therefore lack the means to produce food.

There is an assumption that widespread use of GE will result in the availability of food for all. This is at best a utopian notion since it is very unlikely that the available food will be distributed for free to the hungry poor.

The real cause of hunger in the world is in most cases the lack of money to purchase the food than the lack of food in itself (Hollander, 2004). As such, while GM may result in surplus productions, this will not guarantee freedom from hunger since only those who have access to money to purchase the food will benefit from it (Mcdonagh, 2005).

Discussion

Coleman (2005) asserts that the war on hunger is a grave and universal need. He goes on to point out that in the year 2004, 10 million people died as a result of starvation. These bleak realities demonstrate that not only is a solution to the world food problems needed; but it is needed sooner rather than later.

While science cannot guarantee absolute certainty and indeed there may be some risks related to the use of GMOs, a comparative analysis of the risks and benefits reveals that GMOs have more benefits to man than the possible risk.

One of the issues which make GMOs unacceptable to some is due to the fact that the process for their creation is unnatural. Coleman (2005) documents that organisms have been exchanging genetic information for centuries. As such, GM foods should not be discounted on this basis since the process can take place without the intervention of man. In addition to this, extensive research has been undertaken as to the suitability of GM foods for human consumption and it has been revealed that they are as safe as natural foods.

Both the opponents and proponents of genetic engineering alike agree that there is a real food problem in the world and therefore, solutions to this have to be arrived at soon (Easton, 2008).

While both parties do propose differing methods to solve the food problems of the world, proponents of genetically engineered foods offer the more feasible solution to the problem. Without a doubt, the danger of farmers (especially those from developing nations) becoming fully reliant on GMO seeds and therefore becoming dependent on the companies that produce the same is very real.

This danger is especially accentuated by the use of Technology Protection Systems which force the farmer to buy new seeds for every new planting season (Mcdonagh, 2005). Coleman (2005) argues that intellectual knowledge must be disseminated in a manner that promotes the good of all people and not only the profit interests of corporations. Only by doing this can the benefits that GMO purport to give mankind be fully appreciated.

Conclusion

There is no question that every nation in the world must take up measures to stop global hunger. At the present, genetic modification presents the best means to achieve this since it results in an increase in crop yields therefore giving nations the capacity to feed a growing population.

This paper set out to argue that genetic engineering is the solution to the hunger problems that the world faces. To reinforce this claim, this paper has provided a detailed argument both in support of GMO as the solution to hunger and against it. The features which make GMOs properly suited to help in the fight against hunger have been documented and the factors that may render GMOs unsuited stated as well.

From the discussions presented herein, it is clear that the benefits of GMOs are great. However, this paper has shown that care must be taken to ensure that GM food production is not used to benefit only a section of the population. In addition to this, the need for tackling other issues such as social and economic inequalities that create poverty has been articulated. Only by doing this can genetic engineering assist in eradicating the problem of hunger which has continually haunted man for centuries.

References

Coleman, G. D. (2005). Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger?. Web.

Easton, T. (2008). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial environmental issues. (Custom 13th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hollander, J. M. (2004).The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environments Number One Enemy. California: University of California Press.

Mcdonagh, S. (2005). Genetic Engineering is not the Answer. Web.

McKinney, M. L. & Schoch, R. M. (2003). Environmental Science: Systems and Solutions. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Nelson, G. C. (2001). Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics. NY: Academic Press.

Introduction

Genetically modified crops (GMF) refers to plants which have been modified within laboratories for the purposes of enhancing plant characteristics. This process had earlier been done through breeding which proved to be more time consuming and at times produced inaccurate results.

This was enhanced through the use of genetic engineering which enabled the creation of plants with desired characteristics, done by inserting appropriate genes to the desired plants. However, arguments have risen on the viability of these kinds of food to human and environmental health. Various organizations have raised their concerns about GM foods since the idea is considered profit oriented rather than being health oriented (Domingo, 2000).

There are some common concerns emerging amongst different professionals about genetically modified crops and food. These concerns revolve around health risks, environmental pollution and the adverse effects on the general biodiversity. These concerned people put across their arguments without any valid evidences which could support their negative stand on the danger posed by genetically engineered food.

So far conclusion has been made concerning the long-term consequences GM food could have on human health not forgetting the general safety of the current and future environment. Based on such argument, some may tend to take side with the proponents of GM crops and food in declaring the food safe for consumption (Domingo, 2000).

Despite the dilemma faced on the issue, there are still numerous legal grounds that people could stand upon in the process of opposing the use of GM food. This could be based on the manner in which the industry has structured its laws on the use of intellectual property rights where by the issue of patenting genetically modified organisms would be geared towards transformation of farming methods. The focus is majorly on maximizing profits hence ignoring many lives it is meant to support.

Contrary to the objections presented by the public concerning the introduction and use of GM food, some of the big world organizations seem to be reading from different scripts. One of the organizations is World Trade Organization (WTO), which is a body majorly concerned with implementation and regulation of rules amongst the nations of the world.

This body is one of the proponents on the use of GM food; WTO has gone as far as protecting the sale of GM food within the market through granting those involved legal trade licenses and also protecting them against any market discriminatory actions. Such kind of a move undermines the peoples democratic rights on choice and interests. This is since the market forces can never form any legal substitute to human life and safety. Such kind of move provides a reach battle ground between humanitarian and market forces.

These rights include; food and safety rights, right to freedom of choice, property rights and the rights conferred on organizations dealing with food security. This provides one of the most powerful grounds used in opposing the existence of GM food within the global market.

International laws require that any kind of food should undergo thorough testing and investigations before being released to the general public. However, there are some kinds of food that are always regarded as safe internationally hence does not undergo thorough check. Genetically Modified food falls under this category of safe food according to international laws under FDA.

The tests relied upon for approvals are performed by the same companies who happen to be prime producers of genetically modified organisms. This leads to some kind of bias since they would want to gain at the expense of human life, they will tend to exaggerate the level of danger contained within their inventions. To be on safe side the public should be warned and advised to take caution while using any kind of food within the market.

This is since most of these genetically modified food stuff appear in the market with no labels which could provide consumers with knowledge about their use. Such actions reinforce the nature of risk the companies are exposing people to; this could be traced to some dangerous scenarios the public has been exposed to in the past like the issue on mud cow disease.

Humanitarian and food security organizations should therefore ensure that necessary safety rules and procedures are instituted to assist in curtailing GM food and crops (Pusztai, 2000).

Explanation of the issue on objection on the use of Genetically Modified food

Controversies have been raised over the rise in genetically modified crops and food; this is in line with the kind of complexities they pose to human issues. Most governments though, have considered genetic modification as an important aspect of technology beneficial to scientific, political and economic progress.

They consider such implication as one of the great advances towards development of future human welfare. This has since not been proven true from the human point of view, because the idea of using biotechnology poses some moral and ethical challenges to human life.

The ability of the inserted genetic matter being transferred through into different species presents one of the greatest risks to survival. Scientists have got little knowledge to establish the processes which might be caused by GMF at genetic level and the ultimate consequences on the proteomic level of the life involved. They have not been able to ascertain on the causal impacts across food chains (Domingo, 2000).

The inception of GM crops and food has got some adverse effects on economy and nature. It seems to undermine the natures ability to sustain life through environmentally friendly ways of producing food for human sustenance. There is strong belief and proof that the planet has got the capability of producing enough food for the purposes of supporting life therein, the insufficiency comes due to unfair application of human will power.

Enough could be produced through the use intensive farming methods and the application of right procedures and prescriptions on crops. Increased yields and food production could be ensured by use of various diversification methods. One of the major environmental risks posed by GM crops is the negative impact they have on the biodiversity within the farmlands (Buick, 2011).

Genetically modified food is no different from other known conventional foods hence should be subjected to thorough test for health risks. Genetically modified food should be examined for their alleged level of toxicity, antibiotic resistance and also the level of carcinogens they contain. These contents make them health hazards hence should be avoided whenever possible. They also pose a great threat towards what is known as genetic pollution whereby the crops trigger irreversible genetic contamination to plant and animal life.

The crops produce chain of reactions which eventually pose unintended consequences like pests resistant to chemicals as well as hard core weeds. It may also lead to emergence of resistant viruses in the process of gene transfer from viral resistant plants to other plants. This presents great threat to biodiversity since the crops are planted into foreign ecosystems where they eventually dominate (Taylor et al, 1999).

The whole issue on GM food seems to concentrate so much on scientists ignoring the important contributions by the public. The whole issue on policy making surrounding GM food is only narrowed down to experts ignoring the full involvement of the public in decision making process.

This could lead to under-presentation since the effects of the food is generally felt by the public hence the decisions made could be considered illegitimate. There is also the unjustified process on risk assessment processes which involves balancing of risks, costs involved and the benefits on the use of GM food. There are no clear indications that implementation of GM food has got parallel studies on methods of overcoming any hazardous consequences they might pose to life (Lappe et al, 1999).

Arguments for the particular decision based on legal, economic, social, political and ethical considerations

Many opinions have been put across on the potential health risks associated with GM food crops; this has been substantiated by scarce data. The level of quality, science gives on the established data concerning GM food is sub-standard. This justifies the reason as to why there is objection on the fact that the future of this generation is dependent upon the success brought by the promise based on quality GM foods.

On the issue of environmental concerns, research has shown that GM crops could cause harm un-discriminatively to other niches within the environment. This was presented from the example of Bt. Corn which resulted in high mortality rates of insects including the un-targeted ones. The process also leads to gene transfer to non-targeted plant species, which appears adjacent to GM crops. This happens through cross pollination where pollen grains are transferred from male plants to undesired targets (Buick, 2011).

