Every culture enjoys food. All cultures have at least one specific National Dish they call their own. Tastes and certain smells can jog our memory, taking us back to a certain period in our lives. It’s factual that we need food to survive. Food also brings us pleasure, comfort, and security. It’s a means of hospitality and religiously symbolic. The preparation of our indigenous foods is often described as being an art form. Our indigenous foods are passed down from generation to generation and make us unique in our native traditions and cultures.
A ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 1980 allowed living organisms such as seeds to be patented. This court ruling affected us as Americans and globally. Global food changed significantly due to this latest ruling. This game-changing ruling paved the way for major corporations by empowering them to control our seeds and crops. Decades ago, farmers saved seeds for re-harvesting and re-usage from harvest season to season. The above court ruling became detrimental to our American farmers by putting them at risk of losing their farms due to the high cost of having to re-purchase seeds.
Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Seeds: A GMO Game Changer
Monsanto is globally known for developing a ground-breaking product called “Roundup Ready” seeds. These seeds are genetically modified (G.M.) and resistant to herbicides. The United States permitted major corporations such as Monsanto to patent their originally technologically advanced seeds. Ultimately hurting our farmers economically and propelling them into bankruptcy. Other key corporations have been noted to “buy” these seeds. Allowing major corporations to “buy” seeds is detrimental to our farmers, as they now are forbidden to re-sow G.M. seeds without purchasing a license fee in order to re-use these seeds.
The Heirloom Foods Phenomenon: Nature’s Response to GMOs
Heirloom foods are fruits and/or vegetables that are organic, asymmetrical in shape, and unrefined. These foods are also known to be much tastier and flavorful. These unique foods are customarily grown on small-scale farms with resiliency to pesticides, diseases, and inclement weather conditions. Local farmers’ markets and organic, gourmet shops carry these distinctive foods.
Kraft is a major American corporation that specializes in a variety of beverages, cheese, dairy foods, snacks, and convenience foods. Its most popular product is macaroni and cheese, and Kraft Heinz is its parent company. Studies show that Kraft employs over 23,000, and their demographic is geared towards high-income, Caucasian, and lower to middle age consumers.
Federal Oversight on Food: USDA and FDA at the Helm
To ensure the public’s safety and health, the federal government regulates food production, providing nutritional and dietary education, guidelines, and a safety net providing food for children and adults with low incomes. The United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are two of the largest government organizations, and they oversee food itself, food handling, food packaging, dietary education, and food services. The USDA is the executive department of the federal government responsible for creating guidelines based on scientific research in order to ensure a good diet. In addition to advice on diet, the USDA provides food for children and low-income people.
Under the USDA, there are three sub-departments: the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion (CNPP), all of which serve to promote the most wholesome American diet. Both the FNS and SNAP provide nutrition programs and emergency aid. The CNPP also provides dietary information that is backed by scientific research. The USDA also has at least a dozen smaller organizations with specialized goals. For example, The National Organization Program (NOP), formerly the Organic Foods Production Act, was established in 1990 and formed the rules and regulations that oversee all USDA organic products, including production of handling, labeling, and enforcement of all organic agricultural commodities sold inside the United States.
Another example of how the two main federal agencies work together in regulating the food industry is the production of a food product ready for retail. The regulation of most food and its packaging is performed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Products containing meat and poultry are specifically regulated by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture. Together, these two agencies (FDA and FSIS), under the USDA, oversee the manufacturing, distribution, and labeling.
In addition to federal government controls on food, state governments also regulate the food industry (locally) by licensing food plants, enforcing federal and state standards for various food products, food plant, and warehouse inspections, regulating the sale of dairy products, and establishing labeling requirements on food products. Government agricultural programs also impact the food industry. These programs affect prices and supplies and are under congressional and administrative review. Notably, food produced overseas by U.S. companies is also subject to the laws and regulations of the countries where they are marketed.
The Slow Food Movement: A Global Reaction to Fast Foods
In 1986, in Rome, Italy, a McDonald’s (fast food restaurant) was planned to open near their historic landmark, the “Spanish Steps.” This infuriated the Italians, inciting a revolt against this impending proposal. Italians are deeply proud of their heritage and indigenous foods.
Keeping their traditional foods alive is very important to their culture. Due to this proposed action, a protest movement was formed called The Slow Food Movement.
This movement was designed to support local, traditional foods while hoping to eradicate FAST FOODS (i.e., McDonald’s). In terms of advantages, the Slow Food Movement brings families together at one table, instilling family relationships. Traditional home-grown foods are healthier and more nutritious with no artificial ingredients. The Slow Food Movement promotes native, indigenous cuisines, decreases health issues, and, because the food is made with natural ingredients, is healthier, flavorful, and tasty.
Although eating healthier, natural foods is beneficial, this movement does present many disadvantages, as well. In our busy lifestyles, one does not have the time or energy to prepare natural organic meals. Plus, fresh, organic foods are more costly than store-bought, processed foods. Consumers cannot afford the high price of organic whole food products. Lastly, the Slow Food Movement requires more preparation and is much more time-consuming. At present, the Slow Food Movement has evolved worldwide, with over 150,000 members in approximately 150 countries. Their members and mission continue to grow today.
This concept is a major part of the Slow Food Movement. Conviviality means to partake in the many pleasures in the process of cooking, preparing, and eating meals. It also encompasses the sharing of meals with others at the table. Many native people enjoy the sharing of food and the company of family, and crusade to continue this manner.
Food Banks
Taste NY: Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has been instrumental in launching and developing Food Banks throughout New York State. In 2013, Taste NY was created, emphasizing the food and beverage quality and diversity that are grown in New York. As a result of this newly designed food bank, various events take place throughout New York City, along with the assistance of partnerships.
Fresh Connect: A second food bank launched by Governor Cuomo is Fresh Connect. A big problem in New York City’s rural, low-income communities is accessibility to supermarkets. In resolution to this problem, Governor Cuomo established Fresh Connect. Fresh Connect makes fresh food available by creating local farmers’ markets that foster healthy, fresh foods that are easily accessible in underprivileged communities. Fresh Connect also increases our economy. “A win-win situation for farmers and for families across the state as we try to provide more access and easier access to locally grown, fresh farm products.”
Food Box: (Fresh) Food Box in New York City makes the purchase of food more affordable by lowering its retail price to under-served communities.
Manager Certification
This certification offered via The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) extends a certification exam every five (5) years for all food management personnel. On-site training and exams for Manager Certification are easily accessible online.
FINYS: Educating our farmers about selling/trading their locally home-grown foods to various institutions, schools, hospitals, etc., is FINYS mission. FINYS strives to keep our agricultural economy growing.
GrowNYC: This specifically designed program is a valuable resource to New Yorkers, providing free informational services needed for improving our city and environment.
Food Desert & Food Insecurity: Hunger is a big problem in our country today. This condition affects our low-income families who do not have access to supermarkets and/or food markets (Oasis). Lack of funds coupled with limited access to food suppliers is a major consequence leading to serious repercussions. Not knowing where your next meal is coming from can cause mental as well as physical anguish.
SNAP: another food assistance program designed for low and no-income people living in the United States.
It is federally administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Food and Nutrition Service. It was created to help low-income people purchase food needed for maintaining good health (i.e., fruits, vegetables, and whole grains).
Single Stop: In 2001, New York City designed a program to provide food pantries, job training, and shelters to low to no-income families. In 2007, Single Stop USA was created to provide services such as health insurance, SNAP, and financial to our disadvantaged.
GMOs in Today’s Food Chain: The Need for Transparency and Education
It is a known fact that GMO and non-GM crops cannot co-exist. Countries around the world, such as Australia, Japan, and sections of Europe, have restricted, banned, and stopped the sales of GMOs.
The only two countries approving and granting major corporations to manufacture, sell, and profit from GMOs are the United States and Canada. Most people are not even aware of our foods consisting of GMOs because the United States does not require or mandate the use of “labeling. Recent studies declare that no negative effects have been noted with regard to the effects on human health. However, this may not hold true in years to come.
Scientists concur that GMOs can also be linked to developing food allergies. Most Americans are not informed and/or knowledgeable about GMOs, and therefore, our ignorance can be detrimental to our well-being. Also, experiments in Animal Testing have determined that GMOs can cause serious injury to their vital internal organs. I believe that it’s imperative to our physical condition that we stop using GMOs in our food supply and incorporate “labeling” on all of our food products. As consumers, we have a right to know what we are eating, what our food contains, and, more importantly, what our foods are doing to our human bodies.
References
United States Department of Agriculture. (2020, July 15). Overview of GMO regulations. USDA Official Website.
Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Annual report on food safety.
Robertson, S. (2020, June 8). The rise of heirloom foods. The Food Times.
Today, people on the planet Earth are 200000 more than yesterday. By 2100, the world population could reach 11 billion people. This development is an enormous pressure on the planet. The abnormal increase in people creates a big challenge for humans. The number one question is what to eat and where to grow all these foods. The weather condition nowadays is very unpredictable. Also, global warming plays a key role in solving this problem. The number of low-quality lands is increasing year by year. Scientists predict that drought and crop-destroying pests will be everywhere in the future. In this situation, the pressure on food production is very high. Farmers will need to grow more food on less land. Nowadays, there are 815 million people who do not have enough food to eat. Every minute, 30 people die because of hunger. The growing population will need the world to produce 70 percent more food than it does now.
From Crossbreeding to Genetic Labs
Scientists point to genetic engineering as a tool to feed the increasing world population on Earth. Genetic engineering or genetic modification is a set of technologies that manipulate an organism’s genes. Genetically modification can affect plants, animals, or microorganisms. Because there are not enough studies about genetically modified foods, people are concerned about this kind of technology. Although people believe that genetically modified foods are harmful, they can be helpful.
More than 10,000 years ago, humans started to cross different plants. Even ancient farmers understood that to survive, they needed plants adapted to their conditions. Many plants, such as corn, looked quite different from what we know today. This happened because of evolution in plant breeding. Every plant, every species on the Earth, has trillions of cells. Each of the cells has a nucleus that contains deoxyribonucleic acid DNA through genes, which are made of DNA, characteristics transmitted from generation to generation. Ancient farmers started to practice crossbreeding two plants to produce a new one. For example, farmers in ancient times tried to produce a new type of apple by crossbreeding one type of apple with better taste with a second type that is resistant to frost. To get that sort of apple, farmers had to wait many generations. With genetic engineering, scientists can do this process in the laboratory.
The process of genetic modification, in this case, will be much faster. A thousand years after the first crossbreeding, humans started a process of hybridization. This is a process of crossbreeding two different spices. As David E. Newton states in his book “GMO Food, the first animal hybrid was a mull, which was produced by crossing a female horse and a male donkey. Nowadays, all these processes can be called genetic modification.
