Discussion About GMO - Essay Example

Discussion About GMO Introduction It has become almost impossible to know whether meat, fruits, or even vegetables being sold in the supermarket are genetically modified or not. To worsen the situation, many consumers are not attentive to what they eat when, in fact, they may actually be eating GMOs. However, in spite of the ignorance, more people are gaining awareness concerning the impact of GMOs. Because of this, debate over whether organism modification should be stopped has never ceased. Statistics from the Institute for Responsible Technology report that 80% of canola, 85% of corn, and 91% of soy sold in the United States are modified genetically. In fact, it is estimated by analysts that approximately 70% of all processed foods in restaurants and supermarkets are genetically modified. While this technology can aid in crop production, in the agricultural sector, as well as increasing food nutrients, reducing pollution, slowing the ripening process, and creating pharmaceutical products, it should be controlled strictly; it has the ability to create super weeds, induce allergic responses, create genetic pollution, and pose health risks to humans and wild species. Therefore, genetically modified organisms need to be controlled stringently since they have detrimental effects on humans and the environment. GMO Foods are Unsafe GMO’s promote high health risk problems to the consumer. Even though, regulation can be done, through research, to make sure they are safe, for some reason, GMOs are not regulated or tested adequately (Somerville, 2010). These tests, primarily, need strict procedures, guidelines, and duration for them to be effective. The real problem has to do with the submission procedure rather than the scientific procedure. This leads to tens of thousands of submissions to government agencies annually for approval to sell the GMOs. Because of the endless information provided to the agencies, the agencies simply go through the submissions and, sans detailed examination, scrutiny, or study, endorse them. The net result of this is that companies like Monsanto keep submitting data and research, and the government keeps approving them. Another problem with systems of safety regulation is the fact that employees at companies and regulatory agencies are the same (Somerville, 2010). For instance, Michael Friedman, who is the former acting commissioner of the FDA, is now senior VP at G.D. Searle & Co., which is a division of Monsanto. Hence, there is inadequate regulation of GMOs, despite their potentially negative impacts on the environment and human health. In addition, genetically modified organisms can lead to allergic responses in various individuals because of allergens found in the organisms. These reactions normally happen when the immune system of humans interprets them as offensive and invasive and react accordingly (Somerville, 2010). While this does not occur often, allergic reactions may be dangerous, in some cases, even fatal. Some studies have indicated that genetically modified organisms provoke reactions of the immune system. For example, rats that are given corn genetically engineered at Monsanto suffer from a significant rise in leukocytes, meaning that they undergo an abnormal activation of their immune system. To add to this experiment, it has also been proven scientifically that soybeans that are genetically modified have more allergens than the wild species (Somerville, 2010). One soy allergen known as Trypsin inhibitor is at levels that are seven times higher than in the wild species. The situation can be worsened if individuals do not know that their allergic responses are caused by these GMOs after they eat them, which makes it difficult for doctors to diagnose the real cause because the allergens are not easily detectable in GMOs. GMOs are Costly Socio-economically There is an economic imbalance between producers, marketed foods, and large industrial corporations. The evidence from farming experiences and the food industry worldwide shows that GM crop cultivation and trade portend far reaching economic and social impacts that make the real cost of GMOs expensive for companies, farmers, and the taxpayer (Kuiper et al, 2011). Organic and conventional seed developers, beekeepers, and farmers are constantly under threat from GM crops contamination. The protection that these farmers receive is partial and weak. Contamination in the food industry is not covered with any regulations with policy only requiring that stakeholders, who are mostly non-GM, in the food sector to pay for securing a GM-free status. The individuals who suffer from this contamination, in effect, are forced to do their own clean up while the profits go to the polluter (Kuiper et al, 2011). The cost of conventional and GM crop segregation and that for testing falls, currently, on organic and conventional sectors, which leads to market distortion to favor unsustainable practices of farming and big agribusiness (Kuiper et al, 2011). Traders, Biotech companies, and GMO users need to be responsible for the prevention of contamination to ensure that organic and conventional markets are able to flourish sans financial burdens. Companies in the biotech sector are also slowly acquiring control of the food chain through obtaining genetic patents, which are used in GM crops and conventional crops. These allow them to flex tremendous power to maintain repeated sales every year, which leads to a shift in economic power balance to the biotech companies (Kuiper et al, 2011). This results in farm saved seeds coming under threat, as do the local crop plant varieties and agricultural biodiversity. While most researchers