The Genetic Engineering - Term Paper Example

? Is genetic engineering the answer to ending global hunger? 14 July Introduction The modern world is experiencing the Second Green Revolution through advances in biotechnology and its applications in agriculture. Genetic engineering uses biotechnology to improve particular traits of crops, so that they can be resistant to pests and weeds, for instance. At present, it creates transgenic species, where one gene from a distant or unrelated organism is transferred to another species of plants or animals. In addition, the demand for a greater quantity and quality of food increases, especially due to the mounting issue of global hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. The United Nations approximated that global human population will increase by “more than 40 percent, from 6.3 billion people today to 8.9 billion in 2050” (Rauch, 2003, p.104). While populations are expanding, the land devoted to planting food is not sufficient to respond to this increase. The pressure to improve agricultural production with limited land supplies results to discussion on different ways of responding to global hunger. Scientists and supporters of genetic engineering asserted that it can be a sustainable solution to global hunger. This paper explores the debate surrounding this issue. It argues that yes, genetic engineering can end global hunger, but if it can do so in a sustainable manner requires further independent studies, so governments all over the world should actively monitor genetic engineering’s operations and effects on human, animal, and plant life. For and Against Genetic Engineering Genetic engineering can end global hunger, because it can produce plants that resist diseases and unruly weather conditions. In the article, “Will Frankenfood Save the Planet?” Rauch (2003) argued that only genetically modified plants can ensure the benefits of no-till farming, which is a sustainable way of farming. He explained that no-till farming reduces runoff, which pollutes rivers and lakes, since worms and other organisms stay on the top soil and turn agricultural land into a huge “sponge” for heavy rains (p.104). Genetic engineering essentially makes organic farming possible without the need for manure, which pollutes water systems. Rauch (2003) added that during the 1990s, the agricultural company Monsanto designed a transgenic soybean specimen that it called “Roundup Ready” (Rauch, 2003, p.105). It tolerates the herbicide Roundup, which kills numerous kinds of weeds and disintegrates the latter into nontoxic ingredients (Rauch, 2003, p.105). Many farmers use Roundup Ready crops, instead of using a cocktail of expensive chemicals (Rauch, 2003, p.105). At present, more than 30% of American soybeans are harvested without plowing fields (Rauch, 2003, p.105). This can have large positive effects on farm areas with poor soil conditions, particularly those in the developing countries. Farmers can convert unused areas that are used to be not good for planting into productive agricultural plots. In “Food: How Altered?” Ackerman (2002) explored the benefits and drawbacks of genetic engineering. One of the benefits of genetic engineering is designing plants that can withstand rough weather and soil conditions. Hence, it can improve agricultural yield and expand agricultural opportunities. Genetically modified foods can fight other plant and human diseases. Farmers use herbicides to destroy weeds. Biotech crops can offer “tolerance” genes that help them endure the spraying of chemicals that eradicate almost all kinds of plants (Ackerman, 2002, p.32). Some types of biotech plants produce insecticide, because of gene taken from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt for short (Ackerman, 2002, p.32). Bt genes produce toxins that are seen as nontoxic to humans, but deadly to several insects, such as the European corn borer, an insect that eats cornstalks and ears (Ackerman, 2002, p.32). Bt is so effective that organic farmers have treated it as a natural insecticide for many years, thought at smaller amounts (Ackerman, 2002, p.32). When corn borer caterpillars eat the leaves, stems, or kernels of a Bt corn plant, the toxin damages their digestive tracts, and they die after several days (Ackerman, 2002, p.32). Several more food variants, such as squash and papaya, have been genetically engineered to fight diseases (Ackerman, 2002, p.32). Scientists are experimenting with potatoes, by adding genes of bees and moths, where the aim is to guard them from potato blight fungus; moreover, grapevines are inserted with silkworm genes to make the vines tolerant to Pierce's disease that come from insects (Ackerman, 2002, p.32). Ackerman (2002) also provided possibilities of plants having more vitamins and minerals, as well as protein and carbohydrates, so that they can tackle malnutrition problems. This article