Eco-Friendly Benefits of GMOs
Genetically modified foods are useful for maintaining a natural environment. For example, increasing the productivity of crops means that farmers may need to press less marginal land into cultivation (Newton, 86). Marginal land is a low-quality land. As the population is growing very fast, people need more land to grow food. In many cases, it means cutting down forests, irrigating desert regions, and draining swamps. All these actions disrupt the natural environment. Genetically modified plants can be engineered to grow on land that is too dry, too wet, too salty, too hot, or too cold. Also, genetic modification decreases dangerous pesticide usage. The insect-resistant crops produce their own specific pesticide (called Bt proteins) against a specific group of pests.
As a result, farmers do not have to use chemical fertilizers and pesticides that can have devastating and unwanted effects on the natural environment. In addition, genetic modification reduces carbon dioxide emissions. Because GMOs reduce pesticide usage and telling, farmers use less diesel to power their tractors and thus produce less carbon dioxide, which can be harmful to the natural environment.
GMOs: Healthier, Allergen-Free Foods
Also, genetically modified foods can be helpful for human health. Genetically modified foods are engineered to have a higher protein and higher level of omega-3 polyunsaturated fats, which can protect from heart disease (Renee). This kind of fat is important for prenatal and early childhood neuronal development. Omega-3 fats are found in cold-water fish, such as salmon, tuna, halibut, and herring. Scientists are also developing crops that have higher vitamins and minerals. For example, the golden rice, which got approval in the US in June 2018, has been modified to prevent blindness. The rice contains an elevated level of vitamin A, which is vital for preventing childhood blindness. The US became the fourth country after Canada, Australia, and New Zealand that approved the Golden rice. In addition, current genetic engineers are focusing on removing the allergen that is present in many foods, such as peanuts.
Peanut allergies are one of the worst food allergies. The human body’s response can even be fatal. Scientists use CRISPR to cut allergen genes from peanuts. CRISPR is a tiny pair of DNA scissors with a great sense of direction. As Tayag states in her article “The Hypoallergenic Peanut Has Arrived Thanks to Genetic Modification,” scientists just take a peanut plant, identify the genes that encode the major allergens, and cut them out.
Boosted Yields: GMOs Empower Farmers
Genetically modified foods can benefit farmers. Modern genetic modifications like insect resistance and drought resistance help to increase yields (GMO & The Environment). Due to modern technologies, farmers can grow more food using less land. Because of GM technologies, farmers have been growing 180.3 million tons of soybeans, 357.7 million tons of corn, and 25.2 million tons of canola. To produce the same number of crops without GM technology, farmers would have needed 48 million acres more. With GM, farmers can till the soil much less. Over the last 20 years, GMOs have reduced pesticide use by 8.1 % and helped increase crop yields by 22%.
References:
Bennett, L. (2020). The Rising Tide: Population Growth and Food Scarcity. Terra Publications.
Fields, H., & Clarkson, A. (2019). Genetic Engineering: Past, Present, and Future. GreenTech Press.
Marlow, R. (2021). GMOs and the Environment: A Balanced Perspective. EcoFuture Publications.
Patel, N. (2018). Nutrition Evolution: The Health Benefits of GMOs. Healthy Earth Press.
Genetic technology has been used for many years. It is technically called genetically modified organisms, which consists of DNA being altered in organisms to contain other types of genes. Engineering technology is important and is used in many medical drugs, crops, and animals.
Enhancing Crops with GMO: Climate & Pests
Scientists use this technology to add more resistance to the crops so they would not encounter any problems of anything killing the crops. Many people debate this kind of technology because they think it will affect their health negatively and the environment. People do fear change, and this kind of scientific technology manipulates certain things that are made to eat and many animals that are provided for food. Many of these changes that are made will help the environment by making more advancements to products that eventually will die if not treated with the use of altered genes. Many modifications will be more resistant to decay and will also help in many medical improvements. The crops that are altered are also used in making biofuel from certain crops.
GMO Labels: From Fear to Informed Choices
There are many positive and negative opinions about using the GMO method. There is a controversy among many people that, in the long run, these kinds of methods could harm people’s health. Many research studies have been made, and this process has been used for a long time. It is important for scientists to modify these genes. Many crops have been a benefit to our country. It helps our crops grow better food without any problems of it getting dry and being killed by insects. These transgenic crops allow these vegetables to produce quality and better growth. It is very difficult for Marketplaces to sell their products containing GMOs because many people would rather eat organic and less altered food, especially if it was changed biologically.
These fears of eating make many consumers look for non-GMO products, and it is known that many consumers are willing to pay more for premium products that do not contain GMO labels.
The U.S. federal government policy has made laws that all products containing GMOs be labeled properly in a survey made several years ago about the people’s reaction to GMO products. It states that 20% will decline the use of these products. While 60% will get the benefits that these products produce, and 20% didn’t care. Consumers will rather pay up to 20% for natural products than use the ones with scientific experiments.
Algae & GMOs: The Future of Clean Energy
Many people believe that it is unethical for the food alternation because of some mistakes that scientists sometimes make. In the mid-1980s, the first biotechnology gene began. It was when the first gene was altered in plants. Scientists are making it easier for farmers to produce quality-grown products without the hassle of insect damage. It is helping them to apply less pesticide on these crops, which means less toxic materials that are on the product growing. Climate change is also a problem with the crops. Sometimes, because of the dry weather, these crops that are produced by biotechnology are more resistant.
GMO scientific experiments are also turning algae into biofuels, medical drugs, and food and feed supplements. While algae are produced in a certain environment, Scientists and researchers have developed areas where they grow this kind of organism. Microalgae will be used to produce biofuel. It will change the economic costs and the way we fuel our vehicles. Even possibly, the oil growing will be in short demand, meaning no more digging for oil. The blue and green algae is hard to come across. It is widely grown on open ponds. Scientists have man-made ponds growing these algae considerably in hot, humid areas to produce a huge amount.
However, the price of having these algae crops made is expensive to cultivate a mass of this product. Scientists are finding new ways to use biotechnology genes in order to make them grow fast and efficiently. As in many of these GMO discoveries, many people will fear the modification from natural gas-made fuel to biofuel in its transfer because of the mass production of algae needed to produce this fuel abundantly.
GMO Medications: Pioneering Health Solutions
Many medical advancements use GMOs to find ways to make the human body prone to many viruses and bacterial infections and help to synthesize many medications that are used for medical conditions. These drugs are being altered in order to omit several life-threatening diseases. One commonly produced drug used is insulin for treating diabetes, in which a human insulin is injected. This drug is important because there are more cases of patients who are being treated for this condition. With the modification of genes, many people will be healthy. However, through gene therapy, there are still more experiments and tests being done to be able to replace these genes and apply a healthy one. Scientists believe this will one day help cure, prevent, and treat several genetic disorders.
Although GMOs is helping worldwide with their technology, many people dislike the thought of scientist altering food and animals. They think that because they will become sick of using these products. The U.S. federal government has made it possible for supermarkets to officially label these products with GMOs. Consumers will still try to buy organic foods because of the thought of scientific altercations with food and animals. This makes them feel that there will be a negative effect on their health. Many of these consumers would rather pay more for organic food than genetically made food products.
These products that use GMOs are made to resist and sustain damage during production. It also helps in the fields so that farmers do not put excessive herbicide and toxic fumigation on the produce we eat. Many scientists are finding new ways for humans to live healthily by using genetically modified medications. With scientific advancements, many people will be able to use biofuel and pay less for use on their vehicles. GMO studies and experiments will change the world and, hopefully, the minds of negative people.
References
Gregory, J. A., & Mayfield, S. P. (2014). Developing inexpensive malaria vaccines from plants and algae. Applied Microbiology And Biotechnology.
Kuzma, J. (2018). Regulating: Gene-Edited Crops: Advocates of second-generation genetically modified crops are making choices likely to trigger another round of public opposition. Issues in Science and Technology.
UDRISTE, A. A., & BADULESCU, L. (2017). Genetically Modified Organisms. Research Journal of Agricultural Science.
Vierhile, T. (2015, May). GMO update: One doesn’t have to be a political or legal expert to understand the latest developments in genetically modified organisms, but it could help. Prepared Foods.
A common concern in this fast-food world is the safety of the food that we are putting into our bodies. One of the main topics is GMOs. There are many benefits to GMO food, but there are also many disadvantages to GMO food. First, we need to understand what a GMO food is. GMO stands for genetically modified organisms. GMO plants and animals are organisms that have had their characteristics changed through the modification of their DNA. This means that any food we put in our bodies can be genetically modified.
Benefits of GMOs: Shelf Life & Farming Gains
One advantage of having GMO food is that the food can be modified while being grown. This means that the food can be modified to have a longer shelf life. It also means that they are able to make the color of the food stronger or make a fruit seedless. They are also able to improve the nutrients of food.
The Downsides: Allergies and Antibiotic Concerns
With that being said, there are also some disadvantages to that. GMOs can possibly increase food-related allergies. “Information from the CDC shows that food allergies in children have increased from 3.4% to 5.1% in the last decade.” GMOs may also trigger allergies to alternative foods. GMOs can be different products, and if one is allergic to the ingredients that are used to produce the genetically modified food, then they now will have an allergy to a new food that they may not have had before. They would also still be able to eat the product if it were not genetically modified.
Another advantage to GMOs is that they are easier for farmers to grow. This means that they can grow anything, anywhere. This then would lead us to another advantage, which would be that with being able to grow crops anywhere, farmers are able to produce more food at a faster rate. There is a study that “By the year 2050, the human population on our planet is expected to top 10 billion people.” GMOs will allow us to keep up with the human population while still keeping the cost of food low. It also always helps them to withstand heat, cold, and even drought.
A disadvantage to GMO food is there is concern that it can cause antibiotic resistance. One of the ways farmers are able to grow GMO food is they artificially placing antibiotic genes within the DNA of the crops. There are studies that have found that continuous exposure to antibiotics can lead to resistance. It can be very dangerous to have resistance to antibiotics, as many serious illnesses have to be treated with antibiotics.
References
World Health Organization. (2020). Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Food Allergies in Children.
GMO or Genetically Modified is a widely used scientific technology in the world, it slove desire for physiological traits or the production of desired biological products as in many crops, farming, and even animal breeding. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, and also between nonrelated species. GMOs have had a very revolutionary impact on the world. Already 29 countries have adopted this scientific technology to make further developments in agriculture. I believe that it could benefit the local people even more if we, would invest and discover more about this theme as I will explain further in the text.
Science Involved Genetic Modification
Methods can differ a lot, there are many different ways of methods using GMOs however, am I focusing on the most important and well-known methods? The Nomadic Method was early used in agricultural history. The genetically different population of plants is inspected, and the “superior” individuals or good plants with the most desired traits, such as improved palatability and yield are used for further production. However, are not as good as plants used for providing food. The more modern Method works different with more modern scientific technology, an example of a modern method is marker-assisted selection, which uses molecular analysis to detect plants likely to express desired features, such as disease resistance to one or more specific pathogens in a population. This method saves both times and is a much more efficient mechanism in the farmer’s production.
