Category: GMO

Introduction

There are adverse ecological effects of genetically engineered organisms in the environment. However, they have varying effects on the environment. Nonetheless, both natural plants and animals are affected by these side effects. However, apart from the side effects on animals and plants, there are general degradation of the ecosystem that results from the associated activities of genetically engineered organisms.

The potential gains of these organisms are usually offset by their negative ecological effects. Therefore, this paper covers ecological effects of genetically engineered organisms stressing specific effects of organisms on natural plants and animals in their respective ecosystems.

Ecological Effects of Genetically Engineered on Natural Plants’ Ecosystems

Globally, genetically engineered plants have drastically increased in terms of their vegetative cover, thus covering a substantial global area. However, according to Conner and Nap (2003), there are several concerns that genetically engineered crops have adverse negative ecological effects. Nonetheless, there are several reasons that have contributed to their widespread adoption by several countries.

Some of these reasons include insect resistance characteristics and the herbicides tolerance that the crops have. Another common reason for adoption of these crops are their high yielding features.

Thus, it is hoped that through them, the world can be able to solve food shortage problems that usually characterize developing countries. On the other hand, there are several adverse ecological effects that are associated with these plants which surpass the highlighted benefits.

To begin with, genetically engineered plants have been established to have negative effects on biodiversity. According to Robinson and Sutherland (2002), concerns have been raised that genetically engineered plants have negative impacts on the soil organisms.

Beneficial soil organisms such as earthworms, mites, nematodes, woodlice among others are some of the soil living organisms that are adversely affected by introduction of genetically engineered organisms in the ecosystem since they introduce toxins that are lethal to the survival of these organisms.

Moreover, with application of genetically engineered plants in the ecosystems, it has been established that there is a potential flow of genes from genetically engineered crops to the natural wild crops.

Therefore, spontaneous mating of these two crops categories posses threats of extinction of natural wild plants in these ecosystems. This is likely to lead to formation of transgenic plants that will replace the entire wild plants in the ecosystem hence resulting in clear extinction of natural species. Nonetheless, in respect to this, there are also risks of genes’ imbalance to crops that results from transgenic plants (Huang et al., 2003).

Therefore, with the widespread adoption of genetically engineered plants, the world is likely to witness genetic alteration of the vegetative covers. This is likely to result to irreversible state of vegetative genetic makeup hence having drastic ecological impacts in future.

Furthermore, according to Robinson and Sutherland (2002), genetically engineered plants have the ecological characteristic of invasiveness of the natural habitats hence offering resource competition to these wild plants.

Given the faster multiplication characteristics of these crops in the environment, natural plants are exposed to stiff competition for available resources hence being susceptible to extinction from the ecosystems. According to Romeis and Bigler (2006), genetically modified plants have become feral and therefore, they invade natural habitats and permanent purge out these natural species.

In addition, Stewart and Warwick (2003) hold that when crops die, their cells usually decompose to release contents in the soil. Therefore, fungi and soil bacteria are typically involved in the decomposition process. Since genetically engineered plants are usually made of antibiotics and other genes, they often alter balance power in the soil.

These plants residue usually release antibiotics that affect soil ecology hence having adverse negative impacts. For that matter, the genes released in the soil are then absorbed by other plants hence altering their genetic makeup completely.

Moreover, Romeis and Bigler (2006) opine that genetically engineered plants have high rate of multiplication and hence, they are able to cover vast tracks of land in a short time frame. This is a negative effect to ecology as crop diversity becomes history to such environments. Therefore, this result in biological desert since natural environment that initially was comprised of wild population of plants is totally eliminated.

Nevertheless, according to Romeis and Bigler (2006), genetically engineered plants have ecological effects on erosion. It is believed that these plants have weak vegetative cover and loose soil holding capacity as compared to natural wild plants that have strong vegetative covers and heavy soil holding capacity.

Therefore, with massive adoption of these plants, the ecological environment usually suffers since it loses soil and nutrients through soil erosion which becomes intensive in areas covered by genetically modified crops.

In addition, according to Robinson and Sutherland (2002), opine that one gene may have several traits effects in an organism. For that matter, a gene that is desired to have a given effect in an organism may have several undesired auxiliary effects that may result in unforeseen adverse effects.

As a result, this always leads to fatal damages to the carrier organisms and to the environment as a whole since the undesired effects can lead to permanent defects in natural species.

On the other hand, Romeis and Bigler (2006) hold that with application of genetically engineered organisms, there is usually a high possibility of interbreeding between these organisms with wild species. For that matter, negative effects associated with this type of hybridization is experienced. For example, hybridization leads to alteration of native species; thus, their relationship with the ecological environment is affected negatively.

Moreover, Robinson and Sutherland (2002) note that with genetically engineered organisms, there is usually an increased competition of resources of these organisms with natural species. One reason why genetically engineered organisms are pursued is their potential for faster growth and increased productivity.

For that matter, genetically engineered organisms mature fast hence providing unfair competitive advantage that makes them spread to new habitats hence altering ecological composition to these environments.

Nonetheless, according to Stewart and Warwick (2003), there is a large risk of ecosystem destruction due to the risks associated with effects of genetically engineered organisms.

For instance, in cases where the ecosystem is affected by interbreeding, the ecosystem is usually replaced by alien breed and this may have widespread effects that even surpass the affected species. For that matter, these genetically engineered organisms further act as predators, thus altering food balance in the ecosystem.

In addition, Romeis and Bigler (2006) opine that genetically engineered organisms pose a threat to soil fertility. This is a significant problem since these modified organisms damage soil ecology because of the activities of these micro-organisms.

For that matter, there are potential risks of having a permanent alteration of soil micro-organism composition. As a result of that, soil fertility is negatively altered hence having everlasting impacts on soil as it is largely degraded.

Moreover, it is also acknowledged by Stoate (2001) that a gene called Bacillus thuringiensis is further suspected to have adverse effects on the soil ecology. This gene is usually present in every genetically engineered organism and it enters the soil ecology through decomposition of the parts of the plants that are not harvested.

Therefore, as these parts of the plant decompose, they become toxins in the soil ecosystem hence micro-organisms in this ecosystem are largely affected. As a result, because of elimination of micro-organisms, the fertility of the soil ecology is further degraded.

Moreover, it is asserted by Stewart and Warwick (2003) that genetically engineered organisms affect other ecological species in a more negative way. For instance, it is affirmed by Courtney, Kirkland and Viguerie (1997) that there have been some noted decreases in population of bird species in areas where genetically engineered organisms are highly applied.

This is attributed to the elimination of individual plants that these birds’ species feed on in the ecosystem. Therefore, with elimination of plants that animal species feed on in the environment leads to a negative ecosystem imbalance.

Nevertheless, it is also opined by Robinson and Sutherland (2002) that with constant use of genetically engineered organisms, there is an increased risk of virus genes in these organisms breeding to new complex viruses. Thus, with increased application of these organisms, a number of viruses in the ecosystems will continue to increase hence leading to ecosystem imbalance.

Ecological Effects of Genetically Engineered Aquatic Organisms

Amongst the aquatic life, the organisms that are genetically engineered are the fish species given their economic and food value to human beings. Therefore, in respect to aquatic life, the paper considers fish to be organisms that are largely engineered genetically and hence provides their ecological effects.

