The Controversies Surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms - Essay Example

Unit The Controversies Surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms Genetically modified foods are made from organisms modified using genetic engineering techniques. GMOs are used in the production of experimental medicine, pharmaceutical drugs and agricultural products such as new species of rice and maize. Controversies surround the genetically modified organisms (GMOs). These include whether or not genetically modified foods should be labeled, the health and environmental effects of genetic engineering and the role of the genetically modified foods in feeding the world`s population. The objectivity of the regulatory authorities is also a controversial issue (Mae-wan, Lim & Cummins, 134). Major Scientific institutes including the world health organization, The American Medical Association, the British Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences did research and came to the conclusion that, genetically modified foods are not any riskier than the non-genetically modified or organic foods (Shelly-Jenkins 1427). The assessment and management of the risks associated with GMOs are made on a case by case basis, making it difficult to create a clinical study of GMOs in general. In India, regulators use different risk assessment measures depending on the law`s specification (Raju 246). In the US, genetically modified foods are compared to the non-genetic foods by regulators. For instance, the protein in the genetically modified food is substantially equivalent to the non-genetic protein. The difference between the two is used to tell the toxicity of the substance. Critics oppose the safety of the genetically modified foods stating that the substantial equivalence is not enough tests for toxicity. It is said to be too shallow because only the substances found different from the non-genetic foods undergo further tests for toxicity. However, regulators have set up workshops and consultations to address the issues by acquiring data which helps in developing standards for conventional foods (Mae-wan Lim & Cummins 132). One of the most common risks involved in genetic modification is the introduction of allergens (Mae-wan, Lim & Cummins xii). The allergens cause a risk of high allergic reactions among users. The regulatory authorities require that producers should test for allergenicity in the genetically modified foods before they are released to the market. The GMOs safety measures put in place ensure that the genetically modified foods are at lower risks of introducing such toxins is smaller than in using traditional breeding processes. Besides, genetic modification can be used to reduce the risk of food allergies. Such a method was used to produce a fertile GM grass from ryegrass without a pollen allergen found in the non-genetic breed that caused hay fever (Weasel 102). The Putzai affair, research done by a Russian scientist in 1999, stipulated that genetic modification caused stunted growth and affected the immune system. The study was proved inadequate since the test specimens were fed on a protein deficient diet. Various groups of scientists that studied the paper dismissed it, citing experimental errors. The specimens used were rats whose reactions even in normal conditions suffered from cancer. As a result, a misconception among critics was formed. Mae-wan, Lim and Cummins state that GMOs cause sterility in men (xii). The US government does not differentiate between genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods. The laws governing the production of genetically modified foods ensure that the consumer gets products that are healthy and not harmful to their health. The companies are required to check for toxins in their products and ensure that they are of equal value or greater value than the non-genetically modified foods (Raju 146). In most countries, it is mandatory that genetically modified foods are labeled. Other countries make it voluntary for the companies to label their products. The disadvantage of mandating companies to label their products is that the public in widely misinformed. Many people believe that genetically modified foods have negative long-term effects to the users (Mae-wan, Lim & Cummins 117). This is, however, a false statement. There has been no credible evidence to support this myth. Many organizations that fight for the provision of organic foods give wrong data to the people, which lead to misinformed conclusions. For example, Mae-wan, Lim and Cummins state that genetically modified foods cause cancer in the long-run is a myth that is derived from the research done using rats as specimen (xi). The people are not informed that the results were a normal occurrence on rats, who suffer from cancer at late stages of their lifespan. Moreover, rats` lifespan is too short for use in research to relate with people. The economic gains from genetically modified food are massive. The adoption of genetic engineering in agriculture increases yields at a faster rate (Shally-Jensen 1427). In developing countries, poor farmers are able to make income and boost their livelihoods through application of GMOs. Moreover, the genetic modified foods are cheaper to maintain since they require fewer farm inputs such as less use of pesticides. Genetic engineering also allows farmers to cope with the changing climate since there are drought resistant crops. The genetically modified crops also helped tackle the issue of nutrition in impoverished countries. The developing countries are characterized by rapidly increasing population, which necessitates an increase in food production. Genetic engineering offers the option by increased yields of their crops (Weasel 87). The improvement is, however, not substantial as most people have not embraced the new technology, with some countries prohibiting the use of technology to provide more feeds. The controversy surrounding genetic engineering is not only fueled by the myths and misconceptions people have about the products. The fact that innovations, such as seeds and other genetically modified organisms are taken to be a company`s intellectual property also fuels the argument. The law allows companies to undertake their own research study, analysis without providing it to the public for review (Shally-Jensen 1427). Unlike the organic seeds which are the farmer`s property, the seeds are a company`s intellectual property and innovation (Raju 216). Unions such as Greenpeace argue that the patent rights give corporations dangerous control over their product. It is a sensitive issue since people feel that such issues that touch on their health should not be private. The companies that make the innovations such as new seeds spend a lot of money in research. The companies are also faced with seed piracy, a conflicting issue. For example, Monsanto, a company involved in genetic modified products, spends at least 9% of their yearly sales on the research study (mosanto.com). In order to secure the rights, the company has strict patent laws that only allow farmers to sell or store the crops they buy (Raju 126). Opposition to the use of GMOs also has issues with the objectives if the regulatory authorities. The organizations in opposition question the authorities` dedication to safeguarding people`s health since they are too closely related to the companies that seek their approval. This instills dissatisfaction among the consumers. Conflicting interests may make the regulatory authorities allows harmful products into the market (Mae-wan, Lim & Cummins, xii). For instance, in 2009, the former senior FDA advisor who was also a Monsato lobbyist was made the company`s vice president. However, there are laws that govern the authenticity of each genetically modified product. Scientific tests are done to ensure that all products are safe for consumption. In the case a product is found harmful, it is not allowed to be sold. Besides all the proved facts about the authenticity of GMOs, the main controversy in the US is in the freedom of choice. If the government is convinced that the GMOs are safe for consumption, why don`t they allow the consumer to make choices about what they eat freely? Having a law that would mandate the companies to label the food they sell, whether genetically modified or not. The FDA is disadvantaged in that once the products are licensed; they are not differentiated from the organic. Therefore, the study of long-term effects of GMOs in the US is hindered. It would make it easy to study the progress of people using GMOs if they were differentiated in the market. The long term effects of GMOs on human beings are the least studied factor, which remains the main bone of contention between the pro-GMOs and anti-GMOs campaign (Weasel 182). In response to this issue, the producers of GMOs argue that with the misinformed public making a larger population, it would be bad for business. Some compare labeling GMO products with putting a danger sign on the products. However, the companies should involve the masses in educating them about the facts and myths surrounding the controversy. The people have a right make an informed decision about their health (Weasel 183). Otherwise, the fear that the people have that GMOs are not safe for consumption will always hinder the expansion of sales. Besides, the relation among the authorities regulating the GMOs and the companies selling them is too close. How independent is the FDA in assessing these products? The authorities should be people that have no interest in the profits the GMO companies make. Works Cited Ho, Mae-Wan, Li C. Lim, and Joe Cummins. Gmo Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply. Ridgefield, Conn: Vital Health Pub, 2004. Print. Kratz, René F. Botany for Dummies. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley Pub, 2011. Internet resource. Raju, K D. Genetically Modified Organisms: Emerging Law and Policy in India. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute, 2007. Print. Shally-Jensen, Michael. Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Internet resource. Weasel, Lisa H. Food Fray: Inside the Controversy Over Genetically Modified Food. New York: Amacom-American Management Association, 2009. Internet resource. Read More