contend that GMOs have the ability to solve hunger and food shortage problems because of increasing population numbers, the scale of production for the crops does not improve to any significant levels (Kuiper et al, 2011). Instead, the actual yield may even be reduced. For instance, Roundup-ready soybean, which is the main variety of modified organisms, yields 6-11% less produce than wild soybean varieties. Hunger around the world, in fact, is not caused by low supplies of food or even poor science, but by poor diplomacy and politics. In fact, hunger comes as a result of poverty, which, in turn, is caused by the dominance over third world countries by the developed world. Genetic engineering, therefore, cannot solve the whole issue. Even when biotechnology is used to aid in the increase of food production, the dominant companies, such as Monsanto, and the power that they have act to restrain technology from reaching other countries in the developing world (Kuiper et al, 2011). Serves a Severe Consequence to the Ecosystem The primary source of food is the crops, which are being GM, and the consumer consumes the same side effects the crops are consuming, as well. GMOs have negative impacts on the environment with one of the more serious ones being its effect on pollinators (Smith, 2012). Majority of the crop plants on earth are dependent on insects for the process of pollination, and it is essential that other agricultural activities are not tampering or disrupting the ecosystem. GMOs, however, do not fulfill the requirement as set out. For example, in 2000, a research study found that monarch butterfly caterpillars that were eating pollen that was produced by genetically modified maize that was insect resistant had increased rates of mortality. Another crucial pollinator that is endangered by GMOs is the honeybee. Bacillus thuringiensis, a well known bacterium has transgenic genes that have been utilized for many years as material to be transplanted into broccoli, cabbages, and other crops. This modification of DNA is used to control the pollinators that cause damage to crops. It has been found that mass disappearance of honeybees in unnatural circumstances, i.e. colony collapse disorder, is linked to the transgenic variety of crops (Smith, 2012). The disruption to the system of pollination has austere effects if studies and research are not carried out adequately to make sure the pollinators are safe. Genetic engineering is the manipulation of genes directly for practical use (Smith, 2012). Genetically modified organisms undergo specific changes in their genome through the introduction of foreign DNA or genes into their cellular structure. GMOs are also scientifically referred to as transgenic organisms. GMO advocates claim that the engineering of an organism’s genes could lead to a reduction of environmental pollution by cutting back on the use of herbicides and pesticides. There is, however, no reliable evidence that qualifies this statement. Instead, evidence shows that it has the potential to cause environmental pollution. For instance, genetically engineered crops introduced as herbicide tolerant like Roundup-Ready soybeans actually lead to exacerbation of environmental pollution. This is caused by farmers using increased amounts of pesticides and herbicides in killing pests and weeds because the chemicals will not affect their crops (Smith, 2012). Agricultural genetic engineering, therefore, does not aid in reduction of pollution of the environment and may actually increase pollution. GMO’s have been packaged, as a potential source to address world hunger problems. However, they are not the ultimate solution that major agribusiness companies would want to make us believe. If it were a matter of choosing between GMOs and starvation, then it would be best to consume and use the GMOs, as well as advise others to do the same. However, world hunger as a problem is not about people being incapable of affording food, rather than there not being adequate food (Shaw, 2012). Hunger in Africa and other poor regions go hand in hand with poverty. GMOs, therefore, are not the ultimate solution for the real environmental, economic, and social issues that cause poverty and hunger. The argument as to whether GMOs are a necessary product in feeding an admittedly hungry world, has its basis on the assumption that hunger results from there not being enough food for the entire world’s population. However, it is a fact that the world has more than 1½ times as much food as is needed to give everyone in the world a nutritious enough diet (Shaw, 2012). Nevertheless, there are more individuals going hungry currently than there was twenty years ago with the soil and environment damaged by this form of industrial agriculture. Conclusion Genetically modified organism (GMO) is a product of modern science and agriculture. Public concern and opinion are divided as to whether it is a harmful and helpful both list several arguments to their cause. However, GMOs have been severely untested in the natural living ecosystem for it to be categorized, as an advantage, to humankind. Several possible negative effects have been listed that risks the environment, health, and socio-economic concerns. References Kuiper, Harry. Kleter, Gijs. Kok, Esther. (2011). Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. The Plant Journal, 503–528. Shaw, Alison. (2012). “It just goes against the grain.” Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food. Public Understanding of Science, 273-291. Smith, Jeffrey. (2012). Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Somerville, Chris. (2010). The Genetically Modified Organism Conflict. Plant Physiology , 1201-1202. Read More