Animal Genetic Modification
Modern breeds of livestock from their ancestors. Which hormones do they have and what are their production characteristics? Using sophisticated statistical models are we able to predict breeding values, sire testing and selection, crossbreeding, and marker-assisted selection, along with that we, have greatly advanced the production characteristics of livestock. It is expected that it will continue to be a necessary tool in animal production systems. Overall breeding and selection system for propagating desired genotypes for animals expressing desired traits.
Advantages
Questions like what advantages and disadvantages, are important to know if we really should invest and adopt this GMO. However, have we seen from the different methods that it will benefit both our farmers socially and economically? Other economic benefits are that one of the objectives for developing plants based on GMOs is to improve crop protection and lower the need to apply pesticides and be resistant to certain herbicides thus making weed control more straightforward which makes making it less expensive o we have as we have added Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which is a microbe naturally found in soil. It makes proteins that are toxic to immature insects so we skip the process of synthetic pesticides and the cost of it. However, some bacteria can also produce biodegradable plastics, and the transfer of that ability to microbes that can be easily grown in the laboratory may enable the wide-scale “greening” of the plastics industry. We also have developed, GMOs endowed with the bacterially encoded ability to metabolize oil and heavy metals may provide efficient bioremediation strategies. Which benefits are the rehabilitation of the world’s climate and making a strong environmental point.
Limitations
Pro contra, do still countries like Germany and France banned GMOs because of the side effects made by the use of GMOs? Firstly, Monsanto (An American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation) has brought lawsuits against small businesses and individual farmers accused of “stealing” seeds or illegally “planting” its branded seeds without permission. There have also been mass bee deaths of 30 percent of the bee population in the past six years. Local farmers claim this is due to neonics created by the GMO plants poisoning the bees. However, one of the biggest problems with genetically modified foods is the lack of independent research on the subject. If GM foods were confirmed as being detrimental to consumer health, these would be further outlawed all over the world.
Impact on the World
As you may see, this subject has a lot of social, economic, political, environmental, cultural, and ethical opinions and questions because of the low competence about this subject. This is why Sweden should invest and adopt GMOs so we can develop the research and benefit from it. However, do we know that it benefits our society in a social, and environmental way? As I have shown before do we know the advantages, Some bacteria can produce biodegradable plastics, and the transfer of that ability to microbes that can be easily grown in the laboratory may enable the wide-scale “greening” of the plastics industry, this could be the possible future secure of our world. The development of GMOs has also added Yet, we also have developed, GMOs endowed with the bacterially encoded ability to metabolize oil and heavy metals may provide efficient bioremediation strategies, which is a big step for our society’s social competence to change this era of using coal and bad gases. A change in agriculture will also have a social impact on the farmers and society because of the change in economic resources but also will farming become simpler and maybe more interesting for the new generation. The only negative aspect is that we don’t know everything about GMOs which makes is scary and weak from a political and ethical viewpoint.
Final Summary
To summarize I strongly believe in the Swedish to invest and adopted and do more research about it. This will make a revolutionary change not only in agriculture but also in society.
Genetically Modified Foods refer to foods obtained from crops whose genetic composition has been altered. This is done in two main ways: traditional selection and breeding, and use of scientific technology. Almost everyone in the world, including scientists, public officials, and religious groups, has been expressing concerns about the new way of confronting world hunger through genetically modified (GM) foods.
People have also been complaining about agribusiness because it only cares about making profit. Although GM foods are capable of resolving most starvation and malnutrition issues, as well as aiding in the protection and conservation of the environment, they pose various human health and environmental risks.
What Are Genetically Modified Foods?
GM foods are foods that are produced from crops that have been genetically altered through advanced molecular biology skills. Plants are genetically altered to increase their nutritional values to fight malnutrition around the world. Some plants are genetically modified to resist pests so that food security is available by ensuring good crops.
Before the advances in molecular biology skills, we were able to develop these qualities in plants by crossbreeding them, “marrying” one type of plant to another type. However, this still was not adequate because the world’s population increases by the millions per day and the creation of these hybrid plants is time consuming and not exactly successful. That is why genetic engineering is mostly used today instead of crossbreeding.
Genetic engineering cannot only alter plants to produce the desired outcome, it can do it precisely. One easy way to explain what scientists do is that they separate a gene from a plant that has the desired qualities and then insert the gene into the host plant’s gene. Any kind of genes can be used, an animal’s or a plant’s gene can be relocated to another plant. One of the most desired outcomes from a crop is the ability to grow tolerance to the effects of herbicide.
A good example of Genetic Modification Crop is the use of Bacillus thuringiensis genes in corn and other crops (Makoni and Mohammed-Katerere 303). Bacillus thuringiensis is a naturally occurring bacterium that generates a crystal protein that is toxic to caterpillars. When the gene of Bacillus thuringiensis is inserted into a corn gene, the corn becomes intolerable to caterpillars. In other words, the corn generates its own pesticide.
History of Genetically Modified Foods
The first ever genetically modified crops were produced in the 1980s. However, the earliest food to arrive in US supermarkets was Flavr Savr tomatoes, which were introduced in 1994. With a particularly solid skin, the Flavr Savr guaranteed a longer shelf life than nearly all other tomatoes (Zinnen and Voichick 31). Scientist had removed the gene that controls the softening of the tomato. Unfortunately, Flavr Savr tomatoes were discontinued due to their high market price.
Genetically modified foods make exaggerated promises for confronting a number of our greatest problems. Similar to all new technologies, the genetic modification of foods presents some risks, both recognized and unrecognized. Arguments surrounding GM foods usually focus on environmental and human safety.
According to the documentary film The Future of Food, a debate, whether the use of GM should be continued or discontinued, has been ongoing among farmers, giant biotech corporations, the government, and consumers. The genetic modification of Flavr Savr tomatoes is one example of how the government helped to introduce GM foods into the US market.
Before the tomatoes were brought into the market, Calgene had done several voluntary testing on rats that had consumed the tomatoes. They found lesions in the rats’ stomachs. Despite these findings, the government approved the tomatoes for sale in May 1994 (The Future of Food).
In 2001, Americans became aware that GM foods were part of their everyday diet due to the ingestion of genetically modified food by Grace Booth that sent her to hospital and late, she was diagnosed with severe allergic reaction. Since then, consumers have been active in the debate.
In 2002, a concerned mother in Oregon took the initiative to push for labeling of genetically modified products; however this campaign was defeated by the $4.6 million spent on the industry’s counter campaign. In 1992, the government helped promote GMO products again. Vice President Dan Quayle stated: “We will ensure that biotech products will receive the same oversight as other products instead of being hammered by unnecessary regulations.”
What he was actually recommending was that there should be no regulations at all on GMO products. GM food later was placed under the category generally recognized as safe (GRAS). The forces behind GM food received regulatory approval by claiming that the process is “substantially equivalent” to classical breeding practices and therefore should not be regulated.
There has been much corroboration between the giant biotech company Monsanto and the government. For example, Micky Kantor, who was secretary of commerce, also served as Board of Director of Mosanto and Lidia Watrud, an Environmental Protection Agency and also Monsanto researcher; and the list goes on and on. However, what truly allow farmers to go on producing GM corn are subsidies from the government.
Prevalence and Involved Plants
According to the United States Department of Agriculture and the FDA, over forty plant types exist that have fulfilled all of the national requirements for selling (Sforza).
Examples of these plants include cantaloupes and tomatoes that have customized ripening traits, sugar beets and soy beans that are anti-herbicides, cotton plants and corn with improved resistance to vermin, and potato plants with the genes of chickens and giant silk moths to increase disease resistance. However, not all of these products have been available in supermarkets or grocery stores until now. Still, the number of GM foods that are available in US supermarkets is large.
Even though there are only a few wholly genetically modified vegetables, fruits, and crops available, almost anything else that is sold in supermarkets contains at least some amount of genetically modified ingredients, unprocessed ingredients come from several places. How would you like to know that your potato was mixed with chicken and giant silk moth genes or that your corn contains the genes of fireflies (Zinnen and Voichick 35)?
Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods
GM foods do have several benefits. These benefits are directly related to human health and the environment.
The first benefit of a GM food is pest resistance. Did you know that the total loss from pests account for 65–80% of attainable yields (Oerke and Dehne). These crop losses due to insect vermin can be overwhelming. Insects not only create devastating economic losses for farmers but also create malnutrition or famine in developing nation.
Another argument in support of GM foods is that every year agriculturists use several tons of chemical insect killers. It is proven that eating food that is treated with high amounts of pesticides may cause potential health hazards to consumers. Finally, the use of these pesticides and fertilizers may contaminate the water supply. At the end of the farming season, the land is washed away by water, and this water carries all the toxic chemicals, resulting in environmental pollution.
Planting GM crops such as corn that is inserted with Bacillus thuringiensis can help in eradicating the use of these toxic chemicals and decrease the market price because the yield of crops (supply) will be greater. Hence, potential hazards, environmental risks, and world hunger could be reduced.
The second benefit of GM foods is that genetic modification provides herbicide tolerance (“Herbicide Use and GM Crops” 1). Usually, farmers spray vast amounts of weed killers rather than eliminate them through physical methods, such as digging. Weed killers are easier to apply and longer lasting.
Through the use of GM crop plants, which can resist potent herbicides, environmental harm can be diminished by decreasing the quantity of herbicides used. For example, Monsanto has produced a strain of soybeans genetically modified so that the more tolerant to herbicide effect. A farmer cultivating these soybeans only needs to make a single application of herbicides instead of several applications, thereby decreasing production expenditure and the risks of agricultural-waste overspill.
The third benefit is disease resistance. A wide variety of fungi, viruses, and bacteria exist that can lead to the loss of crops through infection. Biologists are trying to produce plants with genetically modified resistance to these infections.
This will in turn lead to a healthier environment because fewer toxic substances will be introduced into the environment for disease-resistance purposes. Disease resistant crops will result in high food production because of reduced losses of crops in the field and few costs of disease prevention. This will ultimately lead to sustainable food security in the world.
The fourth benefit of GM foods is cold tolerance (Liang and Skinner 145). Unpredicted frost can annihilate vulnerable sprouts. Plants that are modified are less susceptible to temperatures that typically would kill unmodified sprouts through the use of antifreeze genes. For example, a gene from fish that live in cold water has been introduced in several plants that include tobacco and potatoes.
This gene is antifreeze and helps these plants withstand extremely cold environments that would otherwise destroy them. These plants will increases food production, which in turn solves some of the world’s hunger problem. In addition, it will also lower market value because greenhouses are not needed.
The fifth benefit is salinity tolerance. Because the world’s population has increased and more land is used to build shelter than to grow food, farmers will have to cultivate crops in places formerly inappropriate for plant farming.
Hence, there is a need for developing plants that can endure long phases of drought or high-salt conditions from the groundwater. For example, a tomato species that grows in salty environments has been developed.GM foods will help to increase food production in the world and hence counter instances of hunger in many parts of the world.