To begin with, according to Abel and Robert (2007) genetically engineered fish farming has been generalized to have adverse effects on the environment which ranges from obliteration of the coastal habitats which are sensitive in the background, environmental pollution and destruction of aquatic biodiversity which spell doom to ecological well being.

Nonetheless, it is well argued by Hargrave (2005) that a balancing point needs to be reached between environmental issues and food security since aquaculture is one of the critical sectors that is capable of eliminating poverty especially to the coastal communities and to guarantee food security to the world’s surging population.

Moreover, it is postulated by Pillay (2004) that there is a direct relationship between reduction of the natural stocks in the aquatic ecosystem and genetically engineered fish farming. This condition, according to Hargrave (2005), is ascribed to the environmental effects that genetically engineered fish farming has on the environment.

For instance, when feeding fish, the genetically modified feed is usually broadcasted on the water surface, which is then consumed. Nonetheless, not all fish feed are consumed. For that matter, the remnants of these feed usually settle at the bottom where micro-organisms decompose them. As a result, there is alteration of the normal biological condition in the ecosystem, which becomes harmful to aquatic life, including fish themselves.

On the other hand, farmers engaged in genetically engineered fish farming, according to Holmer, Kenny and Carlos (2007) usually over-feed fish farms. Consequently, these genetically engineered reared fish mature and multiply faster than natural species in the aquatic environment.

As a result, this leads to alteration of the structure of the benthic community since a lot of food supply favor to other aquatic organisms by means of the disadvantage of others. Furthermore, Abel and Robert (2007) opine that oversupply of genetically engineered feed to these aquatic environment leads to oxygen depletion, which comes as a result of microbial decomposition.

Moreover, Hargrave (2005) adds that most of this food are composed of therapeutic chemicals and antibiotics, which in most cases are poisonous to some organisms hence adversely affecting natural aquatic life.

Furthermore, genetically engineered living organisms undergo excretion process where their wastes combine with nutrients that are normally released by feed that is usually in excess. These raise alkalinity level in the aquatic environment, which becomes the ideal environment for other organisms such as algae to flourish.

This creates a competition environment between aquatic life and aquatic parasites for aquatic resources hence resulting in what is commonly referred to as survival for fitness.

In addition, Pillay (2004) adds that when some of the aquatic organisms such as algae die, they decompose using available oxygen which is further depleted. Moreover, their decomposition also induces toxins in the environment hence making the environment unpalatable for natural aquatic life. As a result, natural species is depleted further to extinction.

Nonetheless, Pillay (2004) affirms that genetically engineered organism in the aquatic environment ironically depends on natural living organisms to survive. It is believed by Holmer, Kenny and Carlos (2007) that genetically engineered organisms do not provide alternative to natural life but only facilitate depletion of natural organisms.

This is an issue of environmental concern since extensive engineering of genetically modified organisms is a way of ensuring extinction of the natural species. On the other hand, Abel and Robert (2007) hold that feeding genetically modified organisms on natural organisms results into depletion of proteins in the world since the few available natural species will be consumed to extinction in this aquatic environment.

Furthermore, genetically engineered organisms lead to introduction of new hybrids species. According to Hargrave (2005), these breeds can not breed with indigenous ones.

In addition, it is acknowledged by Holmer, Kenny and Carlos (2007) that these hybrids can not survive long enough to reach a breeding stage that can help it to increase their population. As a result, this leads to extinction of some of the rare species of natural life in the aquatic environment hence impacting negatively this ecosystem.

Additionally, genetically engineered aquatic farming has resulted in serious problem of habitat destruction hence having adverse effects on the environment. According to Abel and Robert (2007), Asia which is the leading continent in genetically modified aquatic farming, has lost mangrove forests close to 400, 000 hectares which have directly been converted to this practice.

However, genetically modified aquatic farming supports the Gross Domestic Product of these countries, but the loss of the vegetative cover is a taunting phenomenon environmentally.

This is so since mangrove forests are known for their salt mashes which is critical in prevention of soil erosion and forms a habitat of several marine organisms. Therefore, conversion of tropical mangroves forests to genetically modified aquatic farming is a crude manner of habitat destruction.

In addition, genetically modified aquatic farming also entails treatment of diseases using antibiotics. As a result, Holmer, Kenny and Carlos (2007) argue that antibiotics results to mutant strain which in most cases are released to large water masses such as oceans and seas that expose wild stock to these toxic substances.

Therefore, bacterial, fungal and viral infections are introduced in the wild stock due to genetically engineered organisms. Moreover, prevalent of antibiotics in the ecosystem results to mutation of certain diseases which in turn accumulate in the aquatic ecosystem hence leading to disease accumulation in the food chain.

Notably, Hargrave (2005) acknowledges that genetically modified aquatic farming is the same as having sewage that is untreated being directed to the shores. This is attributed to the fact that waste matter freely flows from genetically engineered habitations to another aquatic ecosystem which causes resident species in this environment, including wild organisms to extinct from their environment.

Conclusion

To wind up, it is can be concluded that genetically engineered organisms have adverse effects to the ecology than their perceived benefits. Some of the ecological effects these organisms are irreversible. Therefore, once the effects have been caused the ecological environment suffers considerable impacts that become a problem in the environment.

One of the dormant effects that these organisms have on the environment is the alteration of soil micro-organisms which becomes the primary causality hence affecting the fertility of the soil in the ecological environment. Therefore, genetically engineered organisms must be avoided at all costs to maintain natural environmental environment.

References

Abel, D. C. & Robert, L. M. (2007). Environmental Oceanography: Topics and Analysis. London: Jones & Barllett Publishers.

Conner, A. & Nap, P. (2003) The Release Of Genetically Modified Crops into the Environment: Overview Of Ecological Risk Assessment. Plant Journal, 33(12), pp.19-46.

Courtney, H., Kirkland, J. & Viguerie, P. (1997) Strategy under Uncertainty. Harvard Business Review, 97(603), pp.67-79.

Hargrave, B. (2005). Environmental Effects of Marine Finfish Aquaculture. Berlin: Springer.

Holmer, M., Kenny, B. & Carlos, M. D. (2007). Aquaculture in the Ecosystem. Denmark: Springer.

Huang, J. K. et al. (2003) Biotechnology as an Alternative to Chemical Pesticides: A Case Study of Bt cotton in China. Agricultural Economics, 29(13), pp.55-67.

Pillay, T. V. R. (2004). Aquaculture and the Environment. UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Robinson, R. A. & Sutherland, W. J. (2002) Post-war Changes in Arable Farming and Biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(4), pp.157-176.

Romeis, J. & Bigler, F. (2006) Transgenic Crops Expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins and Biological Control. Nature Biotechnology, 24(3), pp.63-71.

Stewart, C. N. & Warwick, S. I. (2003) Transgene Introgression from Genetically Modified Crops to their Wild Relatives. Nature Reviews Genetics, 4(7), pp.806-817.

Stoate, C. et al. (2001) Ecological Impacts of Arable Intensification in Europe. Journal of Environmental Management, 63(7), pp.337-365.

Introduction

Genetically modified food has become a controversial topic in the current society. According to Marchant (75), the world has been experiencing changes in weather patterns due to issues of global warming. As a result of this, agriculture has been massively affected. On the other hand, the world population is constantly on the rise.