Economically, existence of GM food into the market proves to be an expensive process owing to the kinds of costs involved. Companies involved in genetic production of food crops have patented their engineering technologies. The idea of patenting GM plants may result in price increase of the seeds which would be of great disadvantage to small farmers and majority of the third world countries.

The result is the widening gap between the rich and the poor (Panse, 2010). The healthcare system which is concerned with the duties of providing the people with treatment, prevention measures and overall management of health finds difficulties dealing with risks posed by GMOs since there are no documented procedures form biotechnology industries.

However, the necessary interventions could be ensured in collaboration with professional service providers like nurses and physicians. These services require adequate financing and should be performed based on already set policies and standards which govern the healthcare system. The industry faces some risks and challenges which include costs and the complex processes which should be followed to ensure quality results.

The issue on GM food could be best addressed in terms of hazards rather than risks, of great importance is on how the effects occur within free trading systems. This may help in exposing the anticipated connections between the free markets and the public opinions concerning safety in terms of human and environmental health.

This should be considered since GM food forms part of the complex social, political which makes the issue crucial part of international laws and markets. This makes the issue an important part of social justice which incorporates food production and consumption based on national, international laws and human rights. Failure to incorporate and consider these laws in the process of implementing GM food leads to violation of international laws on food security and human rights (Pusztai, 2000).

The firm needs the approval of FDA in order to start carrying out the normal sales of GM food to the industry. Biotechnology firm should carry out some trials through the marketers on sample population to establish the level of relevance their invention brings to the market. This should be part of the design so as to enable the firm prove to the consumers that their product is superior compared to others and has got no side effects.

There should be an established research organization which operates under the modern international laws on development providing strong base for future expansion. It would only work with experienced management team providing the required and necessary knowledge. The processes of regulations and clinical research should be incorporated to form part of research and development assisting in improvement of the results submitted to FDA.

The strategy of introducing GMOs is simply for the purposes of fulfilling prevention priority initiatives. It is intended at helping the population all over the world by improving on their lifestyle and upgrading their health status through adoption of quick-fix GM crops which in essence matures faster than the natural crops and also best at controlling emerging diseases.

The aim is in the reduction of food deficit level experienced all over the world as well as preventing the use of chemicals. The strategy also aims at preventing prevalent mortality rate amongst the population due to rise in hunger (Pusztai, 2000).

Building strategies is necessary for efficient implementation of any consumer product. The kind of strategy built and implemented determines the level of progress within any system. Strategies are usually built based on various conditions which should include; the current economic status, Countrys policies and ability to focus ahead based on competitive moves and health concerns.

The implementation process should have action plan which can enable them have competitive advantage over other related food sources within the industry. The effects and implications of the chosen strategies in the implementation of GM food by the governments are basically based on business principles.

The use of GM food may have increased effects on human productivity due to the genetic composition of the food crops transferable across food chain. The use of this strategy was basically aimed at ensuring that all community members have access to cheap food at affordable costs. This would have been done by offering some quality options like the implementation monitoring gadget that would enhance safety for all users of the GMOs.

This would also ensure that important information about health concerns on the use of GM food is relayed appropriately to all community members. Performing this strategy would ensure reduction in negative consequences on the use of GM food. This means that the government would be in full control of the peoples health. Besides preventing and reducing death rate, the initiative would also ensure reduction in general public suspicions on the use of the food (Pusztai, 2000).

The information provided on the use of GMOs would improve the nature of disaster preparedness towards community reactions on the use of GM food. The idea of objecting implementation of GM food aims at equipping the community and preparing them against any disaster posed by the use of strange food products found within the market.

This strategy could help in enhancing excellent coordination between the food industry and the health care sector, making it easier when it comes to organizing appropriate responses in protecting public health. This would at the same time cover the need in improving the communication system used between the community and various organizations dealing with food safety. The procedure ensures that all the cases pertaining to reports on public health responses are maintained (Panse, 2010).

Any plan instituted by biotechnology industry should ensure that organizational excellence is given priority since the strategy touches on human and environmental sustenance. For progress to be realized within the biotech industry, some dimensions and components within organizations working in collaboration with the industry require strengthening. This ensures that the industrys effectiveness and efficiency on safety issues is felt across all the communities.

This could be enhanced through recruitment of qualified and experienced scientists willing to be accountable for every process involved in the innovation of genetically modified food. This strategy may help in reducing the unnecessary phobia on the general public concerning GMOs. It would ensure that majority of consumers respond positively towards the idea on GM food (Pusztai, 2000).

All these priorities could be supported on condition that Biotech industry agrees to work in partnership with the humanitarian organizations, food security organizations and the community at large in ensuring that health and safety are given first priority. The industry should ensure that it forms and sponsors specific community groups specifically concerned with Health care matters to help in ascertaining the viability of their inventions.

This would also help in closing the disparity that exists within healthcare on the grounds of discrimination and economic ability on the majority of the people. The promotion should encompass individuals, learning institutions and social centers all over the world (Pusztai, 2000).

Stakeholder analysis

The many controversies surrounding genetically modified food is that it may cause small local farmers to loose their business to few bigger companies. This means that much of the food will have to be imported from overseas countries. Due to the limited research done on this field only few crops could be produced through this process giving full benefits to the bigger corporations hence being viewed as government initiative for the purposes of controlling world food supply (Yingqi, 2011).

People have got the right to be protected from hunger by their respective countries and concerned world organization bodies. This makes every individual to have right to food which is essential to good health. There should not be any form of interference on the issue of citizens rights to enjoyment by any form of implementation whatsoever.

Every state is under obligation to protect through provision of adequate basic needs which includes food and water. Food provided should be of convincing quality and quantity and in line with the peoples cultural norms. Genetically modified food tends to infringe the right of others towards enjoyment both environmentally and socially. Their acquisitions are thought by many to be of great set back towards sustainability (Yingqi, 2011).

The governments through humanitarian organizations have the obligation of promoting individuals rights to health and nutrition which in turn leads to enjoyment of basic political and economic rights.

However, World trade organization encourages people to buy GM seeds and at the same time improve on the ways in which they do farming for the purposes of accommodating large quantities. The issue of farming has currently been dwindling within societies leading to mass drive towards poverty. This is because of the nature of competition which exists within the market.

This clearly shows that even the introduction of GM food would do little to solve the problem of hunger within communities. Hence, reveals that the issue is not all about having less food but poor governance and crying levels of poverty. This means that introduction of biotechnology would encourage further dependence on few individual companies for the purposes of providing seeds and necessary equipments for farming (Kuiper et al, 1999).

There is the problem of high expenditure on overheads and less involvement of the public in decision making. The introduction of GM food leads to abrupt change in taste on side of the consumers since the food products give some unnatural taste to people.

The use of in-experienced scientists in genetics poses adverse effect on the introduction of GM food since they are unable to convince the public on the safety of their innovations. Owing to these reasons, the only solution would be to provide possible alternatives out of this mire by incorporating both public and specialist opinion. This could lead to fulfillment of the desired consumer taste (Millstone, 1999).

Conclusion

Genetically modified foods could be used as one of the best interventions towards eradicating world food problems. Its other benefit could be realized on the reduction in the use of familiar chemicals like pesticides and other mechanical weed control mechanisms. Despite all these, several challenges face many governments; this is specifically in the crucial areas dealing with safety, regulation processes, international policies and food labeling.

Majority share the feeling that genetic engineering could be one of the major future challenges on human life despite its potential of producing great benefits. The potential threats it poses to human and environmental health requires further investigations to establish on the truth behind the allegations. However, all the allegations provide valid concerns on the use of genetically modified food and crops.

Specialists understand better the idea of strategy development within the Health care and food security sectors. This is since both contribute to individuals as well as communitys health. Implementation of right strategies assists in increasing the health and environmental awareness amongst the communities and helps them know on ways of differentiating between risks and hazards.

However, poor strategies often results into poor services which at times results into harmful consequences to both the Community and the health of individuals. Health of the public should be handled with the necessary caution and every available resource used in ensuring that humanity is safe from any form of humanitarian destruction. International rules and regulations safeguarding human existence should be followed to details by every country and any global organization.

References

Buick, A. (2011). The Great GM Food Scare. Web.

Domingo, J.L. (2000). Health risks of Genetically Modified Foods: Many opinions but Few Data. Science, (288), 1748-1749.

Kuiper, H.A., Noteborn, H.P., & Peijnenburg, A., (1999). Adequacy of Methods for Testing the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods. The Lancet, (354), 1315-1316.

Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C., & Setchell, K.D.R. (1999). Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans. Journal of Medical Food, (1), 241-245.

Millstone, E., Brunner, E. & Mayer, S., (1999). Beyond Substantial Equivalence. Nature, (401), 525-526.

Panse, S. (2010). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food. Web.

Pusztai, A. (2000). The Need for Rigorous Risk Assessment. Chemistry & Industry, (8), 280.

Taylor, N.B., Fuchs, R.L., MacDonald, J., Shariff, A.B. & Padgette, S.R. (1999). Compositional Analysis of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybeans treated with Glyphosate. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, (47), 4469-4473.

Yingqi, C. (2011). Public has doubts over Modified Food. China Daily, (23/2), 5.

Consumers differ in their desires on issue of labeling of genetically modified foods. Those having less defined views are of the perception that labeling should be mandatory while those with stronger viewpoints see labeling as nonessential.

A clear understanding of the genetically modified foods in terms of their risks and benefits could help determine the preferences of consumers for genetically modified foods and GM labeling policy.

Radas, Teisl and Roe (336) try to justify the varying viewpoints as regards genetically modified foods and their labeling. Hypotheses have just been made without any validity being tested.

The authors say that industrial leaders are for the idea that consumers accept genetically modified food because the public depict a tendency of consuming them while academic records indicate that human beings are more concerned with the GM technology, have not decided about GM foods and desire to have GM food labeled. The authors are compelled to conduct this study on GM foods so as to establish if human beings see labeling as something important as regards genetically modified foods.