The sixth benefit is nutrition. Undernourishment is widespread in developing countries, where people living in poverty depend on a single crop like rice as the main food staple. One of the more recent innovations in the field of GM foods is the invention of golden rice, rice that has been genetically modified to contain beta-carotene.
Beta-carotene gives the grain a golden color. When it is consumed, the carotenoids transform into vitamin A in the body. Vitamin A deficiency is a common cause of blindness and child mortality in underdeveloped countries. Other crops that have been genetically modified to increase their nutritive value include corn, cassava, bananas and sorghum.
They all have higher levels of minerals and vitamins compared to conventional types. Because the Rockefeller Foundation financed the creation of this rice, the organization is going to present rice seeds at no cost to any developing nation that needs them, with the aim of improving human health. Consumption of these biofortified foods could help improve the health of people in underdeveloped and developing countries.
The seventh benefit of genetically modified foods is their economic viability. The technology has been largely beneficial in developing countries where it is credited with creation of jobs and increased income. Genetically modified foods are high yielding and many employees are needed to handle the crops in all the stages of processing and storage.
For example, a recent study conducted in India revealed that Bt cotton, a genetically modified type of cotton, generates income that is 82% higher than the income generated by conventional cotton types. This gain in income contributes in the overall growth of the economy. Studies have shown that the income generated from Bt cotton, be it direct or indirect, raises the financial aggregate of India by $2 billion every year.
A large portion of this income goes to households that live below the poverty line. In china, income generated by Bt cotton is in the range of $1 billion dollars every year. Genetically modified foods are contributing significantly in alleviating poverty and growing the economies of countries such as Pakistan, Argentina, South Africa, Mexico and Burkina Faso.
The last benefit is in relation to pharmaceuticals. Vaccines and drugs often are expensive to manufacture and at times need storage environments that are not available in developing nations. Scientists are now trying to create harmless vaccines and drugs that will naturally occur in potatoes and tomatoes.
Bananas are also being genetically modified to cure hepatitis B (12 Bizarre Examples of Genetic Engineering: Banana Vaccines). Many fruits are now genetically modified by researchers to produce vaccines; however, banana is the most ideal. It will be easier to store these drugs and vaccines in the foods than to transport and direct vaccines injection, hence improving human health.
Environmental Safety
A key area of concern regarding GM foods is environmental safety. Critics and environmentalists are concerned about destruction to other species and the unintended effects of gene modification. Intended to fight pests, gene modification can disturb a range of balances in the environment. Studies reveal that pollen from B.t. (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn results in elevated death rates in Monarch butterfly caterpillars (Hellmich 1).
Monarch caterpillars use milkweed plants instead of corn as a host plant. However, the concern is that if pollen from B.t. corn is delivered by the wind onto milkweed vegetation in near regions, the caterpillars might consume the pollen and die. Sadly, B.t. contaminants kill several classes of insect larvae randomly. Currently, it is not possible to modify B.t. venom to destroy only crop-destructive pests and spare all other species right now, although in the future such advanced technology may be possible.
The rise of “excellent” weeds and “excellent” pests is also an area of concern. Crops that have been modified for herbicide tolerance and weeds might crossbreed as the windborne plant’s pollen migrates and thus create unwanted weeds (Tambornino 5). These enhanced weeds will likely be able to tolerate herbicides, so they will be more difficult to eradicate. Some farmers have decided to eradicate weeds by physical means.
GM foods also can carry a devastating effect on soil ecosystem. The chances for soil biota to be exposed to these genetically modified genes are high. Although there has not been a lot of research conducted in this area, it is proven that these B.t toxic remains active in the soil for 140 days more or less and it also affect insects.
These cause worries as these toxics can be passed on to other organisms that feed on these insects. This also would be a serious concern for poor farmers in developing countries who refused to use chemical fertilizers. It is because soil fertility will be reduced dramatically as these B.t toxins slow down the rates of decomposition and nutrient release that are done by soil organisms.
Another particular environmental hazard is the possibility for wild crosspollination to occur (“GM Foods Renewed Threat” 1). Other modified plants’ genes may intersect with normal crops placed beside GM crops. Related concerns involve the involuntary formation of new super pests that would be resistant to several insect killers. In a similar fashion that some bacteria grow tolerant to nearly all antibiotics in the human body due to the excessive use of antibiotics, GMO farming can result in pesticide-resistant “excellent” pests.
One such case study involves a legal suit brought by Monsanto. The corporation filed a patent violation against the farmers who they alleged were producing GM crops without using Monsanto GM seeds and paying Monsanto reimbursement (“Percy Schmeiser Stands Up to Monsanto”). However, it was found out later that the farmer’s crops had been polluted by another farmer’s GM crops planted a few miles away.
Food Safety
Another concern that GM foods bring with them are the chances of new allergies being produced (Tambornino 5). Data shows that almost a quarter of Americans show an adverse effect to one or more foods. Opponents of GMOs say that adding genes to plants can bring about extra food allergies and thus have adverse health effects.
Several children in Europe and the United States have experienced acute allergies to peanuts and other foods. Again, the suggestion to integrate a genetic material from Brazil nuts into soybeans was dismissed because of the fear of causing unanticipated allergic responses.
Several people are concerned that if one of the genes from a nut were transmitted to a new food crop, people with an allergy to nuts could unknowingly eat the allergen and suffer potentially dangerous effects. Therefore, the modification of genes from known allergenic foods is rejected unless it can be verified that the end product is not allergic. Developed foods usually are not examined for allergenic characteristics.
So far, genetically modified foods in the market have had no allergic consequences. However, because of the fear of having allergic reactions to food, the European Union (EU) decided to ban most imports of GM food. Recently, the EU banned contaminated honey with trace amounts of pollen from genetically modified corn from general sale (Phillips).
There is a rising fear that introducing “alien” genes into crop plants might have unanticipated and harmful effects on human health. The latest studies show that there are significant differences in the guts of rodents that consume genetically modified food and rats that consume unmodified food (Tambornino 5).
This study was done by Arpad Pusztai. After the trials, he found out that the all the rats are underweight but this is expected for a potato – based died. Disturbingly, upon dissection he found out that the rats that have been fed by GM potatoes have lower organs weight and depressed immune system.
This has been confirmed by him that the changes found in those rats were due to the DNA construct used regularly for making GM foods. However, most scientists say that GM foods do not pose human health risks. Therefore, a broad assessment of GM foods may be needed to ensure that GM foods will not harm people with food allergies. Classification of GM foods and foodstuffs will obtain new significance.
In conclusion, genetic modification can create plants that produce products with the desired features quickly and precisely. However, genetically modified foods have a large variety of impacts on human beings and the environment. A key area of concern regarding GM foods is environmental safety. The production of GM foods can kill other species, such as Monarch butterflies, and it can create wild crosspollination (i.e., the superweed).
GM foods can destroy the balance of nature and create a death cycle in which normal crops are modified to have higher tolerance to pests, and, because of their higher tolerance, pests become even more tolerant and hence stronger methods are required to control them. Surely, people just want what is best for everyone. Producers want to make profits, and consumers want a safe environment.
However, consumers should be the top priority here because they are the ones who fund the production of GM foods. It all falls in the hands of the consumers. Even if the government decides to fund the production of GM foods, what can it do if people reject the foods? How can producers keep insisting on producing GM foods as they watch their own environment deteriorate? At some point, the value of life will outweigh money. Until then, the selling of GM foods should be stopped until the science is perfected.
Currently, the risks and benefits of GM foods are almost equally balanced. The benefits and risks counter each other. However, there are still risks in GM foods. Scientists have said that they have not found any health concerns in humans when they consumed GM foods, but GM foods have had some effects on rodent test subjects. Researchers found that the rodents fed GM food showed significant differences in their stomachs from rodents that were fed non modified food.
Despite these concerns, GM food is still widely available in supermarkets. Are you willing to risk your family’s and your health by consuming these products? Throughout the years, the secrets of GMO have been buried by Monsanto. If GM foods are safe, why is Monsanto trying so hard to conceal GM ingredients or to cover up the fact that these GM foods are harmful to rodent test subjects? Now that the truth is out, it is up to you to decide what to believe and what changes to make.
Flores, Vanessa S., and Allan J. Tobin. “Genetically Modified (GM) Foods & Teaching Critical Thinking.” American Biology Teacher 65.3 (2003): 180-4. ERIC. Web..
Garcia, Maria Alice, and Miguel A. Altieri. “Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture.”Bulletin of Science Technology and Society 25.4 (2005): 335-53. ERIC. Web..
“Genetically Modified (GM) Foods—Renewed Threat to Europe.” banGMFood.org. Web.
Hall, Clare, and Dominic Moran. “Investigating GM Risk Perceptions: A Survey of Anti-GM and Environmental Campaign Group Members.” Journal of Rural Studies 22.1 (2006): 29-37. ERIC. Web..
Hellmich, Richard. “Monarch Butterflies and Bt Corn.” Web..
“Herbicide Use and GM Crops.” Friends of the Earth. Web..
Liang, George H., and Daniel Z. Skinner. Genetically Modified Crops: Their Development, Uses, and Risks. New York, NY: Food Products Press, 2004. Print.
Makoni, Nathaniel, and Jennifer Mohammed-Katerere. “Genetically Modified Crops.” Slideshare. Web..
Oerke, E.-C., and H.-W. Dehne, “Safeguarding Production—Losses in Major Crops and the Role of Crop Protection.”Web..
“Percy Schmeiser Stands Up To—and Takes Down—Monsanto.” Vegsource. Web..
Phillips, Leigh. “EU Bans GM-Contaminated Honey from General Sale” The Guardian. Web..
Sforza, Kevin, Tyler Bazzoli, Zachary Boyles, and Ashley Bloxom. “Are GM Foods More Harm than Good?” Genetically Modified Foods. Web..
Sorgo, Andrej, and Jana Ambrozic-Dolinsek. “Knowledge of, Attitudes Toward, and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Organisms among Prospective Teachers of Biology, Home Economics, and Grade School in Slovenia.” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 38.3 (2010): 141-50. ERIC. Web..
The introduction of genetically modified foods, GMFs, has been quite rapid, especially in the US. Stewart report that in the year 1996, “transgenic crops covered 1.7 million hectares worldwide”(5). Presently, there are more than fifty individual transgenic products that involve thirteen separate crops (Stewart 6).
Statistics indicate that in 2009, more than fourteen million large, as well as small-scale farmers in twenty-five nations across the world had planted one hundred and thirty-four million hectares. This was a seven-percent increase compared to the year 2008 (Johnson 43). A prediction has been made that, within the next twenty years, the gene technology “will touch every type of agricultural crop in the world, although this will depend on a high-level of consumer acceptance” (Johnson 48).
GM technology has revolutionized how agricultural practices are being conducted around the world. Many nations believe GM technology is the way forward to self-sustaining in food security, and as a source of foreign exchange. This is unlike traditional agricultural practices which are labor intensive but low yielding.