The number of those who practice agriculture is also decreasing. This is because people move to towns to get employed in large manufacturing companies or the retailers. This means that there is an increased pressure on the farmers to come up with a solution for this challenging situation. According to Sateesh (87), the solution that farmers were looking form came at last with the help of advanced technology.

Genetically modified organisms were proven to be more productive than natural products. Genetically modified plants were more resistant to drought and could produce more than the natural plants. Genetically modified animals took much shorter time to mature, and those that produce milk would be yielding more milk when the breed is genetically modified. This was a breakthrough discovery in the field of agriculture. Farmers were given a solution to the problem of increasing productivity of their crops.

The society welcomed the breakthrough for it was convinced of having a reliable source of food throughout the year at affordable prices. Many members of the society considered this invention as the best way through which the food security would be assured. This was till it was discovered that genetically modified food could have a negative effect on the human being when consumed. According to Weiss (46), genetically modified foods may have an effect on the genetics of a human being.

The effect may not be exhibited immediately. It may take years of regular consumption of genetically modified food for the effect to be seen. In some instances, the effect may be witnessed on the children of the regular consumers of genetically modified food. People consuming this product should, therefore, be aware of these consequences. They should be informed every time they purchase genetically modified food, that the product is not natural.

Arguments against Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

There has been a strong argument against labeling of the genetically modified foods. There is a section of the society that has come out strongly to oppose any move that would compel manufacturers to label their products. The leading defenders of lack of labeling genetically products are the manufacturers. Manufacturers have come out to reject the clarion call that all the genetically products should be clearly labeled before they are put on sale. These manufacturers have cited the cost of the labeling process as being high.

These manufacturers believe that labeling genetically modified food would force the prices to increase their prices as a way of passing the cost to the customer. According to Davida (34), this argument has always been supported by some members of the public who are the consumers. According to this scholar, members of the public are always comfortable with the idea of not labeling the genetically modified food.

They share the idea of the producers that such processes would always increase the cost of the product which they are not ready to pay. It is a fact that through genetically modified foods, the price of food has gone down considerably. The consumers have come to appreciate the positive impact that genetically modified food has brought into their lives ever since it was discovered.

A section of the society still believes that genetically modified foods are as safe as other naturally grown products. According to Weiss (124), some scientists have been advocating for the use of genetically modified food not only because it is cheap to produce, but also because it is a safe product.

This argument has seen a section of society reject the idea of labeling genetically modified food. They argue that labeling of the genetically modified food would raise unnecessary concern within the society. As such, they believe that the products should not be labeled. Sateesh (87) says that labeling of the genetically modified foods will be like condemning these products in the market for no good reason.

This scholar says that the move will not act as an attraction of customers towards the product but a repellant. This scholar says that the tag will act as a warning that is given to the customers saying that they should be duly informed that the product they are purchasing is not a normal product. The message will be saying that the product has abnormal genes that may have a direct negative impact on their lives. Customers will always shy away from such products. They will consider them unfit for consumption.

The producers of such products will, therefore, be driven out of the market. This comes with serious consequences to the technological inventions and innovations in the market. The scientists who were involved in this technology will be forced to stop further exploration in this field because of public rejection.

With the current trend, those who are opposed to labeling of this product say that the world population will be double the current population. This will have a massive consequence on food production. With this huge population, these people argue that it is only genetically modified foods that can sustain them. When genetically modified foods are discriminated against, and the technology is brought to its knees, there will emerge a serious food problem in the society in the near future.

These people, therefore, insists that the society should learn to appreciate the importance of this technology in food production. Such unnecessary and discriminatory policies as labeling of the genetically modified foods should be stopped in order to help advance this technology and assure the population of constant and reliable food production.

Arguments in Support of Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

Labeling of the genetically modified food should not be an issue that raises controversy the way it does. The society has lived in a transparent manner in terms of what we eat ever since the modernization age. When one walks into a hotel, one would order a simple meal like beans and rice for lunch.

This individual would not expect to be given meat pie and rice, or any other product that is not paid for. According to Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938, all food substances should be labeled (Nelson 76). This Act demands that all food substances should have all the ingredients labeled so that the consumers would know what they are purchasing before they can consume the product.

This Act is supported by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 which demands of labeling of all food ingredients. These are laws observed within the United States of America. These laws have not been changed. Genetically modified foods have a different genetic modification from the normal products. This is a substantial reason that should make them be labeled differently from other products.

The law should not be applied selectively, and neither should it be undermined. When a manufacturer of bread adds eggs to his or her bread and fails to indicate that the bread has eggs as one of the ingredients, such a person would be liable for prosecution. The courts would send him or her to prison for several years for contravening the law. Those who produce genetically modified food should also be subjected to the same law because they are committing the same crime. The law should be fairly administered.

A section of the scientists has reported that genetically modified food have negative consequences that are still unknown to them. These scientists argue that genetically modified foods contain some genes which have some serious negative consequences on the health of consumers.

These scientists have embarked on a massive research to try and unearth some of the consequences of genetically modified foods on people. While these researchers are still working on this issue, the society should be given a choice to decide on whether they will consume genetically modified food or not. The choice can also be made when the products are labeled. Labeling of the products helps ensure that a consumer will be aware that a given food substance is genetically produced while others are not.

Although it has been difficult to determine the effect of genetically modified food, recent research of the effect of genetically modified food has shown a worrying trend that this food have on animals. The study, which was conducted on rats, showed that the genetically modified foods cause sterility on rats after three generations. This shows that when the first generation consumes genetically modified food, they are not affected by it and, therefore, shall reproduce normally.

The second generation will also be safe. In the third generation, reproduction will be impossible because the genetics of this organization in the third generation shall have been massively affected. Genetically modified foods were introduced about 20 years ago. This means that the current population is still in the first generation. They may not feel the effect of genetically modified food. Their children who will be the second generation may also not have problems with reproduction.

The problem will start in the third generation, when we are to base the reasoning on the results that these scientists have given (Okumu 78). This is enough reason to inform consumers that the product they are consuming is genetically modified. If the consumer is to base his or her reasoning on the recent research reports, then he or she would try avoiding these products. This can only be possible if the products are clearly labeled.

One of the main reasons why consumers like their food labeled is because of the nutrition they get from these foods. There are consumers who are under medication. Such consumers would have prescribed nutrients that should be gotten from some foods. Such individuals would always rely on labeling of the ingredients in order to ascertain the quality of food eaten.

This can only be possible if they are given all the ingredients of their food on the label. Failure to do this will be condemning them. This may affect them negatively. This will be contravening the law which demands that all the genetically modified foods should be labeled.

Research has also shown that genetically modified foods come with an allergy to the animals. They attribute this to the introduction of foreign proteins in the genetically modified food. This may explain the constant rise in allergy problems among the American populace. The recent rise in immune disorders can possibly be attributed to consumption of genetically modified foods. For the purpose of clarity, it would be important to label these genetically modified foods so that the consumer can choose whether to purchase these products or not.

According to Sateesh (92), it is a fact that the use of pesticide has increased with the introduction of the genetically modified foods. According to this scholar, scientists have proven beyond any doubt that when using genetically modified crops, there should be an increase in the use of pesticides in order to protect the crops.