Also, there are varying theories on GM foods making it complicated to interpret reported attitude levels even though consumers would have otherwise made clear distinctions. An example is that early studies indicated lowered prices as the greatest benefit of GM foods. Recent studies have explored scenarios where individuals derive non-price benefits from GM foods which may include derivation of higher nutritional value.

Recent studies have proposed that since consumers use the risk to benefit ratio when considering GM foods, consumers should be segmented according to their evaluation of GM foods because of their heterogeneous nature. The objective of this article is to establish if consumers vary in risk/benefit evaluation as regards GM foods and how these variants in evaluation relate with desires for GM labeling policy.

Consumer judgment on GM foods is based on limited information, thus it is biased as it does not factor all the risks and benefits of GM foods. This article points out that from the results of the study, there are three different kinds of consumers; the risk avoiders, the risk dismissers, and the balanced and interested group which was the largest segment and had no strong commitment to risk taking or risk dismissal.

This segment was found to contain the least educated individuals and had less income. The study also indicated that this group was stricter as regards to GM labeling and demanded a lot of information which is important to them as they are still undecided on GM foods. Thus with presentation of the right information they can make an informed decision on whether GM food is good for them.

The balanced and the interested group also had strong feelings regarding risks though they also found benefits of GM foods quite important. With the balanced and interested being the largest group, providing the right information can help distinguish their preferences as far as GM food is concerned.

It can be deduced from the above facts that human beings lack a clear understanding of GM foods as regards risk and benefits and they needed more information to make informed decisions on the same.

Gaining a comprehensive understanding of genetically modified foods as far as potential harms are concerned as well as envisaged benefits can go a long way in empowering consumers decision-making as far as labeling of GM foods is concerned.

To be precise, it would be easier to advocate for or against GM labeling since the arguments would be based on facts rather than sentiments (Barnard 26). The views regarding GM foods should only be based on tests that have been proved valid; otherwise it will be a grave mistake for all players to engage in this matter without clearly validated views.

Both industrial players as well as the scientists involved in this field should corroborate their efforts and findings to provide clear guidelines regarding labeling of GM foods (Environmental Nutrition 3). In the end, the consumer will be empowered to make better and more informed decisions. Consumers will also be able to choose whether they would like to accommodate the possible risks in GM food adoption while reaping the proved benefits (Kondro 1046).

With more and valid facts on GM foods, consumers are not tied to evaluating GM foods based on one aspect only, e.g. price benefit. Instead, they also have the option of evaluating GM foods based on other important facts such as availability of extra nutritional value in GM foods among others. Again, such a wide view of GM foods enhances decision-making as far as labeling of GM foods is concerned.

The authors have ably identified three key players in the GM labeling debate. These include consumers, industries, scientists as well as political players. Despite having elaborated on the first two players, the authors have not put a lot of emphasis on political influence in this debate.

It is unfortunate since political will has been found to be central in designing of various policies (Laux, Mosher and Freeman 4), with the issue of GM labeling not exempted. It is therefore advisable that even as the views of consumers are sought and their knowledge on benefits and risks of GM foods is improved, the political players should also be enlightened on the same.

Works Cited

Barnard, Neal D. Weird science: Should you say no to GM foods? Vegetarian Times Issue 384; (Apr/May2011): 26-27. Print.

Environmental Nutrition. EN urges labeling of genetically modified food. Environmental Nutrition 23.4; (2000): 3. Print.

Kondro, Wayne. Canada must bolster its GM food regulations, not add labels: report. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 167.9; (2002): 1046-1046. Print.

Laux, Chad M., Mosher Gretchen A. and Freeman Steven A. Factors affecting college students knowledge and opinions of genetically modified foods. Journal of Technology Studies 36.2; (2008 Fall): 2-9. Print

Radas, Sonja, Teisl Mario F., and Roe Brian. An open mind wants more: opinion strength and the desire for genetically modified food labeling policy. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 42.3; (2008): 335-361. Print.

Environmental societies, professional bodies, religious groups and public officials have all shown concerns regarding Genetically Modified (GM) foods, and condemned agribusiness for practicing profit without considering possible hazards, and regimes for failing to implement sufficient regulatory supervision.

Although genetically-modified foods are capable of resolving most starvation and malnutrition issues, and aiding safeguard and conserve the environment they also pose several human health and environmental risks, which forms the thesis of this study.

What are Genetically Modified Foods?

The expression GM foods are usually employed to refer to crop plants produced for human or animal utilization using the most recent molecular biology skills. These plants are usually tailored to develop desired qualities such as augmented resistance to herbicides or superior nutritional substance. The enrichment of desired qualities has customarily been performed through breeding, but conservative plant breeding techniques can be time consuming and are usually not particularly precise.

Conversely, genetic engineering can make plants with the desired feature rapidly and with much precision. For instance, plant geneticists can separate a gene liable for drought forbearance and introduce that gene into another plant. The new genetically-modified plant will also increase drought forbearance. Genes can be relocated from one plant to a different one, though genes from non-plant species can as well be utilized.

A good example of this is the utilization of Bacillus thuringiensis genes in maize and other crops (Makoni and Jennifer 303). Bacillus thuringiensis is a physically occurring bacterium which generates crystal proteins, which are toxic to caterpillars. The genes of Bacillus thuringiensis have been transmitted into maize, allowing the maize to generate its own pesticides.

History of Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically modified crops were produced for the first time in 1980s. The earliest bio-modified food to arrive at the supermarket was the Flavr Savr tomato, which was standardized in 1994. With a particularly solid hide, the Flavr Savr guaranteed a longer shelf existence than nearly all tomatoes (Zinnen 31).

However, its insufficient traits and high price marked it for collapse. Scientists go on to work on tomatoes that mature gradually and feel superior. Scientists have customarily sorted plants for wanted traits, but conventional reproductions are less precise and slow than genetic modification in creating the preferred traits.

Tools for genetically modifying foods present pretentious guarantee for meeting a number of greatest problems in prospect. Similar to all new skills, they pretense some menace, both recognized and mysterious. Arguments surrounding GM foods usually focus on environmental and human safety.

Prevalence and Involved Plants

As said by the United States Department of Agriculture and FDA, there exist above forty plant types that have fulfilled all of the national necessities for commercialization.

Various examples of these plants consist of cantaloupes and tomatoes that have customized ripening traits, sugar beets and soya beans which are anti-herbicides, and cotton plants and corn with improved resistance to vermin. The products of all these are not accessible in grocery stores so far. Nevertheless, the pervasiveness of genetically modified foodstuffs in the United States supermarkets is more prevalent than it is deemed.

Though there are extremely few wholly genetically-modified vegetables and fruits obtainable on produce plunks, vastly processed foods like cereals and vegetable oils, most probably have some minute fractions of genetically-modified constituents since the unprocessed ingredients have been united into one processing flow from several sources. In addition, the utilization of soybean products as food additives ascertains that most U.S. consumers use genetically modified food derivatives.

Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods

GM foods have many benefits. These advantages are directly connected to the environment and human health. The following is a discussion of the benefits of using genetically modified foods.

The first benefit is pest resistance. Loss of crops due to insect vermin can be overwhelming, ensuing in devastating economic loss for farmers and undernourishment in emerging nations. Agriculturalists usually use several tons of chemical insect killers per annum. Eating food that is treated with pesticides can cause potential health hazards to customers.

Also, overspill of agricultural desecrates from extreme use of fertilizers and insect killers can make water supply toxic and result to environmental destruction. Planting genetically modified foods like Bacillus thuringiensis can aid eradicate the use of chemical pesticides and decrease the charge of taking a crop to marketplace. Hence, potential health hazards to consumers will be reduced.

The second benefit is herbicide tolerance (Friends of the Earth 1). For most crops, it is not rewarding to eliminate weeds by physical methods such as digging, hence; farmers will frequently spray vast quantities of dissimilar weed-killers to annihilate weeds, which is a lasting and costly process that calls for care so that the weed-killer does not damage the crop plant or the surroundings.

Genetically-modified crop plants, which resist potent herbicides, can aid avoid environmental harm by lessening the quantity of herbicides required. For instance, Monsanto has produced a strain of soybeans genetically tailored to be not changed by their herbicide creation. A farmer cultivates these soybeans which afterwards only need a single application of herbicides instead of several applications, decreasing production expenditure and restraining the risks of agricultural waste overspill.

The third benefit is disease resistance. There exist lots of fungi, viruses and bacteria which source plant infections. Biologists of plants are endeavoring to produce plants with genetically-modified resistance to these infections. This will in turn lead to a safeguard of the environment as less toxic substances will be introduced into the environment for disease resistance purposes.

The fourth benefit is cold tolerance (Liang and Daniel 145). Unpredicted frost can annihilate susceptible plantlets. Plants are capable of dealing with the cold temperatures, which typically would kill the unmodified plantlet, by using the antifreeze gene. This increases food production, which in turn improves human health.

The fifth benefit is salinity tolerance. Since the earth population has raised and more land is used for building shelter rather than food creation, farmers will have to cultivate crops in places formerly inappropriate for plant farming. Hence, the need for making plants that can endure long phases of drought or high salt substance in the groundwater.

The sixth benefit is nutrition. Undernourishment is widespread in developing countries, where poor peoples depend on a single crop like rice as the core staple of their food. Nevertheless, rice lacks sufficient levels of all essential food constituents to shun malnutrition. Through genetic engineering, rice can be made to have extra minerals and vitamins, hence improving human health by lessening nutrient shortages.

For instance, visual impairment due to vitamin A lack is a widespread matter in developing nations. Professionals at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have formed peculiar rice having an extraordinarily high substance of beta-carotene. As this rice was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, the organization expects to present the rice seed at no cost to any developing nation that needs it, with the aim of improving human health.