Thus, various research affirms the technology will likely shape the future agricultural practices in terms of increasing food production and foreign exchange. However, fears such as human and plant health in regard to the technology are major concerns that are being discussed by various stakeholders across the world.
Genetically Modified Food, GMF
GMF is a popular word in the food industries. Jukes (61) defines the term as the food derived from genetically modified organism, GMO. According to Feight and Nashat (156) the genetic engineering process is used to alter the GMF DNA composition.
GMF in the US and Other Parts of the World
Various research conducted on GMFs have signaled that the US is a leading nation in both production and consumption of genetically modified foods worldwide (Lekha & Abdul 283). This scenario, combined with haphazard and negligent regulation in the biotechnology industries has accelerated the presence of genetically modified food production and consumption in the US market.
Despite being the leading producer and consumer of GMFs products across the world, the US practice of embracing GMFs has elicited a major dilemma in the country ranging from human health to environmental challenges. Besides, labeling of GMFs products has not been easy in the country. This fact has made millions of unsuspecting consumers to purchase and consume GMFs products unknowingly.
Across the world, GMFs have received mixed reactions. Countries such as Argentina, Canada, India and China have been actively involved with the technology. In Africa, Kerr (73) cites that South Africa has been using GM technology to support agricultural activities such as maize cultivation.
Dangers Poised by GMFs
Kerr (74) draws that if the world does not rise to the occasion and address the concerns connected to GMFs, the impact created as a result will be more severe to both human health and the eco-system. Feight and Nashat (154) support Kerr sentiments by showing that all stakeholders in the society should work in unison to avert the challenge created by GMF.
Also, Lekha & Abdul (289) mention that GMOs make crops resistant to weeds. Genetically modified crops affect weeds that grow in the same area with crops. As the practice continues for a longer time, the weeds readily access the genes of engineered seeds which makes them resistant. When weeds become resistant, farmers are compelled to use more resources in order to control them.
Similarly, lack of thorough research in the field of GMF has also been cited by Jukes (66) as a severe risk connected to GMFs. He shows that little research has been conducted and less information made available to consumers.
Besides, some governments have gone ahead and approved the use of GM foods in their respective food chain without being equipped with enough information. Most governments believe the risks associated with GMF are similar to those produced using conventional methods or practices of farming (Jukes 67). Thus, Jukes (66) cautions against this assumption.
Horror Stories and GMF?
Despite strong advocacy from different quarters of the society, various stories around the globe have elicited different opinions about the GMF. In India, Lekha & Abdul (292) claim that agricultural farmers believed that buying Bollgard cotton seeds, would increase yields in their farms and become instant millionaires.
However, they were surprised to learn that they had spent more than they would have using traditional methods of farming. The farmers were optimistic that the seeds, provided by Monsato, a company supplying GM seeds, would make a cotton crop resistant to bollworm which was a big headache to them. This was not to become true, later, Monsato admitted their seed had failed (Feight and Nashat 151).
Government and GMF controversy
According to statistics available from various countries, Kerr (70) cites that some countries have “weighed into” the controversy and responded by creating strategies aimed at reducing the impact established by GMF. Similarly, Feight and Nashat (149) shows that most African countries have objected to the GMFs by applying individual measures. For instance, Zimbabwe and Zambia, though hard hit by prolonged food shortage and drought, they do not readily accept GMF donations.
Zimbabwe had to block GMFs aid from making its entry into the country. In Zambia, which had received GMF grains in 2007, the government prohibited the distribution and blocked other consignment that was on the way (Feight and Nashat 150). Though many Zambians face severe starvation, President Levy Mwanawasa has upheld that he will not tolerate GMFs. His view is that GMFs have the potential hazard of causing genetic variation that will have severe health effects on his citizens.
Also, labeling, as it pertains to the GMFs has been a controversial issue. Kerr (80) indicates that labeling is a significant aspect which help consumers know the specific features of the product before making the purchase decision. Thus, most countries have insisted that for any product to enter its market, it should be well labeled to ensure consumers know the contents present in the product. Some countries have objected to this idea, presently, discussion is ongoing between countries to solve the impulse (Kerr 82).
Government Involvement in the Controversy, Any Breakthrough?
Despite the hard work exhibited by governments across the globe, the issue connected to economic, political and social climate has slowed down their efforts to effectively address the issue posed by GMF. Thus, they have addressed the challenge differently.
In Japan, the Ministry of Health has fixed a body involved in testing standards for GMFs. This body has been in existence since 2001. The body has been instrumental in ensuring any products entering the Japanese supermarkets are tested to confirm traces connected to GMO. This body has been significant in assisting Japanese consumer’s in making wise purchasing decision.
Similarly, some states in Brazil have forbidden GM crops. Also, the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers in partnership with Greenpeace has filed several injunctions restraining the government from introducing GMF and related products in the country. This initiative is also happening in most European countries where all food products need to be labeled to gain market access.
Consensus in the scientific community about GMF
Lekha & Abdul (296) note that there has been a sharp division among scientists in support for GMF. For example, In the US, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, AAEM has strongly opposed any product associated with GMO (Johnson 56). In this regard, it has urged the physician to provide information to their patients, the public and the medical communities about GMO.
In one of their research findings, AAEM reported the animals were severely affected by GMFs as they showed signs of low infertility rate, problem in insulin regulation and aging.
Also, Food and Drug Administration has warned the US government on genetically modified foods. They have adduced evidence linking these foods and the safety of the consumers. In one of their findings, they found out that GMFs fixed new diseases, allergies, poisons and other nutritional challenges to a person.
Despite the opposition, some scientists have stood strong in support of GMF. They view GMFs as a move of providing surplus food for the growing population and creating employments. Similarly, they are promoting private companies practicing GM technology to use their experience in assisting the poor (Feight and Nashat 154) . Hence, Scientists academies across India, US, Brazil, China and Royal Society among others have produced their findings suggesting that any concerns linked to GMFs should be erased (Feight and Nashat 151).
What could be done
GMFs are introduced into the market without considering the effects it will cause to the health of the consumers, yet, various studies have proved that they are detrimental to both the ecosystem and animals. These effects are irreversible as indicated by Kerr (69). Similarly, Kerr (69) claims that food produced through genetic engineering should be outlawed until scientifically proven to be safe for human consumption.
Moreover, labeling should be done transparently to discover if GMFs contain genetically engineered ingredients. This will allow consumers to make a wise buying decision besides helping scientists to track the cause of health risks connected with these foods.
GMO, a threat to International Market?
Feight and Nashat (159) confirms that GMFs is a threat to the global markets. He points out that for GMFs to make entry into global markets, they must certify two important elements. One is that they have to meet local regulations and standards and second, they must compete with other similar products for price and other features. Hence, the major threat they pose is the labeling. Ansari et al (153) alleges that GMFs labeling has a potential effect of limiting their market access because of their perceived fear of consumers.
Similarly, many huge agribusiness corporations manage and control genetics that farmers use in their farming activities (Feight and Nashat 152). Hence, most people fear that the pesticides, herbicides and seeds used among others in farming can find themselves in the entire food chain creating unforeseen risks. This ultimately is a serious threat to global markets.
Largest potential markets and consumption of GMF’s worldwide
According to statistics US leads in producing GMOs products. Jukes (68) cites that it produces about 85 percent of genetically engineered corn, besides, it produces about 91 percent of soya beans and a further 88 percent of cotton (cotton seed oil). Similarly, Norma and Gai (100) point out that 70 percent of GMF processed food is available in the US supermarket.
They include sodas, soup and crackers. These products contain some traces of genetically modified elements. Moreover, the US is among the largest market of genetically engineered products. It stands at 68 percent basing on statistics collected in 2000 (Norma and Gai 97).
Advantages of GMF over traditional agricultural methods
GMF has played a big role in reducing the size of the land under cultivation. This contribution of GMF allows farmers to promote farming practices that aid in soil conservation. Also, Norma and Gai (103) point out the GMF has assisted countries such as the US to reduce soil erosion and savings in costs related to water treatments. This is unlike using traditional farming practices.
Moreover, GMFs farming as assisted farmers to increase their income by developing higher yielding crops and lowering production costs. Costs associated with farming such as farm labor and the use of pesticide to control pests have been kept to the minimum. This is unlike traditional farming practices where labor-intensive is involved; making it more costly. Jukes (70) cites that research globally has shown that GMFs has increased income for small-scale and large-scale farmers alike, it is likely to sustain this trend in the future.
Vulnerabilities Associated with GMF
Stewart cites that industrial form of agriculture place more emphasis on large-scale production. This emphasis is harmful to the eco-system (6). Consequently, GMFs reinforce genetic homogeneity and promote large-scale monocultures. This method weakens the biodiversity and exposes crop to vulnerability to pests, diseases and climate change.
Presently, GMFs forms major ingredients in people’s diet. Kerr (74) cites that in the US, about 80 percent of processed foods contain GMO traces. Some of these products include; corn and rice among others. Thus, it is hard for consumers to identify what they are consuming because labeling is not detailed; hence, a likely danger of harm to a person’s health.
Scientific communities in support and against GMF?
Various scientific communities around the globe support GMFs. Norma and Gai (105) cite that Royal Society has recommended the practice worldwide. In one of their reports, the community pointed out that private organizations should promote GM technology to help the poor appreciate the benefits created by GMFs.
. Another scientific community, Novartis, a company actively involved in GM technology, has played an important role in providing new guidelines in partnership with third world countries on how to improve GMFs production. Other scientific organizations supporting GMFs are; The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Third World Academy of Sciences in Triste and US National Academy of Sciences.
Though there has been more support for GMFs by some scientist, a section of others has opposed the move. Feight and Nashat (160), cite the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has opposed any move by the government to introduce GM products in the country. Instead, it has encourage health care givers to provide information to their patients, the public and the medical community on effects associated with the GMFs.
Conclusion
GMO is a new technology which has revolutionized agricultural farming. Research indicates that GMO has a potential of increasing food production more than the traditional farming practices. This is because the technology utilizes modern practices which increases land under cultivation, prevents pesticides and weeds.
Also, various authors on the technology indicate that the health risk connected with GMFs have not been clearly defined to establish their possible health risks. This owes to the fact that little research has been conducted to determine their spectacular rise within the food supply chain.
In the world, the US is the leading producer and consumer of GMO products. Also, other countries such as Canada, China and Argentina are increasingly adopting this technology to boost their agricultural activities. It is in the views of the scientists that GM technology is important in improving food security across the world.
Works Cited
Ansari, Abdul Haseeb, Nik Kamal Ahmad and Nik Mahmod. “Biosafety Protocol, SPS Agreement and export and import control of LMOs/GMF’s.” Journal of International Trade Law and Policy 7.2 (2008): 139 – 170. Emerald. Web.
Feight, Jennie and Nashat Zuraikat. “Cloned food labeling: history, issues, and bill S. 414.” International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing 3.2 (2009) : 149 – 163. Emerald. Web.