This is because these crops are prone to some forms of pests. In order to avoid pest destruction, there has to be a constant use of pest. The pesticides are not only necessary when the crop is at the farm. The pesticide should also be in use when the crop is in the store waiting for the delivery to the consumer. This means that a consumer will be buying a product that has a heavy presence of pesticide. Pesticides are chemicals meant to kill pests. In its simplest definition, pesticides are poisons.

When a consumer buys such a poisonous product, it needs no scientific genius to know that the effect will be massively destructive. The consumer may not realize this instantly (Rudisill 220). This is because he or she will be consuming small quantities of the poison every time he eats the product. When one takes the poison in small quantities consistently, and for a long time, it will bring out its effect. In most of the cases, it is always too late to help such an individual. The poison shall have taken its toll on him or her.

Most of the European countries have genetically modified crops in their countries. They cite the negative impact that genetically modified crops have on the health of consumers. France for instance, has banned growing of genetically modified crops because of the possible cross pollination.

The genetically modified crops would cross pollinate with the non-GMO plants. This will make the final product have the effects of the GMO. For this reason, the governments of most of the European countries have banned the use of genetically modified crops. In the United States, the treatment is very different. The government has not issued an official ban on the sale of, or growing the genetically modified crops.

This is because of the democracy that the government feels that the farmers should be allowed. However, this genetically modified food should be clearly labeled so that one would be aware. If these European countries could issue a total ban on genetically modified crops, and their sale, then the citizens of the United States should have at least some right to know the products that are genetically produced. This would give them the freedom to make the choice of either consuming the products or not.

The involvement of Monsanto Company in the opposition to the move to label the genetically modified foods leaves a lot to be desired. According to Nelson (87), this company is known for its self interest and the need to reap maximally from the public without giving any attention to the demands of the public. This scholar reports that Monsanto was on the front line trying to fight farmers who were not willing to move the GMO way.

This was because they were the leading sellers of the genetically modified seeds to the farmers. To them, those farmers that were reluctant in adopting the new technology were dragging food production in this country. In essence, this company was fighting these farmers because of its own selfish interests. This scholar also brings back the memory of this firm assuring the public of the safety of Agent Orange and DDT as safe products that could be used as household items (Lenaola 46).

Given the fact that at that time it had won the trust of the public, the American public was convinced that these products were safe for use domestically. Monsanto was then considered as one of the companies that were determined to transform the society positively through innovation and inventions in the field of agriculture. This trust did eliminate any doubt that the public could have on the use of the two products which then became common household items.

After a long period of over one year, scientists would later discover that these products were not safe for domestic use. This was after the public had been massively affected, and there was an increase in issues related to health among the heaviest users of this product. This was an unethical behavior exhibited by this firm. There was no direct heavy consequence that the government laid on this firm even after it was confirmed that it had misled the public and caused health complications on some.

Lastly, ethics demands that when in the market, transparency is of utmost importance. It is important to ensure that all the products sold to the public are of known ingredients and from known sources.

When selling food substance to the public, Weirich (114) says that one should realize the fact that this food will have a direct effect on his or her health. The government may not have banned the sale of genetically modified crops in this country. However, there are some individuals who strongly believe that they cannot consume genetically modified foods.

It would be fair to inform such individuals through labeling, that these are genetically modified products. Such an individual would make a personal decision on whether to consume this product or not. It is also intriguing why the producers of genetically modified crops are strongly opposing the need to label their products, while at the same time insisting that they are safe. If they are safe as they proclaim, then let them be labeled.

Conclusion

There has been a massive debate as to whether or not genetically modified foods should be labeled or not. The proponents and opponents of this move have given their reasons with equal force. However, the world of today demands that ethics should be maintained. Revealing the ingredients of food products is one such ethical requirement. Before one eats a given food, he or she should know all the ingredients. For this reason, all the genetically modified foods should be labeled clearly.

Works Cited

Davida, Kenneth. What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology? Social and Ethical Lessons for Nanoscience from the Debate Over Agrifood Biotechnology and Gmos. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2008. Print.

Lenaola, Valorie. “The Need to Label Genetically Modified Food.” The Journal of Nutrition 35.1 (2008): 37-56. Print.

Marchant, Gary. Thwarting Consumer Choice: The Case against Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Modified Foods. Washington: AEI Press, 2010. Print.

Nelson, Gerald. Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics. San Diego: Academic Press, 2001. Print.

Okumu, Paul. “Labeling Genetically Modified Food.” The Philosophical and Legal Debate. 56.2 (2007): 26-79. Print.

Rudisill, Careen. “Are Feelings of Genetically Modified Food Politically Driven?” Risk Management Attitudes and Behaviour 10.3 (2008): 218-234. Print.

Sateesh, Macbeth. Bioethics and Biosafety. New Delhi: I.K International Pub. House, 2008. Print.

Weirich, Paul. Labeling Genetically Modified Food: The Philosophical and Legal Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Weiss, Edith. Reconciling Environment and Trade. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008. Print.

Introduction

Cultivation of crops for food has been as old as man himself. As time goes by farmers have been trying to improve characteristics of plants used for food such as taste and resistance to diseases. Crops which have been grown in a healthy manner seem to have better yields and even good taste. However, this technique does not work well because it has natural limitations. Plants which are from different species can not be bred together to bring out desired characteristics the farmer may want.

It is on this background researchers that are in the field of genetic engineering and biotechnology have come up with a concept of genetic modification in attempt to address this limitation to farmers. Genetic modification is a biotechnology that involves use of gene from one organism into another. This technology is very different from traditional breeding techniques that farmers used to employ to improve their crop yields several centuries ago (Gura, 2000 p 412).

Increased production of genetically modified foods to many has been considered as a breakthrough in addressing issue of food security. Currently, various regions of the world particularly developing countries have been faced with both acute and chronic food shortages that have led to loss of many lives due to malnutrition.

Nevertheless, bio-safety of genetically modified foods has raised a lot of concern in public health domain. Adverse effects of gene transfer in genetically modified foods have been found to be a threat to human health and in ecological system.

Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to present evidence based argument in support that, despite achieved breakthroughs in genetic engineering to provide us with genetically modified foods, there are overwhelming drawbacks that outweigh good intentions of using genetically modified foods (Gura, 2000 p 414).

Concept of genetic modification

Before proceeding further it would be relevant to highlight how genetic modification works. Genetic modification shortened as GM is a process which involves altering with the how genes in the plants, animals or micro-organisms function. It also involves getting a gene form organism A. to organism B. All these need to be living organism for the process to work.

Essentially, GM is possible by altering deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of an organism in some aspects. This may be in form of inserting a genetic material into an organism from another organism which is of the same species or unrelated species. It is possible to introduce a genetic material from one plan to another or from plant to an animal or vice versa (Ibid).

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a genetic material that is found in the cells of living things that carries coded information which allows survival of any living thing in terms of how an organism’s cells functions, reproduce and get repaired. It has been found that in a single cell of an organism, there are thousand of different types of genes.

These genes make up DNA and determine genetic make up or characteristics of an organism. Advanced understanding of genetic materials has facilitated emergence of genetically modified foods in the world. Genetic modification involves number of steps (Gura, 2000 p412).

For instance, to genetically modify a plant, a researcher will have to look for a plant which has characteristics that are needed. This follows location of the specific gene in the DNA that gives the desired attributes of the plant. After specific gene providing desired characteristics in the plant is identified, it is inserted to the plant which needs to be modified.