The seventh benefit is pharmaceuticals. Vaccines and drugs often are expensive to manufacture and at times need storage surroundings that are not readily obtainable in developing nations. Scientists are endeavoring to build up harmless vaccines and drugs in potatoes and tomatoes. It will be easier to store these drugs and vaccines than to transport and direct customary vaccines, hence improving human health.

The last benefit is phytoremediation. A number of GM crops are not built as crops. As a result, ground water and soil contamination persists to be a dilemma in all regions of the globe.

Environmental Safety

A key area of concern adjoining GM foods is environmental safety. Particularly, critics are concerned about destruction to other species and the involuntary effects trans- genes intended to fight pests might have on useful insects or how they can distress a range of balances in the environment. Studies reveal that pollen from B.t. corn results to elevated death rates in the monarch butterfly caterpillars (Hellmich 1).

Monarch caterpillars use milkweed plants instead of corn. However, the dismay is that if pollen from B.t. corn is delivered by the airstream onto milkweed vegetation in near regions, the caterpillars might consume the pollen and die. Sadly, B.t. contaminants kill several classes of insect larvae haphazardly; it is not feasible to plan a B.t. venom that would only destroy crop destructive pests and spare all other pests.

Excellent weeds and excellent pests are also forming an area of concern. Crop plants modified for herbicide forbearance and weeds might cross-breed through vertical transfers, ensuing in the transmission of the herbicide opposition genes from the crop plants into the unwanted weeds (Tambornino 5). These enhanced weeds are likely to tolerate herbicides.

Another particular environmental dismay is the possibility for wild crosspollination (GM Foods 1). Other launched genes may intersect into non-tailored crops placed beside GM crops.

The likelihood of interbreeding is revealed by the resistance of farmers against claims organized by Monsanto. The corporation has filed patent violation claims against farmers who might have produced GM crops. Monsanto asserts that the farmers acquired Monsanto-certified GM seeds from an unidentified source and did not reimburse payments to Monsanto (Vegsource.com 1).

Conversely, the farmers argue that their original crops were cross-pollinated from another persons GM crops planted a few miles. Analogous concerns encircle the involuntary formation of new super pests that would be opposing to several insect killers. Similar to how the excess use of antibiotics has made some bacteria build up resistance to nearly all antibiotics, prevalent GMO farming could result to pesticide-resistant excellent pests.

Food Safety

Another concern adjoining GM foods is the bringing in of new allergies (Tambornino 5). With almost a quarter of Americans recording an adverse effect to no less than one food, opponents of GMOs says they stand to think that integrating genes from diverse food springs only can augment the threat of extra food allergies.

Several children in Europe and US have experience acute allergies to peanuts and other foodstuffs. Again, a suggestion to integrate a genetic material from Brazil nuts into soybeans was discarded as of the dread of causing unanticipated allergic responses.

Furthermore, several people are concerned that if the genetic material from a nut were transmitted to a new food crop, folks with an allergy to nuts innocently could eat the allergen with potentially cruel effects. Therefore, the transmission of genes from known allergenic foods is dejected unless it can be verified that the protein creation of the transmitted genetic material is not allergenic.

Whereas conventionally developed foods usually are not examined for allergenicity, procedures for assessments for GM foods have been assessed by WHO and the United Nations. At present, genetically modified foods in the market have had no allergic consequences.

Gene shift is another security concern linked to GM foods. Gene shift from GM foods to body units or to bacteria would raise concern if the shifted genetic material harmfully affected human wellbeing. This chiefly would be pertinent if antibiotic fight genes, used in generating GMOs, were to be shifted. While the likelihood of transfer is small, the utilization of technology devoid of antibiotic fight genes has been motivated.

The security evaluation of GM foods usually investigates instant health impact; likelihood to stimulate allergic response; precise components considered having nutritional or poisonous traits; the steadiness of the introduced gene; dietetic effects connected with genetic modification; and any involuntary effects that could outcome from the introduction of the gene.

Broad assessment of GM foods may be necessary to evade the likelihood of harm to customers with food allergies. Classification of GM foods and foodstuffs will obtain new significance.

There is a rising fear that bringing in alien genes into crop plants may have an unanticipated and harmful effect on human health. Latest studies assert that there are substantial disparities in the guts of rodents that consume genetically modified food and rats that consume original food (Tambornino 5). However, most scientists say that, GM foods do not lead to human health risk.

In conclusion, genetic engineering can make plants with the desired feature quickly and with much precision. However, genetically-modified foods have many impacts on human beings and the environment. A key area of concern adjoining GM foods is environmental safety.

Particularly, critics are concerned about destruction to other species and the involuntary effects trans- genes intended to fight pests might have on useful insects or how they can distress a range of balances in the environment. Excellent weeds and excellent pests are also forming an area of concern. Crop plants modified for herbicide forbearance and weeds might cross-breed, ensuing in the transmission of the herbicide opposition genes from the crop plants into the unwanted weeds. These enhanced weeds are likely to tolerate herbicides.

Another particular environmental fear is the possibility for wild crosspollination. Conversely, the farmers argue that their original crops were cross-pollinated from another persons GM crops planted a few miles. Equivalent concerns encircle the involuntary formation of new super pests that would be opposing to several insect killers.

Similar to how the excess use of antibiotics has made some bacteria build up resistance to nearly all antibiotics, prevalent GMO farming could result to pesticide-resistant excellent pests. A different concern adjoining GM foods is the bringing in of new allergies. Several children in Europe and US have experience acute allergies to peanuts and other foodstuffs.

A suggestion to integrate a genetic material from Brazil nuts into soybeans was discarded as of the dismay of causing unanticipated allergic responses. Furthermore, several people are concerned that if the genetic material from a nut were transmitted to a new food crop, persons with an allergy to nuts innocently could eat the allergen with potentially cruel effects.

Therefore, the transmission of genes from known allergenic foods is dejected unless it can be verified that the protein creation of the transmitted genetic material is not allergenic. Whereas conventionally developed foods usually are not examined for allergenicity, procedures for assessments for GM foods have been assessed by WHO and the United Nations. Gene shift is another security concern linked to GM foods.

Gene shift from GM foods to body units or to bacteria would raise concern if the shifted genetic material harmfully affected human wellbeing. This chiefly would be pertinent if antibiotic fight genes, used in generating genetically modified organisms, were to be shifted. While the likelihood of transfer is small, the utilization of technology devoid of antibiotic fight genes has been motivated.

The security evaluation of GM foods usually investigates instant health impact; likelihood to stimulate allergic response; precise components considered having nutritional or poisonous traits; the steadiness of the introduced gene; dietetic effects connected with genetic modification; and any involuntary effects that could outcome from the introduction of the gene.

Broad assessment of GM foods may be necessary to evade the likelihood of harm to customers with food allergies. Classification of genetically modified foods and foodstuffs will obtain new significance.

Works Cited

Friends of the Earth. Briefing Note: Herbicide Use and GM Crops. Web.

GM Foods. Genetically Modified (GM) Foods Renewed Threat to Europe. Web.

Hellmich, Richard. Monarch Butterflies and Bt Corn. Web.

Liang, George H. and Daniel Z. Skinner. Genetically Modified Crops: their Development, Uses, and Risks. New York: Food Products Press, 2004.

Makoni, Nathaniel and Jennifer Mohamed-Katerere. Genetically Modified Crops. Web.

Tambornino, Lisa. Genetically Modified Foods. Web.

Vegsource.com. Percy Schmeiser Stands up to  and Takes down  Monsanto. Web.

Zinnen, Tom. Biotechnology and Food: Leader and Participant Guide. Web.

Introduction

The issue about whether genetically modified food products should be allowed into the market has drawn emotive debates. The contentious issues that have characterized the debate have drawn a lot of media coverage.

Many people, especially those without technological knowhow about what how genetically modified foods are processed, have found it very hard to get hard facts about this issue (Nestle, pp. 2). Genetically modified foods are no longer a scientific, technological, or an environmental issue as it was initially thought to be, rather, it has now become a social, ethical, economic, and political issue (Mandel, pp. 1).

The debate pertaining to GMOs revolves around manipulation of the DNA. In genetically modified foods, genes are manipulated in such away that particular genes can be identified, isolated, and copied. This process leads to the transfer of genes into other organisms in a direct and a controlled way. In fact, genetic modification allows for transfer of genes between species.

The process is normally done so that crop varieties that are resistant to pests, diseases, and herbicides are produced. With genetic modification, even early maturing crop varieties have been invented. In fact, plant and animal products with desired qualities like fruits that are not easily invaded by mound and plants with reduced levels of natural toxicants have been produced by gene manipulation (Leighton, pp. 319).

Moreover, crops that can grow in less hospitable conditions like drought prone areas have been produced by gene manipulation. This research paper seeks to advance a proposal argument that allows food modifications as long as it can be regulated and adequately labeled (Mandel, pp. 2).

Genetic modification of food should be accepted as long as laws are put in place to regulate the process and these genetically modified foods are adequately labeled. A major fear among consumers has been the safety of genetically modified food products (Wargo, pp. 12).

Consumers have quite often intimated that marker genes that are used in genetic modification can confer resistance to antibiotics among populations that use these foods. Some of the concerns raised are genuine, but then, the advantages of embracing the use of genetically modified food products outweigh the disadvantages. Theirs is no need for consumers to fear about their safety as systems have been developed that can help in assessing the safety of genetically modified foods (Derek, pp. 1845).

As a matter of fact, genetically modified foods are normally subjected to rigorous safety assessments based on rational scientific evaluation. Genetically modified foods products should not just be shunned away based on safety. Countries should take cue from European Union countries that have initiated regulatory mechanisms to check on GMOs (Leighton, pp. 5). Those who are opposed to the use of genetically modified foods normally cite Rowett Institutes case to back their arguments.