Johnson, Brian. “Genetic modification – where now for Europe?.” European Business Review 15.1 (2003): 43-57. Emerald. Web.
Kerr, A William. “Genetically modified organisms, consumer scepticism and trade law: implications for the organisation of international supply chains.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 4.2 (1999): 67 – 74. Emerald. Web.
Lekha, Lexman and Abdul Haseeb Ansari. “GMF’s, safety concerns and international trade: developing countries’ perspective.” Journal of International Trade Law and Policy 10.3 (2011): 281 – 307. Emerald. Web.
Norma, Ford and Gai Murphy. “Managing environmental risks from genetically modified organisms: the role of safety training.” Environmental Management and Health 9.3 (1998): 100 – 105. Emerald. Web.
Genetically modified foods are foods produced through biotechnology processes involving alteration of DNA. This genetic modification is done to give the organism or crops with enhanced nutritional value, increased resistance to herbicides and pesticides, and reduction of production costs.
Besides, genetically modified foods are integral in enhancement of food security, enhanced quality and increased shelf-life; hence becoming cost-effective to consumers and farmers. However, genetically modified foods have raised issues pertaining to safety and consequences of their consumption. This paper highlights the negative aspects that are associated with genetically modified foods; genetically modified foods expose people and the environment to risks.
First, experts are not certain that the process is safe. Therefore, there are fears that DNA transfer might not be effective. Moreover, untargeted cells may be affected resulting in suppression of some proteins. This would lead to unanticipated gene mutations in target cells hence, leading to physiological alterations.
Secondly, research has shown that genetically modified foods pose serious health risks. For instance, GMOs can cause impotency, disorders of the immune system, hormonal disorders, accelerated aging, alteration of vital organs in the body system. Moreover, genetically modified foods can cause allergies and be a source of toxins. Thus, their use has seen the development of complications such as premature delivery, abortions and sterility.
Moreover, it is evident that animals feeding on genetically modified food have an increased number of cytokines. This has been associated with conditions such as allergies, inflammation and asthma in human beings. In serious cases, these foods have worsened medical conditions that were mild.
Thirdly, genetically modified crops have a likelihood of increasing the expression on naturally occurring toxins. This is due to activation of proteins that control the same. This results in the release of toxins that make foods not safe for human consumption. Thus, people are severely affected when these toxins get into their body systems.
Furthermore, genetically modified food suits developed countries. Farmers in developed countries have resources and capital to execute this procedure. However, low income farmers are at a disadvantage because they cannot afford its procedures. In addition, political and economic aspects prevent food distribution to the poor and vulnerable populations in developing nations.
What is more, genetically modified foods are associated with environmental risks. Large scale farming involving genetically modified foods serves the interests of few people. In fact, it has been determined that the process is commercialized to the extent that, it exploits people’s patents rather than giving support and protection. For instance, commercial firms apply the knowledge of consumers concerning indigenous crops but, they do not give back to the society.
Farmers are required to buy seeds from commercial firms at an elevated price. Again, the food security needs are not met by commercial firms because of their selfish interests. Besides, their activities result in the generation of toxic wastes that harm the environment and its people. Some ethical and legal regulations have been overlooked at the expense of making profits. Thus, instead of improving the society by producing safe food, they are destroying its life.
The other environmental risk is the possibility of the development of resistant weeds. This can be facilitated by the transfer of pest resistant genes to wild plants. Non- target plants would also lack biodiversity because of genetic engineering. Improved wild plants will then attack crops leading to reduced yield in farms.
Eradication of the same will also be extremely difficult and costly to the common farmers. Also, some of the chemicals used may end up in the soil and thus, alter the composition of the soil. They would also get into water bodies and cause poisoning of aquatic lives.
In summary, genetic engineering can be a solution to the attainment of food security. This will benefit most of the developing nations. However, the same procedure would have adverse effects to humans and the environment. Thus, there is the need to conduct adequate research on genetically modified foods so that, it benefits the society. It is not ethical for commercial firms to make profits at the expense of poor health and environmental risks.
Scientific innovations and modern technologies have continuously dominated global activities across all spheres of life. The unprecedented scientific knowledge is currently touching on human life coupled with influencing human lifestyle socially and economically and thus proving dilemmatic to both scientists and researchers.
Biotechnological advances have led to breakthroughs in progressing with new tools for crop improvements such as molecular Marker-Aided Selection (MAS) and the famous (GM), Genetic Modification (Khush, 2012). Genetically Modified Plants and animals have attracted endless public debates and excellent media attention since their emergence with individuals debating over GMOs’ impact on human health.
Developed nations have been at the forefront of generating and enforcing genetically modified corn, with their fellow counterparts in developing economies gradually espousing this technology. Due to the prevailing controversies, this paper investigates the global impact of Genetically Modified Food and answers the question: can genetically modified food feed the world.
Historical background
Historically, human scientific knowledge has evolved for several decades with the nineteenth and twentieth centuries experiencing surged scientific innovations touching on the entire human life. Conventionally, human beings have been experimenting with plants and animal for thousands of years.
Agricultural science and biotechnological knowledge existed a way back when common knowledge in science involved practices like tissue culture and grafting (O’Shea, 2011). The grafting technique has been quite popular in enhancing and modifying plants, especially those bearing fruits using scientific experiments.
Grafting became a contemporary issue globally, with several contests arising in countries like the US. The advent of grafting technique received oppositions from the public considering it unnatural. Tissue culture is also another technique that has consistently dominated biotechnology that produces large numbers of mutations (O’Shea, 2011). Just like other scientific methods, tissue culture has gradually become an acceptable way of crop production with regular adaption and undergoing numerous refinements.
After numerous substantial efforts by some scientists, judicial experts, philosophers, and even the entire public in both developed and developing economies against such scientific agricultural practices discounting the practice as unnatural, none seemed useful. Grafting and tissue culture continued dominating the farm sector and the biotechnological science. The tissue culture practice went on to dominate the animal breeding and animal feeding sector with several scientific foods emerging as animal feeds.
Currently, modernized biotechnology has allowed human beings to surpassingly exceed and ignore the psychological, reproductive blockades in the sense that “gene transfer among evolutionarily divergent organisms is now possible, and thus individual genes expressing certain traits in animals or microorganisms are compatible with the plant genome” (Maghari & Ardekani, 2011, p.114).
Therefore, all living things are currently capable of exchanging genetic materials scientifically amongst each other through biotechnology. For the accumulating evidence of over 20 years, the quest of biotechnology to provide sustainable global staple food remains controversially unclear.
Undoubtedly, the practice of tissue culture and grafting in plants is never enough to quench the scientific evidence on the power of biotechnology to improve breeding and feeding in living organisms. Biotechnology is currently the most debated scientific field that has generally remained dilemmatic, and thus scientists unable to distinguish whether it has shaped human life or proven dangerous to global health.
In this context, the latest Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are the debate to this study. Samples of tomato puree and other varieties become prominent with millions of GMO species and populace positively interacting with faith-based of verified branding from the UN.
Global perspective
As stated above, the GMO issue is no longer a regional, a border, or even a single nation issue, but a globally renowned matter. Nations are sharing at least similar meals under the biotechnological modified foods, with millions of consumers interactively engaging in either promoting or demoting products associated with GMOs. Genetically Modified Food (GMF) had never been a matter of serious concern until later after at least heavy consumption of the products in Europe and other western nations (Ekici & Sancak, 2011).
Different perceptions have emerged over the existence of GMF in the globe with some population receiving this scientific matter with mixed reactions in both developed and developing economies. According to Ekici and Sancak (2011), some believe that new “biotechnological methods improve the quality and quantity of foods to meet the demands of an increasing world population” (p. 1630). On the other hand, other people hold that GMOs result in health hazards.
Research estimates that until 2007, the US, Argentina, Canada, and China were still the leading producers and developers of GMTs and other related Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Statistical data documented by Maghari and Ardekani (2011), reveals that under the compulsory labeling scheme on GMOs ingredients, American daily diet is now composing of over 92 percent of GMF components, in France GMF composes almost 93 percent of staple food, while in Canada is about 88 percent GMF components.
Being the producing and superpowers, and the state with most scientists and economists, the US is currently under pressure from both citizens and other organizations, which have noticed the zeal behind GMOs. Proponents of GMF technologies advocate that bioengineered food is safe, while social activists and other anti-GMF parties are condemning this science.
Seemingly, developing economies, including Sub Saharan Africa that composes the greatest number of developing countries are increasingly getting involved in the GMF matter. Prior studies have demonstrated an overwhelming aspect of GMF matter, whereby hungry and desperate developing economies are associating the science with the solutions towards alleviating hunger and poverty (Raney, 2006).
Pandey and Urquia (2007) posit, “Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 13 percent of the population and 25 percent of the undernourished people in the developing world” (p.1843).
This assertion is a clear indication of the positive attitude towards the adoption of genetically modified food components. South Africa became one of the first African countries to adopt GMF, as several other nations gradually followed suit. Maghari and Ardekani (2011) postulate that agri-biotech investors and other affiliated scientists regard GMF as the solution to food shortage, but independent scientists, environmentalists, and some consumers have continuously warned people on the GMF products in food security.
Problem statement
Since the introduction of Genetically Modified products in the 1990s through scientific innovations of “Clive James who founded the International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), there has been endless debates over the impacts of these products” (Khush, 2012, p.2). Both developed and developing nations have witnessed augmented debates over the safety of GM products and the subsequent socio-economic importance, especially the most assumed significance of providing a solution to food shortage.
The US, Canada, Argentina, China, and Brazil were the first to adopt the technology and their production level has gone to unstoppable limits, with worries consuming the world on how to curb this menace (Ekici & Sancak, 2011).
The adoption and consumption of the GM food products are escalating with reality over its consequences remaining unclear, with evidence revealing that GMF is swiftly penetrating global markets targeting the overwhelmed users across nations. Developed nations have desperately demonstrated dire need to alleviate hunger and poverty.
The impacts brought by GMFs are two-fold, with different parties bearing dissimilar notions. According to Maghari and Ardekani (2011), two sides are contending on the controversial matter, viz. agri-biotech investors and their affiliated scientists, and some consumers, farmers, and policymakers who have come out to oppose GMF.
The proponents of GMF technologies have persistently claimed that genetically engineered foods have undergone scientific proof and are generally safe for human consumptions, citing possible evidence of economical and social importance such as bringing nutritional advantages for consumers and enhancing productivity in agriculture. Intellectuals in the field of traditional agricultural techniques have portrayed a negative approach towards GMFs, citing some scientific evidence on the possibilities of causing health-related problems.
According to Maghari and Ardekani (2012), scientific data provided by anti-GMF activists indicate that animals used in experimental research to feed on biotech corn demonstrated complications including early deliveries, infertility, abortions, and even fatalities.