At this point, there is integration of identified specific gene with a piece of DNA from bacteria that acts as a carrier. Also, something called ‘promoter’ which acts as a switch is inserted to this gene to ensure that this gene works appropriately to the plant it is transferred. Interestingly, it is only few number of cells in the plant being modified accept new gene introduced (Gura, 2000 p412).

In order to find out which cells in the plant have taken up new genetic material, a carrier package gene is also introduced to the plant. Carrier packaged are introduced in the plant by use of soil bacterium or attaching very minute particles of tungsten and firing them into plant tissue at a very high speed. It is worth noting that genetic modification does not only involve gene transfer. It can involve altering specific gene in a plant or organism by changing or switching off certain gene in order to achieve desired characteristic (Gura, 2000 p413).

Benefits of genetic modification

Research findings indicates that out of the trials which have been carried out to determine the success of GM, plants and animals with specific qualities desired can be produced with high level of accuracy and in a more efficient way compared to traditional techniques. GM has made it possible to transfer genes from one species to another which would not be possible using traditional methods.

There are number of alleged advantages as a result of genetic modification. The first advantage cited is that of pest control. It has been said that huge crop losses do occur due to insect pest infestations that can cost farmers in terms of financial investments as well as lead to country’s food shortage.

It is argue that annually, famers use several tons of pesticides to control pests during crop growing process which is a health threat to consumers. As such production of genetically modified crops such as B.t. corn can help farmers eliminate need for using chemical pesticides and significantly cut down the cost of buying these chemicals (Hurley,Babcock & Hellmich, 2000 p2).

Another benefit of using genetic modification in agriculture is that it helps come up with crops which have tolerance in herbicide used during weeding. It is argued that weeding by physical means for some crops may be costly and therefore, many farmers opt to use herbicide sprays.

This process is also time-consuming as farmers try to take caution not to spray to food crops. By using of plants that are genetically-engineered to have resistant to particular herbicides, it is said that this can save huge amounts of herbicide sprays used and prevent environmental pollution (Hurley,Babcock & Hellmich, 2000 p6).

A good example is that of a certain soy-bean strain which has been genetically modified by Mansanto Company that is able to resist herbicides. It is argued that if farmers grow this type of soy-bean, they do not need multiple applications of herbicides but just one weed-killer application that significantly reduce the cost and minimize dangers associated.

Crops that are tolerance to cold have been developed using antifreeze gene obtained from cold water fish. Such plants include tobacco and potatoes. It is argued that with antifreeze gene, such crops are able to withstand cold temperatures.

In addition to above mentioned benefits, genetic modification has been embraced due to creating plants which are able to resist drought or high saline content salt. This is seen as a great hallmark especially in current world where land for cultivation is reducing.

People are now able to grow crops for food in region that could earlier not support growth of normal crops. There being high prevalence rates of malnutrition in developing world, genetic modification has been providing some sort of relieve. For example, there are some parts of the world where population depends on one type of crop, like rice, as main staple in diet.

In attempt to address vitamin A deficiency, one research was conducted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences came up with a strain of rice which has increased content level of beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A.

This project was funded by Rockfeller Foundation to help address malnutrition in the world. It is speculated that researches are still going on to produce this particular strain of rice with relatively higher content of iron to help address anemia which is also a high prevalent form of micro-nutrient deficiency especially in young children (Rockfellor Foundation, 1999 p1470).

Human and environment harm associated with genetic modification

Globally supporters of genetically modified food argue that its is necessary to use GM foods in order to meet food requirement of world’s ever increasing population and address setbacks brought by crop diseases.

But I would pose one question: Do we really need genetically modified foods to address this problem? What are the risks associated with the use of genetically modified food to human being and our environment? Malnutrition still continues to remain a major public health concern particularly in developing countries. But is it that people are having malnutrition and hunger due to the fact that there is no sufficient food to feed them?

It should be noted that issues of food security do not revolve only around on inadequate or availability of food. There are about three dimensions of food security namely, availability, accessibility and utilization. Food may be available but individuals lack economic means to have access to food however plenty it might be in the market. In addition, complex issues ranging from social, political to economic are determinant to accessibility of land and other resources.

For that reason, concern of increased level of production through introduction of genetically modified foods is just one part of the whole picture in addressing food insecurity. It is realized that most of genetically modified foods grown, they are for market purposes.

Countries that produce maize and soy-bean are developed countries and these crops are used as animal fodders and some of it being added in processed food commodities. This does not seem sufficiently enough to address malnutrition and hunger in the world. Many countries which have been faced with food crisis have always raised concerns in regard to food aid given as genetically modified crops due to their health and environmental effects (Clark & Lehman, 2001 p27).

Great controversy has ensued and will continue between those who support the use of genetically modified crops and those who do not support use of it. But who is right between the two groups? Over the recent past there has GMO controversies being reported in popular media and in scientific papers.

Those who support GM crops maintain there are potential benefits associated with the use of such crops which include high yields rate, increased tolerance of crops in new crop growing zones as well as reduced dependence on use of biocides. Notwithstanding this they argue that these crops have no associated risk to human being or environment. However, these claims have been criticized through practical ways.

Several potential harms have been identified such as damage to insects and other soil organism which are useful, enhancing antibiotic resistant diseases and involuntary exposure to not only human beings but also to livestock and wildlife to toxins and allergens which have not been detected (FAO/WHO, 2000 p26).

Lack of validity to support GM crops bio-safety

A search conducted on GM food safety from Medline database indicated that on issue of toxicity of transgenic foods 44 citations were identified, with only one citation reporting experimentation while seven citations were from opinions. A search on adverse effects of transgenic foods provided 67 citations, two reporting experimentation while sixteen were citations from opinions.

Finally, a search on modified foods yielded 101 citations with six citations reporting experimentation while 37 were citations based on opinion. In total sixty authors were identified offering their opinions without support of concrete data. Most of these were those who supported idea of transgenic food safety (Clark & Lehman, 2001 p7-8).

On the same note several studies conducted by generic modified companies lacked citations and this questions the evidence presented to us besides lacking valid reason to explain why evidence presented by those support GM foods that are safe has not been subjected to peer review. For this reason, claims for GM crops are safe and posses no environmental harm for sure have not gone through peer-review for validation this lack sufficient ground to be trusted (Clark & Lehman, 2001 p27).

Controversy in countries over use of GM foods

There has been a recent global controversy over genetically modified foods where United States of America has been seen taking different stand for genetically modified food as compared with other countries particularly from European region.

For instance, a study conducted in these regions indicated that United State respondents were supportive to genetically modified foods as compared to those who were from Europe.

However, biotechnology did not seem to receive strong support in United State but European respondents were more supportive to genetic testing. Though no solid reason was found as to existence of resistance of genetically modified food in Europe media coverage seemed to be the most probable cause that influenced of public perceptions (Gaskell et al, 2000 p1).

Conclusion

From the above presentation, I find that there is not concrete evidence to support that there is no harm in consuming genetically modified foods. Bio-safety assessment is supposed to be undertaken taking into consideration of the harm associated with use of GM crops both to human and environment.

Nevertheless, such studies prove to be expensive in terms of cost and should be continuous. There seems no commercial organization promoting use of GM crops or governmental body willing to undertake such studies to provide public with evidence-based research.