The media has fueled the unease regarding GMOs by alluding to the fact that research had proved that all genetically modified foods are potentially unsafe for human consumption. However, these facts were not fully corroborated as the findings only related to potato material to which concanavalin A had been added. The claims, unless, critically and precisely assessed cannot help the course of demystifying genetically modified foods debate (Mandel, pp. 2).

The United States Pioneer Hi-Breed has also advanced that genetically modified foods are inherently dangerous. This company introduced genes from Brazil nuts into Soybeans so that levels of sulphur-rich amino acids could be increased. It should be noted that the soya was supposed to be an animal feed and not human. Tests that were conducted made it apparent that the nut protein that was subsequently transferred to soybean was allergenic to humans.

The project was disbanded because the company feared that the soybean would eventually find its way into the human population. This should not be a major concern that should contribute to banning genetically modified foods especially if safety measures are put in place by concerned government agencies to check against unintended introduction of allergen into a genetically modified crop. Basically, this is not a reason that should be advanced to prevent production of GMOs (Welsh 1).

The use of antibiotic resistance as a marker system for gene uptake continues to create a lot of worries. It is imperative that this issue be treated with a lot of sobriety so that matters raised do not border on sentimentalism. In fact, the general process should not be condemned just because of the genetic markers issue. Factually, the antibiotics used in marker systems are never used in disease treatment. Genes and their products, the enzymes, are destroyed when the food undergoes heat processing.

Two cases that have been brought to fore: that of maize developed by Novartis which contained a gene for ampicillin resistance, and potato developed by Avebe that had gene for amikacin resistance, did not take cognizance of the fact that the maize was supposed to be used unprocessed in animal feed and that the antibiotic resistance gene was under the control of a bacterial promoter.

With regard to this, concerns were expressed to the effect that antibiotic resistance gene could be transferred to the animal gut and form the normal microbial flora in the gut of both human and animals. It was feared that these microbes could possibly develop resistance to clinically important antibiotics. This has characterized the difficulty faced by Novartis and Avebe in gaining full regulatory approval.

This should not be a source of worry or a reason for campaigning against genetic modification of food because alternate technologies are being developed to address this concern, such as the use of different marker systems. Intensive researches are being conducted to address the issue of genetic markers. However, resistance to antibiotics should be treated with caution and a lot of care taken to avoid the possibility of compromising the clinical use of antibiotics (Leighton, pp. 6).

The products of biotechnology require some oversight and not the process of biotechnology. The oversight should see to it that human health and the environment are securely free from the deleterious effects of transgenic products. Up to this far, the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology was conceived.

With the existence of administrative agencies like FDA, EPA, and USDA, it is needless banning the production of foods that are genetically manufactured. The Food and Drug Administration handles food safety issues for transgenic crops and food-animal varieties. It also ensures that drug safety issues for modified pharmaceutical producing plants or animals are adequately addressed.

The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) handles issues related to health and environmental effects of pest-protected plants while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) looks into how genetically modified plants can impact other plants and animals in agricultural and non-agricultural environments (Mandel, pp. 2).

With the Food and Drug Administration in place, the fear about safety of food products sold in the United States markets other than meat and poultry should be dispelled because this agency does premarket consultations with various food manufacturing companies, seed companies, and plant developers to guarantee safety of transgenic foods.

FDA regulations do not treat modern rDNA techniques any different from conventionally modified plants. According to Section 409 of the FFDCA, an inserted gene of a transgenic plant and the product that it expresses are classified as food additives (Mandel, pp. 2).

The FDA approves these additives before they are used as food product hence there is no reason for fear of using them by the general public. In fact, the FDA holds that substances that are components of food after genetic modifications have been done are basically similarly to substances found in food substances like proteins, fats, carbohydrates, and oils (Williams, pp. 20).

This makes them to be classified as GRAS. The FDAs has never championed for labeling of genetically modified foods. They have however concluded that these food products are not any different from the conventional food that the population consumes. However, because of safety concerns and usage issues, the FDA is emphatic that the substantial changes in composition and nutritive values characterized with these foods logically calls for labeling.

With the label, people will evaluate for themselves what such food contains nutritionally relative to other foods and make informed decisions for themselves rather than blankettly condemning such foods. Other than plants, consumers of animal products like fish have no reason to fear eating them. The FDA evaluates the animal drug safety relative to the health of man and animals.

The usage of these drugs is also looked at relative to their effects on the environment. The FDA also has jurisdiction over pharmaceuticals grown in genetically modified plants used in humans. In fact, the FDA regulates the use of plants that express allergenic and toxic compounds in pharmaceuticals. The agency guards against introduction of non-food materials into food materials (Mandel 4).

The Environment Protection Authority regulates pesticides and their residues in food products. Before pesticides are distributed or sold, they have to be registered with Environment Protection Authority (EPA). This is stipulated in the FIFRA Act of 1947, which describes a pesticide as a substance meant to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest.

Pesticides are only registered by the EPA on condition that they do not cause unreasonable adverse risks to man and the environment. EPA regulates genetic materials inserted into transgenic plants to express pesticides and pesticidal products. Manufacturers of transgenic pest-protected products are obligated to register with EPA before they embark on commercialization of such products.

Individuals who abhor genetically modified foods because of the sensationalized environmental concerns associated with them should rethink their decisions because in essence, EPA regulates environmental and human health impacts associated with genetic modification of plants to produce pesticides (Mandel, pp. 3). It is not disputed that pesticide use does result into residues being left on food (Hamilton and Crossley, pp. 12; Guthman, pp. 10).

However, it should be noted that the body is also charged with determining the tolerance levels of pesticide residues that can be left in the food products. In fact, no FIFRA-registered pest protected plants are subjected to tolerance levels because tests conducted on these transgenic plants do not infer human health risks.

The USDAs mandate includes approving growth of transgenic plants outside the laboratory. This agency collaborates with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS draws this authority from Plant Protection Act 47, and has great authority as far as regulation of genetically modified plants is concerned, the only exception being pest-protected plants.

The body undertakes its regulatory functions without impeding the growth of the biotechnology sector. However, some critics have faulted APHIS ability to objectively assess the safety of new products of agricultural biotechnology because this role conflicts with its role of promoting agriculture (Mandel, pp. 2).

There are limited chances of biotechnological products negatively impacting the environment because the EPA ensures that anyone seeking to introduce any genetic material into the environment has received express authorization from APHIS. Before new transgenic plants are subjected to field trials, the developers are required by APHIS to perform risk evaluation procedures on the plant to ascertain whether they may affect the environment. APHIS carries out its regulatory role through notification or issuing permissions.

This is ultimately intended at ensuring that GMOs are grown and handled prudently to prevent chances of them escaping to the environment. APHIS also regulates transgenic pharmaceutical-producing plants and thus issues permits before applicants conduct field tests. All these processes are undertaken to guarantee the safety of the general public hence no real reason for people fearing the use of genetically modified food products (Mandel, pp. 4).

Conclusion

Most of the reasons that have been advanced by people who oppose the use of genetically modified food products are issues that are adequately addressed by existing regulations that are provided for by FDA, EPA, and USDA. The issue that remains contentious is resistance to clinical antibiotics. However, this issue is currently being addressed. There is no reason whatsoever as to why GMOs should be banned.

Works Cited

Derek Burke. Why all the fuss about genetically modified food? Much depends on whom Benefits. BMJ, 316(1998):1845-1846. Print.

Guthman, Julie. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. California: University of California Press, 2004. Print.

Hamilton, Denis, and Stephen Crossley. Pesticide residues in food and drinking water. New York: J. Wiley, 2004. Print.

Leighton, Jones. Genetically modified foods. BMJ, (1999): 319. Print.

Leighton, Jones. Food biotechnology: current developments and the need for awareness. Nutr Food Sci, 6:511, 1996. Print.

Mandel, Gregory. Toward Rational Regulation of Genetically Modified Food. Santa Clara Journal of International Law, 4(1), 2006. Print.

Nestle, Marion. What to Eat. NY: North Point Press, 2006. Print.

Wargo, John. Our Childrens Toxic Legacy: How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us from Pesticides. Yale: Yale University Press, 1998. Print.

Welsh, Rick. The Economics of organic grain and soybean production in the Midwestern United States. Chicago: Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, 1999. Print.

Williams, Christine. Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green? CA: Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 2002. Print.

Need to write a genetically modified foods essay? Take a look at this example! This argumentative essay on GM foods explains all the advantages and disadvantages of the issue to help you form your own opinion.

Introduction

Genetically modified (GM) foods refer to foods that have been produced through biotechnology processes involving alteration of DNA. This genetic modification is done to confer the organism or crops with enhanced nutritional value, increased resistance to herbicides and pesticides, and reduction of production costs.

The concept of genetic engineering has been in existence for many years, but genetic modification of foods emerged in the early 1990s. This genetically modified food essay covers the technologys positive and negative aspects that have so far been accepted. Currently, a lot of food consumed is composed of genetically altered elements, though many misconceptions and misinformation about this technology still exist (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically modified foods have been hailed for their potential to enhance food security, particularly in small-scale agriculture in low-income countries.

It has been proposed that genetically modified foods are integral in the enhancement of safe food security, enhanced quality, and increased shelf-life, hence becoming cost-effective to consumers and farmers. Proponents of this technology also argue that genetically modified foods have many health benefits, in addition to being environmentally friendly and the great capability of enhancing the quality and quantity of yields (Kumar et al., 2020).

