Comparative Media Analysis: Genetically Modified Organisms - Article Example

Genetically Modified Organisms Key Words: Genetically Modified Organisms - GMO, Bacteria, Virus, Plants, Animals, Climatic conditions, Environment, Genetically modified organisms include life forms whose their genetic organization has been altered. These range from plants, animals, bacteria to Viruses. Normally, the alteration of genetic material of a given organism intends to suit a particular purpose (Sanderson, 2007). This is by use of biotechnological methods in order to add, remove or altogether alter genetic material of the organisms in the question or under study. These modifications work between organism of the same species as well as among those of different entirely different orientation. In most cases, these modifications lead to the development of hybrid organisms whose functionalities are quite diverse from the original ones (Harris, Sulston, & Coggon, 2013). As the world’s population increases, demand for food also increases. This has led to the development of genetically modified foods to satisfy the population. Most of these modified organisms have had environmental impacts, which based on their orientation may be either negative or positive (Harris, Sulston & Coggon, 2013). According to an article by Kristina Hug from the Sweden Department of health, GMOS main function is to benefit the environment. This is by offering solutions to predicaments contributed by adverse climatic conditions in developing states. It is an uphill task to have crops, which will survive successfully in different and dynamic regions considering the current state of climatic conditions. Therefore, genetic modification is the best solution because plants the already modified plants to withstand adverse climatic and environmental conditions. This also includes enduring poor conditions by having genetically made plants that are drought resistant as well as crops that do well in high soil salinity (Hug, 2008). GMOS are also known as effective methods of controlling pests as well as fungal infections that have presented an insolvable predicament to farmers. Genetically made rice in China, for instance, requires less pesticides spraying and increases crop yield. This way usually protects the environment from excessive disposal of pesticides, which in some case are toxic and affect quality of the soil. In addition, incidences of pesticides poisoning as well as environmental potion result to a reduced rate (Hug, 2008). Moreover, exposure of dangerous pesticides to farm workers as well as neighboring farms and some consumers as well is reduced by using genetically fabricated crops. Impact on non-target organism is also under control and avoided by using less pesticide. This is because if it occurs, the general biodiversity of the environment will face in utter destruction. It is also evident from the article that, because of this GMOS, labor as well as energy consumption has reduced (Hug, 2008). This way, treatments are minimal hence little use of fuel, which causes pollution to the environment. Some of the conventional crops known to have not only health but also environmental effects, this include diseases that spread to other vegetation leading to destruction of large-scale plantations. Genetically made crops that are resistant to the disease are likely to be developed to replace these traditional plants. The GMOs will not have the genes that produce toxins and diseases. Studies so far5 conducted cite GMOs are best in enhancing bioremediation (Hug, 2008). Modified bacteria, yeast and fungi are effective when used to degrade wastes in a less toxic matter to protect the environment. For instance, they are effective in degrading both industrial and general wastes such as sewerage as well as nuclear wastes. Consequently, some plants like the Liriodendron tulipifera have undergone modifications to absorb toxic wastes (Hug, 2008). Toxic wastes are known to pollute the environment leading to death of living organisms as well destruction of natural resources. Conversely, GMOs to interfere with biodiversity, hence lead to severe environmental problems. This is according to the GMO journal by Denizen Gertsberg stating GMO has totally affected biodiversity .The usual array of crop varieties has undergone utter reduction to a generation of genetically similar plants. According to the article, the GMO crops planted in large-scale monocultures has contributed to vulnerability of the crops to plants diseases, pests as well as climate change. GM crops also interact with other crops in the ecosystem. They alter the structure and functioning of these crops through pollinations and dispersion leading to extinction of traditional crops hence changing the community framework (Gertsberg, 2011). They may cause resistance to drugs hence; disease will spread destroying the plants. In other cases, the genetically modified crops may develop a disease that is dangerous and has no existing known cure, once such a disease develops, it can spread and destroy the environments’ ecology. GM crops may fail to correspond with their counterparts, these therefore affects the soils, as well as the animals that consume this plants (Gertsberg, 2011). Impact of GMO on target organism such as weeds, which acquire the modified traits through hybridization, is also a critical concern. The weeds accumulate toxins and become resistant to any chemical that try to eliminate them. There is also an underlying risk to insect, birds as well as nematodes, which eat seeds from GMO plants as well as their by-products (Gertsberg, 2011). The GMOs will have an impact of the heath of these organisms and their death affects the ecology. Super weed and superbugs are because of using the same herbicides severally on the plants (Gersberg, 2011). However little the herbicides are, these weeds develop resistant to pesticides. According to the