Much of what we are currently hearing is commentaries and opinions which do not have any single data to support claims that it is safe to use genetically modified food. We can not get blinded that increasing food production to feed ever growing population is a sound reason to embrace genetically modified foods.

Neither should we need to go for it because of reduced farming cost in saving insecticides and herbicides for crop production. There may be potentially high risks that are associated with use of genetic modified food that are not uncovered which may prove so costly and endangering life in this planet earth that managing malnutrition and hunger caused by poor policies which can be effectively addressed.

References

Clark, E. Ann & Lehman, Hugh. (2001). Assessment of GM crops in commercial agriculture. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 14, pp. 7-27

FAO/WHO (2000).Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plants origin.

Report of a joint FAO/WHO Expert consultation on food derived from biotechnology, World Health Organization, Geneva, p. 26

Gaskell George, Bauer,W. Martin, Durant,J ohn & Allum, C. Nicholas. (2000) World apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science Journal. Vol. 285, p. 1

Gura, Tylor. Reaping the plant gene harvest. Science journal, 289, p. 413

Hurley, M. Terrance, Babcock, A. Bruce & Hellmich, L. Richard. (2000). Bt corn and insect resistance: an economic assessment of refugees. Journal of Agricultural and Resources Economic.Vol, 26, p. 2

Rockfellor Foundation. (1999). Rice biotechnology: Rockfeller to end network after 15 years of success. Science Journal, Volume, 286, p. 1470

It has been said that if man learned how to be content then mankind would still be in living in caves, on trees or in crude houses made of mud and sticks. There would be no technological advances beyond the discovery of fire. Everyone will be happy with a nomadic existence hunting and gathering food. But this is not the case. Human beings will always try to find a better way to live, to dress, drink and to eat. One of the most amazing discoveries in modern history is the ability to genetically alter food.

This means increase in yield, vitamin-enriched foods, drought and insect-resistant plants as well as sturdier animals for consumption. Although this type of technology is beneficial to ensure food security there are those who are not convinced that the rewards outweigh the risks. This study will take a closer look at genetically modified foods its benefits as well the risks and involved and how people and governments should react to these issues.

In a nutshell, genetically modified (GM) food “consists of plants and animals whose genes have been altered” (Freedman, 2009, p4). The original researchers who tackled the creation of GM were motivated by a common goal, to develop crops that are able to produce higher yields in order to solve world hunger (Freedman, 2009, p.4). Later on it included the modification of animal genes to have the same result and it is to ensure food security.

Before going any further it is important to point out that at the core of GM is modern biotechnology. This will help clarify that GMs are not a byproduct of conventional techniques such as breeding and selection. In order to have a clear picture of what is required to produce GMs one needs to understand the standard definition of biotechnology in relation to GMs and according to Codex Alimentarius Commission which was adapted from the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, modern biotechnology is defined as:

the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic aid into cells or organelles; or fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers, and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection (WHO, 2005, p.2).

The capability to produce the desired traits is nothing new to farmers and breeders of animals. According to scientists, “Historically, farmers bred plants and animals for thousands of years to produce the desired traits … they produced dogs ranging from poodles to Great Danes, and roses from sweet-smelling miniatures to today’s long-lasting, but scent-free reds” (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1).

It is the use of selective breeding that allowed for the creation of wide varieties of plants and animals, however, “the process depended on nature to produce the desired gene” (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1). The only thing that humans did was to mate invidual animals and cross-polinate plants that carried the particular gene that they had identified beforehand in order for the desired characteristic to become common or more pronounced (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1).

In other words more deliberate human interference is the key feature of biotechnology and genetically engineered food. The specific action is the recombination of DNA, injection of nucleic acid into cells and even fusion of cells. The trigger mechanism is the DNA because it contains genetic material. The genetic material in turn commands the cells to produce cells with a set of characteristics. Thus, the recombination of DNA and even the injection of nucleic acid into cells can easily alter the normal mode of cell reproduction.

This is the reason why biotechnologists working to create GMs are able to produce plants and animals with special characteristics that are absent in normal plants and animals that did not have recombinant DNA or other foreign genetic material in their system.

For instance a normal tomato plant can only produce a certain number of fruits. Now, a new technology will enable farmers to double the yield of each tomato plant but there is only one problem a normal tomato plant cannot handle the added weight. This is where genetic engineering comes in, scientists can recombine the DNA of a tomato and tougher more sinewy plant and as a result the genetically engineered tomato plant will develop strong stems that can now handle the added weight of a double yield.

Benefits

The benefits of GMs are numerous and easily bolster the argument that GMs are needed to feed an overpopulated planet. This is because GMs are said to produce more nutritious and tastier food (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1). Aside from that plants that went through genetic engineering process are disease and drought resistant and at the same time said to require fewer resources such as water and fertilizer (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1).

In addition genetically modified plants and animals are said to be fast growing, thus significantly increasing food supply as well as increase the shelf life of the foodstuff (MedlinePlus, 2010, p.1). At first glance it seems that GMs is the answer to the farmer’s and consumer’s prayers.

GM crops are no only fast growing there is also a significant increase in “per-acre yield and at the same time, reduce the need for herbicides and pesticides” (Carroll & Bucholtz, 2009, p.840). The main problem of most farmers is low yield and the reduction of the same because of pests. The double impact of increased yield and less use of pest control chemicals will only mean one thing and that would be increased revenue for the farmers while low cost of food commodities for the consumers.

The proven success of GMs is perhaps the reason why GM crops are grown in every continent except in Antarctica (Freedman, 2009, p.4). In South America GM crops can be found in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia, Chile, and Honduras (Freedman, 2009, p.4).

In Europe, GM crops are planted in France, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Romania, while in Asia GMs are grown in India, China and the Philippines (Freedman, 2009, p. 4). However, there are those who are voicing their concerns regarding how scientists are interfering with natural processes and they fear the consequences.

Risks

Although it is a well-documented fact that GMs help solve many of the problems common to farming and food production it cannot be denied that there is great potential for problems to occur.

The World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organisation was able to express the concern succinctly in the following statement “Introduction of a transgene into a recipient organism is not a precisely controlled process, and can result in a variety of outcomes with regard to integration, expression and stability of the transgene in the host (WHO, 2005, p.11). Since this technology is relatively new there is no way of knowing the long-term effects or even the impact of recent breakthroughs.

Governments and respective departments handling the safety assessment of GMs consistently defend the use of GMs because these are deemed safe by studies made concerning genetically modified foods (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2009, p.840). But those who are not in favour of GMs that governments used data coming from company-sponsored studies and therefore considered as unreliable (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2009, p.840).

Critics are saying that there is the possibility of altering the toxicity of plants because of the insertion of a foreign gene (Parekh, 2004, p.299). This is because the introduction of new genes “may increase or decrease the expression of the existing proteins or enzymes, which in turn results in the change of other substances in plants” (Parekh, 2004, p.300). There is also concern with regards to the potential human-health effects from horizontal gene transfer (WHO, 2005, p.15).

With regards to toxicity and other potential direct effect on human health experts are saying that the potential direct health effects of GM foods ‘are generally comparable to the known risks associated with conventional foods” (WHO, 2005, p.13). This means that there is no significant difference when it comes to problems encountered while consuming GMs and when consuming conventional foods.