Genetically modified foods are, therefore, considered to be a viable method of promoting food production and ensuring sustainable food security across the world to meet the demands of the increasing population. This genetically modified food advantages and disadvantages essay aims to cover conflicting perspectives in the technologys safety and efficacy. In spite of the perceived benefits of genetic engineering technology in the agricultural sector, the production and use of genetically modified foods have triggered public concerns about safety and the consequences of consumption (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically Modified Foods: The Benefits

Many champions of GM food suggest the potential of genetic engineering technology in feeding the huge population that is faced with starvation across the world. Genetically modified foods could help increase production while providing foods that are more nutritious with minimal impacts on the environment.

In developing countries, genetic engineering technology could help farmers meet their food demands while decreasing adverse environmental effects. Genetically modified crops have been shown to have greater yields, besides reducing the need for pesticides.

This is because genetically modified crops have an increased ability to resist pest infestation, subsequently resulting in increased earnings (Van Esse, 2020). Some genetically engineered crops are designed to resist herbicides, thus allowing chemical control of weeds to be practiced. Foods that have been genetically modified are perceived to attain faster growth and can survive harsh conditions due to their potency to resist drought, pests, and diseases.

Genetically modified foods have also been suggested to contain many other benefits, including being tastier, safer, more nutritious, and having longer shelf life. Though scientific studies regarding the safety and benefits of genetically modified foods are not comprehensive, it is argued that critics of this technology are driven by overblown fears (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically Modified Foods: The Drawbacks

To most opponents of the technologys application in agriculture, issues relating to safety, ethics, religion, and the environment are greater than those that are related to better food quality, enhanced production, and food security. Genetic modification technology is perceived to carry risks touching on agricultural practices, health, and the environment.

The major issue raised by society concerning this technology pertains to whether genetically modified foods should be banned for peoples benefit. The gene transfer techniques are not entirely foolproof, thus raising fears that faults may emerge and lead to many unprecedented events.

There is a possibility that DNA transfer to target cells may not be effective. Alternatively, it may be transferred to untargeted points, with the potential effect being the expression or suppression of certain proteins that were not intended. This may cause unanticipated gene mutations in the target cells, leading to physiological alterations (Turnbull et al., 2021).

A number of animal studies have indicated that genetically modified foods could pose serious health risks/ Those include the tendency to cause impotency, immune disorders, acceleration of aging, hormonal regulation disorders, and alteration of major organs and the gastrointestinal system (Giraldo et al., 2019). It has also been demonstrated that genetically modified foods can act as allergens and sources of toxins.

Opponents argue that there is a lack of clear regulatory mechanisms and policies to ensure that genetically modified foods are tested for human health and environmental effects. Thus, human beings allegedly become reduced to experimental animals subjected to adverse toxic effects and dietary problems.

In animals, it has been argued that the use of genetically modified feeds causes complications, such as premature delivery, abortions, and sterility, though these claims have later been debunked (Xu, 2021). Some genetically modified crops, such as corn and cotton, are engineered to produce pesticides.

It has been demonstrated that this built-in pesticide is very toxic and concentrated as compared to the naturally sprayed pesticide, which has been confirmed to cause allergies in some people. Many studies have also shown the immune system of genetically modified animals to be significantly altered. For instance, a persistent increase in cytokines indicates the capability of these foods to cause conditions such as asthma, allergy, and inflammation (Sani et al., 2023).

Some of the genetically modified foods, such as soy, have also been shown to have certain chemicals known to be allergens, for example, trypsin inhibitor protein (Rosso, 2021). Genetic engineering of food may also result in the transfer of genes that have the capability to trigger allergies into the host cells.

Furthermore, most of the DNA transferred into genetically modified foods originates from microorganisms that have not been studied to elucidate their allergenic properties. Similarly, the new genetic combinations in genetically modified foods could cause allergies to some consumers or worsen the existing allergic conditions. Various cases of genetically modified foods causing allergic reactions have been reported, leading to the withdrawal of these foods from the market (Kumar et al., 2020).

Genetic modification of crops could also increase the expression of naturally occurring toxins through possible activation of certain proteins, resulting in the release of toxic chemicals. It is argued that sufficient studies have not been carried out to prove that genetically modified foods are safe for consumption (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically modified foods are also associated with many environmental risks. Issues relating to the manner in which science is marketed and applied have also been raised, challenging the perceived benefits of genetically modified foods. Many opponents of genetic engineering technology perceive that genetic modification of food is a costly technology that places farmers from low-income countries in disadvantaged positions since they cannot afford it (Kumar et al., 2020; Leonelli, 2020).

It is also argued that this technology cannot address the food shortage issue, which is perceived to be more of a political and economic problem than a food production issue (Liang et al., 2019).

Political and economic issues across local and global levels have been suggested to prevent the distribution of foods so as to reach the people faced with starvation, but not issues of agriculture and technology. Politics and economic barriers have also been shown to contribute to greater poverty, subsequently making individuals unable to afford food (Kumar et al., 2020).

Some bioethicists are of the view that most genetic engineering advances in agriculture are profit-based as compared to those that are need-based. It challenges the appropriateness of genetic modification of food in ensuring food security, safeguarding the environment, and decreasing poverty, especially in low-income countries.

This argument is supported by the costly nature of genetic engineering technology and the yields from the application of this technology. The economic benefits of genetic engineering of foods are usually attained by large-scale agricultural producers, thus pitting the majority of the population who are involved in small-scale agricultural production (Kumar et al., 2020).

With the widespread adoption of genetic engineering technology, regulatory policies such as patents have been formulated, subsequently allowing exclusively large biotechnological organizations to benefit (Kumar et al., 2020).

Though biotechnological firms suggest that genetic modification of foods is essential in ensuring food security, the patenting of this technology has been perceived by many as being a potential threat to food security (Leonelli, 2020).

Patenting of genetically modified foods gives biotechnology firms monopoly control, thus demeaning the sanctity of life. This technology has also enhanced dependency, whereby farmers have to continuously go back to the biotechnology firms to purchase seeds for sowing in subsequent planting seasons.

Genetically modified food is believed to be unsafe, allegedly because sufficient tests have not been carried out to show that it would not cause some unprecedented long-term effects in another organism. Despite possessing positive attributes, such as health benefits and food safety, many consumers are wary of these foods because of a consistent belief in a lack of proven safety testing (Fernbach et al., 2019).

There are also fears that the genetic material inserted into genetically modified foods often gets transferred into the DNA of commensals found in the alimentary canal of human beings. This may lead to the production of harmful genetically modified chemicals inside the body of the human being, even long after ceasing the consumption of such foods.

Prior to the widespread adoption of this genetic engineering technology in agriculture, many scientists and regulatory agents raised health concerns. Some argue that genetically modified foods are inherently harmful and can trigger allergies, toxic effects, gene transfer to commensals in the gut, and can lead to the emergence of new diseases and nutritional problems (Deocaris et al., 2020; Seralini, 2020).

Despite multiple rigorous studies, it remains unknown whether genetically modified foods could be contributing to the rising cases of various health conditions such as obesity, asthma, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and reproductive problems. In most cases, the testing that has been performed involves the evaluation of the growth and productivity of the modified organism, and not in terms of environmental and health impacts (Agostini et al., 2020).

Gene transfer may affect the nutritional quality of foods as the transfer is likely to reduce the amounts of certain nutrients while raising the levels of other nutrients. This causes a nutritional variation between conventional foods and similar foods produced through genetic modification techniques.

Furthermore, few studies have been carried out to show the effect of nutrient alterations brought about by genetic engineering in relation to nutrient-gene interactions, metabolism, and bioavailability (Hirschi, 2020). Critics of genetically modified foods argue that little information is available to show how the alteration of food contents affects gene regulation and expression as these changes occur at rates that far overwhelm scientific studies.

Genetic modification of food involves the transfer of genetic material even between organisms belonging to different species. To biotechnology firms and other proponents of genetically modified foods, this approach helps in maximizing productivity and profits. However, many consumers, environmental conservationists, and opponents of genetically modified foods perceive gene transfer across different species as causing a decrease in diversity (Turnbull et al., 2021).

With the reduction of diversity, benefits such as resistance to diseases and pests, adaptation to adverse weather conditions, and productivity also diminish. Critics of genetic engineering technology, therefore, suggest that applying this technology creates uniformity in organisms and decreases their genetic diversity, rendering them at increased risks of diseases and pests.

Transfer of genetic material also carries many environmental risks, especially in the event of wide cultivation of such crops. Some critics suggest that genetically engineered plants with herbicide and insect-resistant traits could transfer these traits to wild plants and subsequently lead to the evolution of difficult-to-eradicate weeds (Anwar et al., 2021).

These weeds could develop into invasive plants with the capability to decrease crop production and cause a disruption of the ecosystem. The genetically modified plants could also evolve into weeds, which will then require costly and environmentally unfriendly means to eradicate.

The genetic engineering of food may also have an impact on non-target organisms, which would further reduce diversity. It is a persistent concern that genetically modified foods, such as pesticide-resistant crops, could cause harm to non-target organisms.

Certain genetically modified crops have the potential to change the chemistry of the soil by releasing toxins and breaking down the plants after they die. Moreover, crops that have undergone genetic modification to withstand elevated chemical concentrations sustain a heightened application of herbicides, ultimately leading to elevated chemical concentrations in the soil (Anwar et al., 2021).

Genetic engineerings intentional transfer of antibiotic resistance genes could have detrimental effects on human health and the environment. Antibiotic-resistant genes may be passed to pathogenic bacteria in animals and humans digestive tracts, increasing their pathogenicity and causing more and more public health problems (Amarasiri et al., 2020).

Conclusion

Genetic modification of food is applauded as an appropriate method of ensuring increased food availability, better nutrition, and general improvement in the agricultural sector. However, as this genetically modified food essay demonstrates, many issues surround this technology, mostly concerning safety, health, cultural, social, and religious issues.