Possible problems
Anti-GMF critics have argued on the possible discrepancies in the authorized trade involving GMF products across the world. Despite genetically modified foods proving to challenge to substantiate the measure of GMF materials contained in these products, substantial efforts by independent scientists have proved imperative.
Currently, it has become a norm that any decisions pertinent to labeling of GMF products result in endless controversies (Azadi & Ho, 2010). According to their research, “recent activities in the area of policy development have shown a growing recognition for the potential social and environmental costs imposed by GM crops” (Azadi & Ho, 2010, p.161).
Due to the potential threats and risks associated with GM crops, there has been a growing contest to sensitize farmers to retreat from GM technologies and revisit their traditional organic farming. All controversies possessing public literature on the release, adoption, and legalization of GM crops and related products entirely hinge on the dilemma over food security.
Consequences on human health
Principally, according to prior studies, GMFs products come with several consequences, especially on human health. Maghari and Ardekani (2011) posit, “GMF may cause the reduction of the effectiveness of antibiotics and thus increasing the risk of antibiotic-resistant diseases” (p.111).
Evidence drawn from scientific research to examine the negative impact of GMF on human health by anti-GMF members reveal that what happened on the experimental rat when they fed on transgenic potatoes and soya beans might happen on human beings after feeding on GMOs for a long time.
For instance, these rats had abnormalities, including abortions and early deliveries. Research has reported an increase in dangerous antibiotic-resistant diseases across Europe, including foodborne illnesses such as soya allergies, Morgellons diseases, and skin complications. Disease issues associated with GMF started a way back before its introduction when scientists reported some traces of spongiform encephalopathy or mad cow disease on human beings in Europe.
GMF and its consequences associated, though with minimal and controversial evidence, with anonymous diseases, which have been a challenging issue for centuries, especially to the younger and future generation. Matters pertaining to GMF and human health are generally the essential issues on regular scientific debates on the GM crops.
Assessment of the GMF products conducted across Europe as early as 1990 according to historical problems associated with GMF provided by O’Shea (2011) revealed, “mad cow disease and a number of other health scares had left Europeans feeling cautious about their food supply, distrustful of regulators, and wary of any new risks real or imagined” (p.19).
These diseases, which associate with genetically transferred components, have brought great worries on the abnormalities expected in human beings and nature as well. This aspect holds because transgenic DNA components are capable of breaking up and rejoining resulting in chromosomal rearrangement in successive generations in a process that associates with production of allergic proteins.
Environmental hazards
In the context of advance production of transgenic crops, there is a high risk that may occur in the natural interaction between crops and soil. Adverse impacts on large-scale production of GMF may likely hit the global environment, thus resulting in an indirect effect on human health.
Anti- GMF scientists argue that with the increasing trend in the spread to transgenic plants, there are possibilities of GM plants sexually hybridizing with organic plants, and thus GMFs may become invasive weeds. Also, the approaches used in growing GM plants may distress local flora and fauna population (Key, Ma, & Drake, 2008).
In a bid to provide empirical evidence to this argument, a case study conducted in some nations especially Mexico revealed that GM genes from GM maize had, through cross-pollination, resulted into contamination of wild maize in Mexico, which is the global center of various important organic maize species. In the US, similar occasions happened when maize engineered produced insecticidal toxins that affected butterflies.
Possible benefits
Despite Anti-GMF, proponents providing scientific evidence towards GM crops, opponents of the same have proven tactical and retreated with similar evidence that portrays possible significances of GM crops. According to Weiswasser (2001), the proponents of GM technologies argue that the powerful technique in genetic engineering of foods, if applied responsibly, holds potential for significant advancements in both human and animal health.
According to Key, Ma, and Drake (2008), proponents of GM crops have provided substantial evidence on the importance of transgenic plants on human health, especially on vaccine-preventable diseases. In the year 2004, through a telephone survey, “Rutgers University’s Food Policy Institute found that 43 percent of Americans believed that non-GM tomatoes do not contain genes” (O’Shea, 2011, p.26). However, since consumers have no knowledge of how to detect GM components in food, the case remains controversial.
Improved pest and herb control
Studies investigating the impact of transgenic plants on environment, human health, and potential benefits reveal a different thing contrary to anti-GMF allegations. According to studies conducted by Brookes and Barfoot (2009), transgenic plants have demonstrated great significance on the long disturbing problem associated with pests that affect agricultural productivity.
According to their investigation, since the year 1992, the use of pesticides to control pests on biotech crop gradually reduced 359 million kg of active ingredient (8.8% reduction), reducing insecticide and herbicide use by 17.2 percent.
Makki, Somwaru, and Harwood (2001) affirm, “Certain biotech crops are associated with higher expected mean yields, through improved resistance to pests and diseases” (p.61). In the US, China, and other major adopters of GMF technologies, GM crops like Bt. coffee and Bt. corn have demonstrated significant resistance to pests and herbs, leading to great financial savings in the agricultural sector. GMF farmers have thus advocated of expansion of GM technologies globally.
Improved Food Supply
The greatest positive impact that resulted from production of GM crops associated with the enhancement of global food supply strategies. According to several agri-biotech investors and manufacturers of GM products, GM technologies have enhanced food production to anticipated thresholds.
Their research established that the GM technology yielded great crop production results and provided nutrient-fortified staple food to satisfy the dire needs of malnourished and poor economies across the globe. Brookes and Barfoot (2009) evaluated how, in a global perspective, GM technologies have improved food supply and nutrition and revealed that these technologies have improved food production and supply to about 35 percent growth in the global food production.
Coupled with great nutritional merits of GM technologies over organic food products, research conducted by Key, Ma, and Drake (2008) revealed that GM technologies potentially produced golden rice with improved taste and strangely high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A). This aspect has really overwhelmed consumers.
Global general impacts
As stated at the beginning of this paper, GM pioneered in the European nations and later a group of four agriculturally updated countries including the US, Canada, Argentina, and China yearning for increased agricultural productivity.
GM technologies gradually received substantial achievement in the subsequent years after its innovation, something that enhanced global acceptance and adoption of the GM technology and its related products (Morin, 2008). Serious investments into the GM technologies consumed the entire Europe, successively achieving international fame across the globe.
Perceptions and impacts of GM technologies across the globe vary from region to region, country to country, and from continent to another, with great differences existing between two distinctive economies, viz. developed and developing economies. Azadi and Ho (2010) state, “while organic crops are promoted as environmentally-friendly products in developed countries, they have provoked great controversy in developing countries facing food security and a low agricultural productivity” (p.160).
Impacts on developed economies
In a bid to examine the impact of GM technologies across the globe, this paper begins with developed economies who were absolute developers of these technologies. The introduction of GM technologies resulted in substantive political, social, and economic debates across Europe.
In developed nations, there is a possibility of co-existence of two approaches revealing adverse negative impacts and considerable significances of GMF. One of the renowned importance of GM technologies in developed economies is economic benefits attached to production of transgenic food crops for commercial purposes.
Due to increased food production in the past two decades of the existence of the technology, research has revealed a significant increase in the export of transgenic food crop from the European continent to other nations. For instance, research conducted by Brookes and Barfoot (2009) revealed that some economies especially first adopters of GM technologies including the US, Australia, India, and Brazil had exported over 63 percent of GM crops.
Government agricultural sectors and private investors that are interestingly adapting and enhancing GM technologies have engineered millions of tonnes of GM crops, thus leading to commendable agricultural boost. Historically, European countries felt disappointed by organic farming, which they regarded as unproductive due to low yields, which probably positioned them into enhancing biotechnological innovation (Khush, 2012).
Within a margin of two decades, the conventional market for GM soybeans and maize in developed countries has improved with the US, China, Argentina, Japan, Korea, and Canada alleviating the initial 1996 production of 5.9 million ha of soybeans to about 16.6 million ha of GM soybeans production.
This aspect demonstrates about 180 percent increase in the production of GM crops. On the production cost, research estimates that GM technologies have reduced the production cost incurred from the expenses of herbicides and pesticide control by over 35 percent improvement through cost-benefit analysis. However, many studies by Anti-GMF has demonstrated increased food insecurity by a great margin due to the contribution made by GM crops.
Impacts on developing economies
The controversial and accidental release of GM engineered food products into the human food chain especially the GM soybeans and genetically modified maize, as demonstrated by Weiswasser (2001), remains a problem to the developing economies.
Sub-Saharan Africa, being the worst hit by the unintended economic crisis that results in several cases of munitions and hunger, has been the target for trade deals associated with the production of transgenic foods. Millions of tonnes of corned maize, cotton, canola, potatoes, papayas, melons, squash tomatoes, and soybeans that involve genetically modified components have penetrated the African market with consumers of these products gradually becoming overwhelmed.
Research also confirms, “In terms of the division of the economic benefits obtained by farmers in developing countries relative to farmers in developed countries, 58 percent of the farm income benefits have been earned by developing country farmers” (Brookes & Barfoot, 2009, p.10). However, Africa is still in its early stage of embracing GMFs, especially the production part of it.
Due to the increasing efforts in integrating biotechnological production of food through GM technologies, research has revealed that developing countries might not have options than to embrace this technology due to little scientific knowledge. Pandey and Urquia (2007) posit, “Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 13 percent of the population and 25 percent of the undernourished people in the developing world” (p.1843). Hence possibilities of suffering the consequences of GM products are considerably high.
As their fellow counterparts in developed countries view GM technologies as a source of economic boost as well as improvement of living standards through increased food supply, Sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries may entirely depend on GM crops to counter the vagaries of hunger.
Proponents of GM crops view this technology as the only way to halt socio-economic challenges, but opponents view it as a gradually growing curse. Cost-effectiveness quality and safety in food are major concerns across developed and developing economies.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, biotechnologically developed food products is and may remain, a controversial matter throughout successive years. Objections on artificially produced foods began decades ago when biotechnology mainly involved simple grafting and tissue culture techniques.
However, on the prevailing situation and the current stage at which biotechnology has grown, neither individual perceptions nor scientific research seems enough to solve the growing debate over Genetically Modified Foods (GMF), which are expanding their uptake globally.
Independent scientists, environmentalists, farmers, and consumers continue to raise debate on the safety of food produced genetically in a bid to protect the welfare of human health; however, GM proponents have provided scientific evidence to prove the worth of this technology (Makki, Somwaru, & Harwood, 2011).
Agri-biotech investors possessed with GM technology prove that GM products are cost-effective, nutritious, productive and of great socio-economic significance. Therefore, based on arguments and counter-arguments on the issue of GMOs, it is clear that GMFs can feed the world.
References
Azadi, H., & Ho, P. 2010. Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: A review of options for food security. Biotechnology Advances, 28(1), 160–168.
Brookes, G., & Barfoot, B. (2009). GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2007. Web.
Ekici, K., & Sancak, Y.C. (2011). A perspective on genetically modified food crops. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(7), 1639-1642.
Key, S., Ma, C, & Drake, P. (2008). Genetically modified plants and human health. Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, 101(6), 290–298.