With regards to the fear of the possible detrimental effects from horizontal gene transfer this is the testimony of global watchdogs “The FAO/WHO expert panels concluded that horizontal gene transfer is a rare event” (WHO, 2005, p.15).

However, critics are quick with their rebuttals and they asked if there are long term tests conducted to examine environmental impact more thoroughly and they added if these experts are already aware of the effect of GM food as it moves through the food chain (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2009, p.840). The debate continues.

Allergens

One of the primary concerns is the creation of GMs that can cause food allergies for people who were previously not allergic to this type of food. This means that because of an unintended effect the genetic engineering of crop has created a new variant that produces an allergen.

This principle was in full display when a genetically modified soybean suddenly contained an allergen when in conventional soybean this type of allergen was non-existent (Brown, 2005, p.17). It was an American company, the Pioneer Hi-Bred International that attempted to develop a line of GM soybean that was supposed to produce a methionine-rich protein courtesy of a gene taken from Brazil nuts (Parekh, 2004, p.304).

At that time it was common knowledge that there are people who are allergic to Brazil nuts but no one can pinpoint what gene was causing this allergic reaction. Using blood and skin-prick tests the researchers from Pioneer Hi-Bred discovered that some of their subjects were allergic to the GM soybean. This may strengthen the case of those who are not in favour of GMs but there is an explanation for this problem.

It has to be pointed out that major food allergens are proteins that are “derived from eggs, fish, milk, peanuts, shellfish, including crustaceans and molluscs such as clams, mussels and oysters” (WHO, 2005, p.16). In the previously mentioned genetically modified soybean it was discovered that it contained a gene encoding a known allergen, this gene is known as the 2S-Albumin (WHO, 2005, p.16).

However, this information was revealed during the assessment and testing phase and so the said GM soybean was never released to the market (Brown, 2009, p.17). But this did not dampen the enthusiasm of the opponents of genetically modified foods.

As a consequence of these fears and uncertainties, “Many countries have since established specific premarket regulatory systems requiring the rigorous assessment of GMOs and GM foods before their release into the environment and/or use in the food supply” (WHO, 2005, p.11).

The problem encountered by Pioneer Hi-Bred must be used as some form of case study so that regulatory bodies and other government agencies in-charge with food safety will be made aware to scrutinize the link between crops that are modified using gene encoding proteins and the type of proteins that trigger an allergic reaction.

In this manner genetic engineers and biotechnology experts will make it part of their standard operating procedure to carefully analyse and then identify the gene that encode a characteristic that in turn will heighten the toxicity or alter the impact of GM crop.

The risk and benefits of GMs were clearly outlined in the preceding discussion. Food security is the number one problem in many parts of the world. Hunger is a problem that can no longer be ignored and based on scientific evidence there is no better solution than to use GMs.

But the problem with GMs is easy to understand and it is link to the radical improvement in the field of biotechnology and the relatively new technology related to genetic modification of plants and animals that there is not enough data that will enable scientists to predict the long-term effects.

Conclusion

Without a doubt GMs are already a major part of agriculture and food security. It is impossible to totally eradicate the use of biotechnology to increase food production and enhance the qualities of crops, poultry and livestock.

However, it is prudent to slow down the process until scientists are able to determine the future impact of GMs and how to safeguard the general public from the risks inherent in genetic modification. One of the best ways to ensure the safety of the general public is to create a system that will scrutinise a product or GM before it will be released to the market.

Works Cited

Brown, Judith. Nutrition Now. London: Thomson Learning, 2005.

Carroll, Archie & Ann Buchholtz. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009.

Freedman, Jeri. Genetically Modified Food: How Biotechnology is Changing What we Eat. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2009.

MedlinePlus. Genetically Engineered Foods. U.S. National Library of Medicine. 15 Nov. 2010. Web. <https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002432.htm>.

Parekh, Sarad. The GMO Handbook: Genetically Modified Animals, Microbes and Plants in Biotechnology. New Jersey: Humana Press, 2004.

World Health Organisation (WHO). Modern food biotechnology, human health and development An evidence-based study. Food Safety Department, WHO. 1 June 2005. Web. <https://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf>.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of genetically modified (GM) food

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

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

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

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

Food security

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

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

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

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

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

Solution to malnutrition

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

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

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

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

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

Chronic diseases

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

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

Environmental implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

References

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

Lesley, H. (2010). Factors determining the public understanding of GM technologies. Biotechnology, 6(1), 1–8.

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons pro-genetic modification

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

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

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

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

Reasons against genetic modification

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

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

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

Solving the ethical dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Reference List

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The use of genetically modified products has become widely spread in the present day food industry (Gerasimova 531). The most alarming issue connected with it is the fact that many potential consumers of these products are totally unaware of their side effects. Besides, a lot of companies conceal the presence of genetically modified components in their products (Miller 13). Thus, the consumer is forced to eat GMO without giving his/her consent to this. This creates a serious ethical dilemma.

The case at hand concerns Green Acres Inc., which is one of the largest multinational producers of canned fruit and vegetables, known for the use of organic suppliers of their products. Recently, the company has made a decision to use GMO and sell such goods at a lower price. However, customers continue to believe that Green Acres uses only natural materials. Thus, the ethical issue in this case is the dilemma whether the producer should inform consumers of GMO and put its reputation and profit at stake or it should continue making money on people’s misperception (taking into account that no cheating has ever taken place as the company has never claimed to use only organic products).

There are three main parties involved in the case:

• Green Acres that has to choose the course of further action that would allow preserving both reputation and turnover;
• potential consumers, who are deluded about the use of organic products by Green Acres;
• the company’s competitors in the industry that can benefit from revealing this secret to the general public.

The possible negative financial consequences for the company are evident as well as benefits that can be derived from the situation by its competitors. The most complex issue is possible health impacts for those who continue buying these products without knowing that they contain GMO. With the introduction of GMO in 1996 a number of health problems in the USA has increased dramatically (Shiva 270).

A lot of people were diagnosed with chronic diseases, cancer of various types, food allergies, digestive distortions, problems with reproduction, and even such mental disorders as autism. Children run the risk of abnormal physical and psychological development (Bawa and Anilakumar 1037).

If I were an employee of Green Acres I would face the same dilemma, whether I should or should not made public that the company uses GMO. The problem is that if I did, I could lose my job, which would be undesirable for me. On the other hand, concealing the information would threaten other people’s health and even life. I suppose that I would discuss this with the CEO in order to understand what course of action the company is determined to take.

If they continued deluding people, I would probable opt for revealing their secret as human lives are more important than staying loyal to the company. As the CEO, I could either fire all those who disagree with the policy or try to reach a compromise with them. I think I would discuss the issue with the employees and inform them about the solution the company is going to implement.

Green Acres should find the best way out in order to preserve their regular customer base. For example, they can launch a commercial or release an article that would clarify that, since the harmful effects of GMO are neither proved nor disproved, the company now offers both organic and genetically modified products for their consumers to have a freedom of choice in terms of quality and price. That would be both fair and beneficial for the reputation. This is possibly the most ethical course of action as it provides all the necessary information to customers and allows them to decide what to opt for.