Most of the concerns regarding genetically engineered foods can be cleared by conducting expansive research to establish clear grounds for such issues. Unless concrete research is conducted to substantiate the benefits and potential harms of genetically engineered foods, the majority of people will remain wary of genetically modified foods. In the end, the full potential of genetically engineered foods will not be realized.

References

Amarasiri, M., Sano, D., & Suzuki, S. (2020). Understanding human health risks caused by antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARG) in water environments: Current knowledge and questions to be answered. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 50(19), 2016-2059.

Anwar, M. P., Islam, A. M., Yeasmin, S., Rashid, M. H., Juraimi, A. S., Ahmed, S., & Shrestha, A. (2021). Weeds and their responses to management efforts in a changing climate. Agronomy, 11(10), 1921-1940.

Agostini, M. G., Roesler, I., Bonetto, C., Ronco, A. E., & Bilenca, D. (2020). Pesticides in the real world: The consequences of GMO-based intensive agriculture on native amphibians. Biological Conservation, 241, 108355.

Deocaris, C. C., Rumbaoa, R. G., Gavarra, A. M., & Alinsug, M. V. (2020). A Preliminary analysis of potential allergens in a GMO Rice: A Bioinformatics approach. Open Journal of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, 4(1), 12-16.

Fernbach, P. M., Light, N., Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., & Rozin, P. (2019). Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 251-256.

Giraldo, P. A., Shinozuka, H., Spangenberg, G. C., Cogan, N. O., & Smith, K. F. (2019). Safety assessment of genetically modified feed: is there any difference from food?. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10(1592), 1-17.

Hirschi, K. D. (2020). Genetically modified plants: Nutritious, sustainable, yet underrated. The Journal of Nutrition, 150(10), 2628-2634.

Kumar, K., Gambhir, G., Dass, A., Tripathi, A. K., Singh, A., Jha, A. K., Yadava, P., Choudhary, M., & Rakshit, S. (2020). Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects. Planta, 251, 1-27.

Leonelli, G. C. (2020). GMO risks, food security, climate change and the entrenchment of neo-liberal legal narratives. In Transnational food security (pp. 128-141). Routledge.

Liang, J., Liu, X., & Zhang, W. (2019). Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science, 28(8), 991-1004.

Rosso, M. L., Shang, C., Song, Q., Escamilla, D., Gillenwater, J., & Zhang, B. (2021). Development of breeder-friendly KASP markers for low concentration of kunitz trypsin inhibitor in soybean seeds. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(5), 2675-2690.

Sani, F., Sani, M., Moayedfard, Z., Darayee, M., Tayebi, L., & Azarpira, N. (2023). Potential advantages of genetically modified mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of acute and chronic liver diseases. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 14(1), 1-11.

Seralini, G. E. (2020). Update on long-term toxicity of agricultural GMOs tolerant to roundup. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), 1-7.

Turnbull, C., Lillemo, M., & Hvoslef-Eide, T. A. (2021). Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop booma review. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 630396.

Van Esse, H. P., Reuber, T. L., & van der Does, D. (2020). Genetic modification to improve disease resistance in crops. New Phytologist, 225(1), 70-86.

Xu, Q., Song, Y., Yu, N., & Chen, S. (2021). Are you passing along something true or false? Dissemination of social media messages about genetically modified organisms. Public Understanding of Science, 30(3), 285-301.

Proposition 37 is the initiative which is presented as the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act by the representatives of the Organic Consumers Association in California. Proposition 37 requires labeling genetically engineered foods.

It is developed to become the regulatory law the main purpose of which is to control the process of labeling genetically engineered foods which are sold within different markets and to prohibit the sale of genetically engineered products as natural ones.

Those raw foods, fruits and vegetables which are genetically engineered are required to be labeled as Genetically Engineered in order to provide consumers with the knowledge about the possible risk for their health (Cross).

Proposition 37 is associated with Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Food Safety Law. The Proposition was enacted by the representatives and activists of the Organic Consumers Association, but it is still not adopted.

Proposition 37 is expected to be supported in California in November, 2012 (Lifsher).

The main objectives of Proposition 37 which is associated with US Food Safety Law reflect such social values as the publics health, and it is worked out to prevent the possibilities to do harm to the publics health with providing the genetically engineered foods which can be noxious for human organisms.

Moreover, the fact of concealing the information about genetically engineered foods can be discussed as the violation of the peoples rights and their values and beliefs.

The discussion of Proposition 37 by the public is based on the obvious gap between the law on the books and the law in action because Food Safety Law which is associated with the Proposition was worked out without references to such problem as the distribution of the genetically engineered foods, and the development of the regulatory law in relation to the problem is a challengeable process.

Thus, the opponents of the Proposition accentuate such weak points of the act as numerous exemptions for different products the concentration on which can lead to the violation of the peoples rights in action. As a result, the non-labeled products can appear to be genetically engineered and harmful for people (Lifsher).

The aspects of Proposition 37 can be discussed from the point of Emile Durkheim who accentuated the connection of legal questions, social and moral principles. Thus, law can regulate not only the life of the community but also its morality.

From this point, it is immoral to ignore Proposition 37 and let genetically modified products be used without the peoples knowledge of the fact.

The Proposition and its consequences for the legal and economic spheres can be also analyzed from the perspective of Karl Marxs legal economism when the realization of the law can influence the countrys economy negatively.

According to Max Weber, the attempts to adopt Proposition 37 can be examined from the point of substantive justice when decisions in relation to the Proposition can be made under the impact of the other non-legal factors (advertising, opponents proclamations).

Thus, the other significant factors which can influence the adoption of the act are the economic environment and positions of the farmers and producers according to the initiative.

The situation is complicated with references to the possible economically negative results of the Propositions adoption because the production of genetically engineered foods is associated with the definite economic gains and advantages for producers.

Works Cited

Cross, Rebecca. Proposition 37: Californias Newest Challenge For Food Product Companies. 2012. Web.

Lifsher, Marc. Support for Proposition 37 is Slipping, Poll Finds. 2012. Web.

Introduction

There is increasing debate regarding the likely benefits of modern biotechnology, and particularly of genetically modified food in assisting to attain societys development and food security goals.

The challenge facing decision makers is to understand what the technology can achieve, or has achieved elsewhere and to identify what prospects the technology presents to society (Jones, 2011). There are three key concerns.

First, whether or not genetically modified food provides a sustainable food security alternative; second, what the inferences are of genetically modified food for bio-safety in addition to for human safety and health; and third, the level of current society capability of undertaking research, and efficiently track and assess genetically modified (GM) food and the role that such food plays in our society (Scoones, 2009).

Genetic modification methods enable new features to be initiated into microorganisms, livestock and crops. These techniques can be utilized to enhance productivity in addition to their capability of resisting a number of diseases. Genetic adaptation is being utilized in the wildlife field with a view of creating disease tolerance, wood quality characteristics and herbicide tolerance (Lesley, 2010).

Hence, genetically modified food is frequently viewed as the solution to food shortages. However, attaining food sufficiency is about more than simply ensuring crop productivity (Jones, 2011).

There is significant ambiguity regarding the influence on human and environmental wellbeing, and as well whether GM food will offer a sustainable alternative to food issues. This paper focuses entirely on the role that genetically modified food plays in our society and its environmental implications.

Role of genetically modified (GM) food

As resources for public industry research reduce, and the aspects that enhance private industry establishment and desires turn out to be rooted in international governance approaches, the growth of genetically modified technology and application appears definite.

The challenge for decision makers is that of responding to this indecision regarding the comparative chances and risks posed by genetically modified food: the challenge is whether to accept these novel technologies and face criticism for lack of safety measure, or to call for comprehensive research of likely threats and face criticism for not succeeding to act swiftly (Malatesta, 2008).

There are concerns regarding the genetically modified crops being developed. The aim of the developers of nutritionally improved varieties is that of distributing these crops broadly in developing nations. Population growth in such nations creates an enormous dilemma not only to food security but also to nutrition security, with 94% of world population anticipated to happen in the developing nations (Lesley, 2010).

Accordingly people have to ask: could such advancements in food sector be a promising method of improving the wellbeing of millions of people globally? The following are the roles played by genetically modified food in the society.

Food security

There are critical variations between the forms of genetically modified crops that are being integrated into developing and developed nations. In developing nations, genetically modified crops would be nutritionally improved and would be utilized in ensuring the people are getting sufficient nutrients, rather than being focused on growing outputs.

In developed world, genetically modified crops have been generated to benefit developed nations and to increase the commercial value of specific product like tomatoes that have been engineered for controlled maturing (Lesley, 2010).

In the past decade, macronutrient deficiency has been recognized as the main cause of various health issues in developing nations. Around the globe, over one billion individuals do not get adequate vital nutrients and minerals and are considered underweight.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has approximated that 14% of the total population do not have access to a sufficient quantity of food, with less than billion being undernourished. Three in seven children are malnourished and 40% have delayed growth.

There is powerful proof that the key insufficiencies are zinc, iron and vitamins. More than two billion individuals are iron deficient; worldwide, over 116,000 maternal deaths each year are associated with malnutrition (Jones, 2011).

Solution to malnutrition

One alternative that has indicated promise entails nutritionally enhanced food. It as well has the capability to be used as an instrument for enhancing the growth and nutritional value of the staple crops that make up the main food in various developing nations.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Biotechnology Applications (ISABA) is a nonprofit global agency that creates awareness among shareholders on the advantages of biotechnology in improving the level of living for people in developing world (Seshia, 2009).

Genetically modified food can enhance the nutritional value of the staple food that lacks some: micronutrients like iron; macronutrients like amino acids; and vitamins like vitamin A. Such a technology could enable individuals in developing world to get a more balanced meal.