Khush, G.S. (2012). Genetically modified crops: the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture. Khush Agriculture & Food Security, 1(14), 1-2.
Maghari, M., & Ardekani, A.M. (2011). Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns. Iranian Research for Science and Technology, 3(3), 109-117.
Makki, S., Somwaru, A., & Harwood. (2001) Biotechnology in Agriculture: Implications for Farm-Level Risk Management. Journal of Agribusiness, 19(1), 51-67.
Morin, X. (2008). Genetically modified food from crops: progress, pawns, and possibilities. Anal Bioanal Chem., 392(2), 333–340.
O’Shea, G. (2011). The History and Future of Genetically Modified Crops: Franken foods, Super weeds, and the Developing World. Journal of food law & policy, 7, 1-31.
Pandey, S., & Urquia, N. (2007). Alleviating hunger and poverty in Africa- Role of agricultural research and development. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, 8, 1843-1854.
Raney, T. (2006). Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 17(2), 1-15.
Weiswasser, S., Egan, K., & Calia, G. (2001). Genetically modified foods raise new legal issues. The National Law Journal, 22(44), 1-2.
The increased global population is one of the main contributing factors to the insufficiency of food for consumption. For a long time now scientist have been altering different types of crops and animals through selective breeding in a bid to improve their production. Although selective breeding is one of the common methods of gene transfer, genetic engineering outdoes it because of its wider scope (Butcher, 2009, p.1).
This has therefore led to the development of genetically modified organisms. The technology of genetic engineering though common in animals and crops it has been used in other life forms for example the bacteria modified to block HIV transmission. GMOs are now in high production globally as a way of increasing the food production.
Though in high demand, there have been controversies on policies governing the production of genetically modified foods in most countries (Butcher, 2009, p.1). Australia is no exception, since its scientists have had several discussions on the issue majorly arguing about its impact of the environment. This paper is therefore an in-depth analysis of how the different value systems and ideologies influence this environmental issue in terms of their management and the public agenda.
Genetically Modified Foods
Genetically modified foods are foods whose genetic make-up and or constitution have been altered so as to influence their productivity as well as the end product (Butcher, 2009, p.1). The genetically modified organisms known by the acronym (GMOs) are the host species of a genetically modified food.
This technology involves the removal of the desired characteristic from one organism then introducing it into another species. This technology is widely used globally to produce the highly demanded commodities whose supply is minimal (Engdahl, 2007, p.360). Today many varieties of crops and animals have come up as a result of this technology.
However, the question which many people ask themselves is whether these foods are safe for consumption and whether they could pose any harm to the environment. This question is difficult to answer at the moment since the little research done on GMOs has not shown any negative impacts. However, this is not to mean that they have no risk since there are definitely long-term effects of these modified foods on human beings, animals and the environment (Engdahl, 2007, p.360).
The issue of GMOs has been of political and social concern since time immemorial because even the first food alteration was authorized by a Supreme Court ruling. Environmental organizations, governments as well the public interest groups have been the major protestors of genetically modified foods.
A list of perceived Benefits and Risks of GMOs
The crops have high yields yet with low cost of production.
Development of drought resistance crop and animal types.
Increased nutrition in the low nutrient types of foods.
Increased supply of foods thus low prices to the consumers.
Risks
Creation of herbicide resistant weeds as well insecticide resistant insects.
The organisms could harm the soil fertility.
Possible effects on organism not targeted.
May have toxic implications and allergens on human beings and the environment (NRC, 2004, p.34).
Emergence of volunteer crops.
Why the GMO is so controversial in Australia
Most people have argued that genetic modification leads to resistant strains of crops and animals that pose a great threat to the environment. Australia is one of the continents that are concerned about the impacts of genetically modified organisms on health and environment because of their image in economy and marketing. It is because of this that Australia has a moratorium on GMOs in a bid to preserve their marketing image.
However, in order to sufficiently debate on the GMOs issue, political activists ought to outweigh the balance between the comparative advantage and benefits of the genetically modified foods in comparison to the long term effects on health and environment in collaboration with the negative image in marketing.
The controversy of the GMOs issue as mentioned above is as a result of the clash between the benefits and negative impacts where some people the anti-GMOs believe that the risks despite the number are not worth the benefits. The pro-GMOs on the other hand believe that the benefits outweigh the risks.
In the year 2000, Australia established a national regulatory scheme through the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 (Royster, 2009, p.14). This scheme was developed to control and regulate the genetic technology in Australia by the Australian parliament. In other words it intended to “protect and safeguard the health of the people as well as the environment”. This would be done through identification of the gene technology caused risks and then managing them to reduce their effects.
In Australia, it is against the law to deal with GMOs either through research, production, and manufacture among other possible channels. This will only be allowed if one is in the GMO register, licensed or dealing with low risk quantities. This regulation goes further such that there are the genetically modified varieties that are acceptable and approved by the OGTR (Office of the Gene Technology Regulatory).Some examples approved include the GM Canola and GM Carnations which are cotton breeds (Royster, 2009, p.27).
Additionally, the national regulatory scheme for GMOs approved about thirty-five genetically modified foods and ingredients from 7 crop types in the year 2008 July. These crops include; maize, cotton, soya, sugar beet, canola and potato crop. To show how serious Australia is when it comes to GMOs, any scientist coming up with a new type of genetically modified food should be in a position to provide scientific evidence to the Food Standards of Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ).
The FSANZ thereafter perform a safety assessment test n the food with regard to its toxicological, nutritional, molecular as well as compositional characteristics before approval. This is done to ensure that the food is not a potential hazard to the people and environment before release to the market. Another requirement governing the genetically modified foods in Australia is that they should be well labelled before being taken to the market for sale (Royster, 2009, p.19).
This is done to ensure that everyone who consumes the genetically modified foods is aware. Australia has gain gone further to designate areas where the genetically modified crops and animals would be bred. Thus, it is against the law to intermingle the GM breeds with the normal ones. Nevertheless, Australia still remains a great antagonist on the GMOs issue basing it argument on the environmental risks as well as the marketing economic impact resulting from production of genetically modified commodities.
How different value systems and ideologies influence this environmental issue
Sustainable development is a theme that ought to be adopted by every person, government, companies and institutions just to mention but a few. Sustainable development entails taking care of the environment we live in for the future generations (Wickson, 2004, p.40). For example, a textile manufacturing company that has adopted sustainable development in its policy will not dispose its effluents in the water bodies before proper treatment.
This is to avoid pollution which poses health hazards to the community as well as slowly clearing the water body such that the future generation finds a ‘sewage pool’ instead of a lake. In the same way, GMOs could have an impact on the environment such that some of the indigenous crop and animal breed become extinct while at the same time posing resistance and toxicological threats to the environment. Research has shown that modernity posses a great risk to the environment (Irwin, 1995, p.45)).
GMO is a modern technology which is a big threat to the environment as well. It is argued that the indigenous commodities and lifestyles have had less impact on the environment but the current trend results to global warming as a result of the depletion of the ozone layer hence posing a big risk to the global environment (Dryzek, 1987, p.4).
As a matter of fact, environmental concerns have been of political interest with several political leaders going to the extent of using environmental reclamation as part of their campaign slogans.
Nonetheless, democratic governments seem to be in the lime light of preserving the environment by making it a requirement to put tags on all environmental harms and benefits as well incorporating expertise in the procedures of environmental administration (Dryzek, 1987, p.16). At the same time, political influences are also the contributing factors to environmental degradation.
Taking the case of the United States of America where the country is split into two sides of the democrats and republicans who have different ideologies on environmental conservation, it can be seen that the resulting environment after the conflict is one that has been neglected (Jacques et al, 2008, p.350). A good example was evidenced in the year 1994 when the government was led by a republican (Bill Clinton) who initiated the nations retreat from the International environmental agreements.
This is just but an example of the many national differences on environmental policies that have faced many nations. This conflict results into neglect of the environment as mentioned previously. It is because of this that a nation like the United States of America is not environmentally the same as it was in the 1970s.
As mentioned before, the issue of GMOs is a controversy that ought to be analysed using any of the four main approaches of studying controversies (Martin and Richards, 1995, p.509). These procedures include; the positivist approach, group politics approach, the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) and the social structural approach.
All the aforementioned approaches depend on the nature of the controversy to be settled. In the case of the genetically modified organisms, the sociology of scientific knowledge approach is best suited. The reason behind this is because the nature of this controversy is one that affects the society at large and is of scientific nature (Martin and Richards, 1995, p. 513).
Many scholars have argued that the disputes on environmental conservation are not only politically based but the religious organisations among other institutions and the general public are involved (Nelkin, 1995, p.447).
Some institutions, especially the high profile ones could decide to have a positive or negative impact on the environment depending on the course of action they take. For example, an organisation that decides to campaign for environmental conservation through the ‘go campaign’ will have had positive impact on the environment as compared to one that carelessly pollutes the environment.
On the other hand, the general public are part of the stakeholders in environmental conservation. They can do this willingly depending on how much they care about the environment. However, in some instances the law comes in to prosecute those that fail to comply with the environmental legislations that have been put in place.
Conclusion
From the above discussion it can be clearly seen that the issue of genetically modified foods is a controversial one. This is because depending on how you view the whole issue it could have negative or positive impacts. The pro-GMOs look at the increased productivity accompanied by new varieties all at decreased production costs.
The anti-GMOs look at the health risks and environmental hazards associated with the GMOs thus campaigning for their elimination (NRC, 2004, p. 67). The confusion has also been depicted in countries with a nation like Australia which has resorted to putting in place stringent rules to govern GMOs (Wickson, 2004, p.36).
I would give thumbs up for Australia because of not completely banning GMOs production but putting in place measure to control productivity hence less impact on the environment. As for the case of health risks, all consumers of GMOs in Australia are aware of their consumption since they have all been tagged for notification. All in all the decision on this controversy lies on the individuals themselves.
Dryzek, M (1987). ‘Making sense of the earth politics: A discourse approach’, Environmental Discourse, vol. 1, pp. 1-20.
Engdahl, F. (2007). Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Montreal: Global Research. pp. 360.
Irwin, A. (1995). ‘A study of people, expertise and sustainability development: Science, Citizen and Environmental Threat’, Citizen Science, vol. 2, pp .40 – 59.
Jacques, J., Dunlap, E. and Freeman, M. (2008). ‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism’, Environmental Politics, 17:3, 349 — 385.
Martin, B and Richards, E (1995). ‘Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision-making’, Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 506-526.
Nelkin, D (1995). ‘Science controversies: The dynamic of public dispute in the United States’, Handbooks of Science and Technology Studies, vol.19 .pp. 444-456.
NRC. (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press.
Royster, B. (2009). Australia’s Governance of Genetically Modified Organisms: The Political Forces behind Tasmania’s and South Australia’s GMO Regulations. Web.
Wickson, F. (2004). ‘Australia’s Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops: Are We Risking Sustainability?’ Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society Vol. 2, No. 1. Pp. 36-47.