Works Cited

Bawa, A. S. and K. R. Anilakumar. “Genetically Modified Foods: Safety, Risks and Public Concerns – a Review.” Journal of Food, Science and Technology 50.6 (2013): 1035-1046. Print.

Miller, Norman, ed. Environmental Politics Casebook: Genetically Modified Foods. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 2016. Print.

Gerasimova, Ksenia. “Debates on Genetically Modified Crops in the Context of Sustainable Development.” Science and Engineering Ethics 22.2 (2016): 525-547. Print.

Shiva, Vandana. “Biofortification, Genetic Engineering and Corporate Interests: False solutions to malnutrition.” Development 57.2, 2014): 268-273. Print.

Introduction

Monsanto is an American-based corporation whose main offices are located in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri. With almost 120 years of operation since its inception in 1901, this organization is one of the globally recognized producers of genetically modified commodities. However, it mainly focuses on the production of agricultural seeds. Despite its many years of manufacturing GMOs, Monsanto has recently faced criticisms because of its failure to uphold various ethical standards. Cases of bullying farmers, posting forged commercials, producing substandard chemical sprays, and causing alarming pollution are among issues linked to Monsanto. As a result, this company poses a huge danger to the global flora and fauna. This paper analyzes Monsanto’s case by focusing on the company’s ethical culture, the costs and benefits of growing genetically modified seeds, and the management of harm caused to plants and animals.

Efficacy of Monsanto’s Ethical Culture

The production of genetically modified foods is a practice that has given rise to various ethical issues in modern society. Consumers have raised their fears about toxic levels of biotech foods resulting from the cultivation of Monsanto’s seeds. According to Finston (2013), this company uses particular genes that enable it to prepare seeds with herbicide properties. Consumers have raised concerns several times about the resultant effects of feeding on such products. Some skeptics regard foods developed through biotechnological means as abnormal while others claim that interfering with the genetic composition of such crops is changing God’s divine plans and intentions. Specifically, in verse 31 of the book of Genesis chapter 31, God intended to have every creature remain the way He had established. People have diverse moral standards and/or beliefs that dictate what is right or wrong for society (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2017). Animal and plant life has existed on earth for many centuries. Humans have tried as much as possible not to carry out activities that tamper with nature. Even with advanced research in genetic engineering, there is still a perception that genetically customized crops cannot replace the value of conventional nourishments.

In addition, Monsanto Company has also had problems with its corporate ethics. Due to the implementation of poor strategies, this organization pressurizes its workers to engage in immoral practices to make profits (Ferrell et al., 2017). This situation has led to a reduction in Monsanto’s sales by approximately 50% whereby $2 billion was lost in 2002 alone (Lamphere & East, 2017). This company’s patents and licenses have often resulted in impropriety. Hugh Grant, who became the CEO in 2003, has been grappling with Monsanto’s declining reputation. However, this organization is regaining popularity perhaps due to amplified research on biotechnology. Presently, Monsanto stands out as an ethical business whose chief goal is to lead genetic engineering to promote agricultural production while at the same time improving food security not only locally, but also internationally (Lamphere & East, 2017). Through the Monsanto Fund, the company has also conducted food security studies in various parts of the world to establish the availability and accessibility of food. Nonetheless, persistent criticisms from some consumers and health agencies have continued to instill greater fear in the company’s stakeholders.

Costs and Benefits of Growing GMO Seeds

Genetic engineering has transformed the agricultural sector. This situation can be seen in the company’s seed sales of over 10 billion dollars. Many agriculturalists in the United States ceased worrying about failed harvests since the introduction of genetically customized seeds in the growing of cash crops. This state of affairs has increased Monsanto’s consumer base due to many farmers’ desire to maximize agricultural production. In particular, they can capitalize on the use of land by planting more crops since Monsanto’s seeds have not only lowered farming risks immensely but also increased chances of making huge harvests. Farmers record high revenues from Monsanto’s innovative agronomic technology. This financial factor has increased the number of farmers who purchase seeds from the company under investigation. It is possible that these numbers will continue to increase due to the guaranteed profitability, thanks to Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds. Overall, this company’s objective is to increase agricultural production to meet human food demands in the near future.

Nonetheless, this company’s practices have raised controversial debates linked to possible adverse effects on human health following the increased use of its seeds. The science of developing genetically modified foods also comes with various costs that cannot be disregarded based on the underlying impact on human health. Many consumers have no idea of the consequences that can arise from the consumption of genetically customized foods. Some biotech researchers have proven that the change of the genetic composition of cash crops can give rise to adverse health effects on the human body. There is also the fear that non-genetically transformed crops and insects may be affected by the cross-pollination of plants grown from these customized seeds (Adenle et al., 2018; Komen, 2018). Although Huge Grant played a big role in addressing various criticisms by concentrating on indirect products such as animal feeds, fertilizers, and corn syrup, new opponents still maintain that the ingestion of biotech foodstuffs may have unknown health implications. They believe no biologically effective standards have been set to establish the safety of genetically engineered foods. According to Lamphere and East (2017), pest-resistant properties induced in Monsanto’s seeds have unfavorable effects on body cells. This company’s products are feared to give rise to more resistant weeds.

Management of Harm to Plants and Animals

Monsanto Company should desist from the dishonest marketing of glyphosate-based products. For instance, according to Lamphere and East (2017), the “Roundup Ready” seeds prepared by this company are portrayed as safe for the natural world. However, the production procedure deployed does not consider health risks that can result from inducing broad-spectrum systemic herbicides in seeds. The organophosphorus compound has had far-reaching effects on California-based employees working on agricultural farms (Lamphere & East, 2017). Research conducted on workers suffering from glyphosate exposure shows that the chemical can remain in the body for more than 10 months (Lamphere & East, 2017). The harm that this company has caused is seemingly detrimental to the health of many individuals. This situation has resulted in significant controversies concerning the improved sale of Roundup Ready products both locally and globally. For instance, according to Robaey (2017), Monsanto has faced various lawsuits that are linked to the ownership of its Roundup seeds. This study confirms that the utilization of genetically engineered seeds poses threats to people’s well-being.

Conclusion

The manufacture of genetically engineered crops is a subject that calls for the formulation of regulatory policies based on the existing biotech research before the stated negative impacts of using such products reach irrepressible levels. The acceptance of Monsanto’s products has improved tremendously. Farmers are now using Roundup crops to reduce costs incurred in averting weeds. Agronomists have become dependent on this product to the extent that they risk lessening its capability to deter the growth of weeds. Skeptical scientists and health professionals not only blame Monsanto Company, but also the U.S. government for sloppiness in the regulation of genetically customized crops.

References

Adenle, A. A., Morris, E. J., Murphy, D. J., Phillips, P. W., Trigo, E., Kearns, P.,… Komen, J. (2018). Rationalizing governance of genetically modified products in developing countries. Nature Biotechnology, 36(2), 137-139. Web.

Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2017). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Finston, S. (2013). Bowman v. Monsanto: Revisiting the exhaustion doctrine and its application to biotechnology and digital technologies. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 19(2), 64-67. Web.

Lamphere, J. A., & East, E. A. (2017). Monsanto’s biotechnology politics: Discourses of legitimation. Environmental Communication, 11(1), 75-89.

Robaey, Z. (2017). Rethinking ownership of genetically modified seeds. Asian Biotechnology & Development Review, 19(2), 25-37.