article, in a small-scale farmer’s point of view, GMOs have led to more environmental risks through ecological means (Gertsberg, 2011). On analysing these two sources critically, points of weakness and biasness are quite evident. In the first article, Kristina only talks about solutions to climate change in third world countries and does not discuss about the rest of the states. The author also tends to leans more on the issue of pesticides rather than dwelling on all aspects equally. Whereas Kristina talks of the ability of genetically modified crops to survive adverse climate changes, Deniza on the other hand contradicts by claiming that large-scale GMO monocultures make the plants vulnerable to climate change as well as pests and diseases. Another limitation is evident for the fact that. Kristina praises GM crops for using less pesticides and herbicides whereas Deniza talks of super weeds and super bugs that are as a result of these constant herbicides and pesticides used on the genetically modifies crops. Moreover, in the first article, GMOs stand as the remedy to diseases affecting traditional crops whereas in the second article, GMOs are responsible for spreading drug resistant diseases to native plant as well as making their populations extinct. Consequently, the biodiversity of the population undergoes utter destruction. As Kristina tries to illustrate how spraying insecticides will affect the non-target organisms, Deniza talks of the modification of non-target plants, which get the modified traits through hybridization, it is unfortunate that these traits are absorbed by some weeds which not only become toxic but also drug-resistant. It is also contradictory that in the first case, Kristina talks of how to GMOs manage to survive saline soils and drought. In the second case however, GM crops may fail to correspond to its counterparts in some cases hence affecting the quality of the soil by reducing it. In the second article by Deniza, factual evidence like the names of the plants modified as well as their countries. The information therefore is not completed well. Finally, it is contradictory that the main purpose of creating GM crops was to make it enough to feed the increasing populace. However, according to Deniza, too much planting of these crops is slowly destroying biodiversity by changing the variety of plantations into monoculture. This in returns affects the ecology since the organisms depended on one another, a missing organism can have negative impacts on the food chain leading to deaths of other organisms (Erdosh, & Lusted, 2014). Both articles have evident weaknesses and strengths. Denize ends up using quotations and ideas from different people hence he spends little time and effort to do in depth analysing on his topic. This shows the some of the points in his article, were not from his own perspective of the matter but a conclusion of different perspectives. The strength of the article is however noticeable when it succeeds to bring out the points well as Denize relate GMOs to the ecological systems hence the environment. Kristina succeeds in bringing out the importance and positive impact of GMOs. The author analyses the impact on all aspects of environment from plants, animals, all the way to waste management as well as pollution. Kristina has also used examples of genetically modified crops, which makes her work more understandable. Her weakness is also evident from the fact that she uses probability when she talks of GMOs crops being able to deal with the problem of conventional plants spreading diseases. This ways she portrays a sense of no certainty. Articles’ bases ought to be on facts and not probabilities. From my perspective, it is necessary to analyse long-term effects of the GMOs being used in the environment, this will require molecular genetics as well as specialised personnel to carry out the research. It is important to know the best methods to protect biodiversity for the sake of our present and future planet. Impacts on microorganism that reside in the soil and water entail consideration, it would be necessary to conduct study to identify if there is a relationship between the planted genetic crops and the soil (Maguire, 2008). This will be another strategy to protect the environment from toxicity pollution. Critical emerging issues include questions on whether at some point waste from genetically modifies organisms will be difficult to handle and whether GMOs will cause dangerous diseases in the future (Maguire, 2008). Insertion of DNA material into a plants’ genome with an aim of modifying it causes unpredicted deletions or arrangements in the plants genome (Dronamraju, 2008). The fact the result of the insertion into a complex genome is unpredictable. It is risky and may alter the protein structure of the plants hence causing allergies or diseases to its consumers (Dronamraju, 2008). GMOs are however advantageous in the sense that they provide food to the state as well as to developing states. References Hug, K. (2008).Department of Medical Ethics, Lund University, Sweden Department of Health Management, Kaunas University of Medicine, Lithuania Gertsberg, D. (2011). Loss of Biodiversity and Genetically Modified Crops. Ecosystem Effects of Genetically Modified Organisms Maguire, R. (2008).Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute, Burlington, ON Dronamraju, K. (2008). Emerging consequences of biotechnology: Biodiversity loss and IPR issues. Singapore: World Scientific. Harris, J., Sulston, J., & Coggon, J. (2013). Global Health and International Community: Ethical, Political, and Regulatory Challenges. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Sanderson, C. J. (2007). Understanding genes and GMOs. Singapore: World Scientific. Erdosh, G., & Lusted, M. (2014). To GMO or not to GMO? Genetically engineered food has strong advocates and harsh critics. Odyssey, (2)15. Read More