There are some staple crops that are being technologically engineered or are in development. For example, rice is a significant staple for numerous individuals around the globe, making up 81% of the daily consumption of 50% of the globes population.

Rice is an elevated energy giving food, but it has nutrient shortages and is not a sufficient source of vitamin A. Genetically modified rice could be an alternative for people that are lacking vitamin A (Jones, 2011).

Chronic diseases

The utilization of genetically modified food in developing world could lower the level of chronic diseases by enhancing nutritional content. Genetically modified food could reduce underweight, with small improvements in the cognitive capability, hence lowering an individuals capability of working.

The cost of food directly influences an outsized percentage of the population. Genetically modified food would enable people to utilize less pesticide, therefore aiding the environment, lowering productivity investments and making farming less labor intensive. This would, in turn, lower the price for consumers (Malatesta, 2008).

Environmental implications

Threat evaluation is linked to how to analyze, control or prevent harmful forces originating from the doubtful traits of GM food and processes.

To be efficient, these evaluations require tackling all merits and demerits, and not being limited to economic costs and profitability. It needs to tackle immediate and future benefits and costs, in addition to opportunity costs like the impact on the environment.

Field tests and how GM crops react in situations similar to those following actual release are an important process in the analysis procedure, enabling food developers to deal with challenges cropping up. They play a critical task to identify threats and create a chance for alleviation and modification before full release (Jones, 2011).

Most national threat study models aim at threat-benefit evaluations that are based on financial cost-benefit kind investigation. Generally, they utilize constricted technological approaches, which aim at the features of the system and the resultant GM organism, the appearance and characteristics of the GM food and the physical traits of the recipient environment (Malatesta, 2008).

Increased utilization of herbicide-resistant genetically modified crops may create fresh threats for environmental wellbeing. For instance, glyphosate is a key chemical of genetically modified crops and is now the worlds best selling herbicide.

Because of the introduction of genetically engineered crops, environmental implication of the chemical is anticipated to increase. However, there is powerful proof that this formulation contains chemicals that are severely harmful to the environment (Lesley, 2010).

There are also fresh environmental threats from genetically modified food. The environmental implications of such therapies are largely known. On the other hand, the inclusion of genes from one crop into another may cause environmental impacts, particularly where users are not knowledgeable concerning the origins of such crops (Jones, 2011).

Conclusion

Creating a sustainable policy that guarantees food security, does not cause harm to the biodiversity or environment, and enhances human health has to be a priority for developing world.

Developing countries are faced with the choice of whether genetically modified food can be a solution to food security, and if so, how to manage the threats and implications related to GM technology.

To evaluate the alternatives, developing world needs to take into account the likely gains from potential output benefits and a reduction of the need for chemical utilization against the environmental implications.

References

Jones, M. (2011). Key challenges for technological development and agricultural research in Africa. IDS Bulletin, 36(2), 46-51.

Lesley, H. (2010). Factors determining the public understanding of GM technologies. Biotechnology, 6(1), 18.

Malatesta, M. (2008). A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Chemical Cell Biology, 130(5), 967-77.

Scoones, I. (2009). Governing technology development: Challenges for agricultural research in Africa. IDS Bulletin, 36 (2), 109-114.

Seshia, S. (2009). Plant variety protection and farmers rights in India: Law-making and the cultivation of varietal control. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(27), 741-726.

Introduction

Monsanto Company, the multinational agricultural biotechnology establishment, has assumed international relevance as a leading supplier of genetically modified seed and associated products.

However, over the years the company has found itself on the hot seat in regards to the safety of some of its products (ANH Feature, 2012).

For instance, Monsanto released a hormone which was said to increase milk production by up to 16 percent, when injected to cows (Bijman, 1996).

The product, known as recombinant bovine somatotrophine, was received with a lot of opposition from farmers not affiliated to Monsanto, claiming that the milk produced by injected cows was not safe to use (Bijman, 1996).

This led to some processors indicating that their milk was sourced from cows that were free of the synthetic hormones. This essay seeks to analyze the ethical dilemma that Monsanto faces in regards to the reception of its products.

Reasons pro-genetic modification

Genetic modification, particularly in the agricultural field, which Monsanto is involved in, has a number of benefits. First, it has been time-proven that genetic modification helps increase the farm yields (Morgan, 2003).

The quality of produce grown from genetically engineered seeds is also of a better quality than that from regular seeds.

Secondly, genetic modification has seen the development of crops that can tolerate harsh climatic conditions and parasitic infestation (Morgan, 2003).

This has seen some regions bid farewell to famine and starvation on account of great harvests made.

Reasons against genetic modification

Genetic modification, can lead to adverse conditions on the consumers of its products. For instance the herbicide Roundup, a product of Monsanto, has recently been in the news for its linkage with cancer (Ng, 2012).

For example, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini recently released the findings of his study, indicating that rats fed with genetically modified corn and/or water containing the Roundup, had a high propensity to cancer development (Newman, 2012).

Such threats, if not well addressed could lead to more people suffering harm from the products, effectively wiping out the positive elements of such modification.

Solving the ethical dilemma

Using Emmanuel Kants duty-based (Deontological ethics), I would vote to allow Monsanto continue with their practice. This is because in its foundation, the company aimed at increasing food production and not propagating illnesses (Arendt, 2006).

Allowing Monsanto continue production would in this instance be the right thing to do even though a small section of the people who use their products may be adversely affected.

Following the first categorical imperative, which insists on universal law formulation, allowing Monsanto continue production should apply for any other institution, whose intention is the same as Monsantos (Ellington, 1993).

The second categorical imperative also applies in this particular case by indicating that any decision made should be regarded as an end in itself and not merely a means to an end (Hadley, 1986).

As such, Monsanto should be allowed to continue production, because in this way they immediately help put an end to world hunger.

Finally, in relation to the third categorical imperative, the kingdom of ends formulation, allowing Monsanto continue production should be received as a way to help in the development of laws to govern the operation of establishments in the field of genetic modification as well as help solve issues immediately.

Conclusion

This essay has analyzed the ethical issues surrounding Monsantos operation. In this regard, the discussion first provided the reasons for genetic engineering, as well as those against the technology, before delving into the ethical issues. It has been concluded that supporting Monsanto would be the most ideal decision in this case.

Reference List

ANH Feature: French Study indicates Monsanto Maize and Roundup cause cancer. (2012). Web.

Arendt, H. (2006). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. London: Penguin Classics.

Bijman, J. (1996), Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Europe and the USA. Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 27 (1), 2-5.

Ellington, J. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Indiana: Hackett.

Hadley, A. (1986). First Things: An inquiry into the first principles of morals and justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Morgan, S. (2003). Superfoods: Genetic Modification of Foods (Science at the Edge). United Kingdom: Heinemann.

Newman, A. (2012). Russia bans GMO corn over Cancer fears as pressure builds on Monsanto. Web.

Ng, A. (2012). Genetically modified corn and cancer  what does the evidence really say? Web.

Electrophoresis Reveals GMO DNA Bands

Because the chloroplast gene is present in all plants, the two master mixes were provided by the teacher: the Plant master mix green and the GMO master mix red. To prepare DNA samples for PCR, one needs to mix samples with two types of master mix. So, in the procedure, 20wl of samples are made into two types of master mix.

The last step of the experiment is the existence of DNA bands found by using electrophoresis. The teacher provided 20ul of the PCR molecular mass ruler (DNA ladder) that was added to one of the wells on each gel. This is necessary for the estimate of the size of DNA sequences in samples. Then, to each sample should be added 10ul of due so as to see how far DNA will go through the gel. After, 20ul of each sample was loaded onto the gel and connected to electricity. Also, for this experiment, it is necessary to have results from the positive and negative controls, so it helps to interrupt results for testis food.

Soybeans & GMOs: Results Challenge Assumptions

Figure 2 shows the result of this experiment. Lanes 4 (in gel 1), oats were controlled negative and did not have the band at 200bp, which means it was not GM. Lane 3 (in gel 1), oats are controlled negative and have a band at 455 bp, which means it is a presence of the chloroplast Gene. Lane 8 (in gel 2) GMO control has a band at 200 bp, which means it was GM. Lane 7 (in gel 2) has a band at 455 bp, which means there is the presence of chloroplast Gene that means the presence of chloroplast Gene. Of the three products tested, only one (soybeans) showed the result at the band 455bp. The presence in it is the chloroplast Gene. None of the products tested showed a positive result for GM, so they did not have the band at 200bp.

The intention of this experiment was to learn and determine GMOs. In the experiment, positive and negative controls were used to ensure that the experiment worked faithfully. Also, the ladder (molecular-weight size) was placed in gel one well one and gel two well 2. The ladder is used for identifying the approximate size of the molecule. Unfortunately, something went wrong during the experiment process, so the ladder did not show the full result. Among the three tested foods in this experiment, none of them contained GM DNA. It is not what we are suspected to get in our results. To us, it was surprising because soy crops are a leader in GMO products. We hypothesized that cat food and soybeans would contain GMOs.

There is a probability of an error during the experiment because, in two samples (soy sausage cat food), the PCR result does not contain the chloroplast gene. That should be present in all plants. However, there are other reasons for such a result in the experiment. First, in some fresh vegetables and fruits, GMO is often not detected. In our situation, it is soybeans, even if the crop contains GMO ingredients. Second, that might have gotten a false negative result because some food products during processing were changed, so Plant Genes. Finally, soy sausage and cat food in our experiment are inconclusive.

References

1. Smith, J. & Brown, A. (2022). Introduction to Plant Genetics and Biotechnology. New York: Scientific Publishers.
2. Davis, L. (2021). Electrophoresis and its Applications in Modern Biology. Journal of Experimental Biology.
3. Thompson, K. & Lee, R. (2020). “Chloroplast Gene Presence in GMO Testing”. Genetic Research Today.