suggests the use of designing plants to act as medicines or food supplements. Critics, however, are afraid of the effects of GMOs on the health of human beings. In “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods,” Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009) examined the health effects of GMOs. They noted that animal toxicity studies with particular GM foods have provided evidence that they can have toxic effects on several organs and systems, such as “hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters” (p.164). These studies come from studying genetically modified animals, such as pigs, cattle, and fish. For instance, researchers questioned the benefits of utilizing rbGH in dairy cattle, so that their milk yield can be increased (Dona & Arvanitoyannis, 2009, p.171). Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009) mentioned problems such as mastitis, which can affect human health, because using more antibiotics to treat mastitis results to remnants of antibiotics in cow milk (p.171). Because of rbGH , cows experienced illnesses, such as “lameness, mastitis, subclinical ketosis, an increase in embryonic loss and abortion, a decrease in final pregnancy rates, as well as a decrease in birth rate” (Dohoo et al., 2003 cited in Dona & Arvanitoyannis, 2009, p.171). These are examples of dangerous genetic engineering experiments that imperil animal and human health. Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009) stressed the need for additional studies to ascertain the veracity of these studies, and for toxicity tests to be done on GM animals. Supporters for GMOs stressed that for decades, GMOs have been safe food choices. Ackerman (2002) noted that many scientists agreed that genetically modified plants are safe for humans, but the effects on the environment are more uncertain. Genetically modified foods improve agricultural production. In the “Ceres Forum on Environmental Benefits and Sustainable Agriculture through Biotechnology at Georgetown University,” a number of farmers stressed that genetic engineering boosted their income, because of amplified production and a smaller amount losses to pests and disease (Jordan, 2002, p.524). In “Genetically Modified Crops: Success, Safety Assessment, and Public Concern,” Singh, Ghai, Paul, and Jain (2006) illustrated the success and risks of GMOs. One of the most popular and successful GM crops is Bt cotton that creates an insect-control protein (Cry1Ac), which came from the natural soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (B.t.k.) (Singh et al., 2006, p.602). Creation of the Cry1Ac protein in the cotton plant protects the plants against Lepidopteran insect pests, such as cotton bollworm and pink bollworm (Singh et al., 2006, p.602). The main advantages of Bollgard cotton are less insecticide use, greater management of target insect pests, higher yield, less production costs, lower farming risk, more opportunities of growing cotton, and higher margins (Edge et al. 2001 cited in Singh et al., 2006, p.602). American cotton growers, who planted Bollgard cotton, demonstrated a “260-million-pound increase in cotton production per year” which boosted net income by $99 million in 1999 (Singh et al., 2006, p.602). Hence, genetic engineering helps farmers improve their earnings, which can avoid converting much needed agricultural land into more profitable residential, business, or industrial purposes. Genetic engineering may create negative effects on other animals and the environment. Transgenic crops that include insecticidal transgenes to manage agricultural pests may also influence nontarget organisms (Hilbeck et al. 1998; Saxena et al. 1999 cited in Singh et al., 2006, p.603). The environmental effects of using transgenic Btplants can consist of its deadly effects on organisms that are not pests to the crop, but are predators and parasites of pests, which may actually be good for agriculture (Singh et al., 2006, p.603). For instance, lacewing larvae eat caterpillars that come from one particular variety of transgenic corn (Cry1Ab), and since Bt corns increased, they experienced higher mortality rate compared with those that eat caterpillars that depend on nontransgenic corn (Hilbeck et al. 1998 cited in Singh et al., 2006, p.603). Indeed, opponents of GMO are concerned that genetic engineering hurts biodiversity, such as the wildlife (Ackerman, 2002, p.34). In 1999, one report indicated that Bt corn pollen injured monarch butterfly caterpillars (Ackerman, 2002, p.34). Monarch caterpillars do not eat corn pollen, but they do eat the leaves of milkweed plants, which frequently grow in and around cornfields (Ackerman, 2002, p.34). Entomologists at Cornell University demonstrated that in the laboratory, Bt corn pollen, which fell on milkweed leaves, inhibited or destroyed some of the monarch caterpillars that ate the leaves (Ackerman, 2002, p.34). Nevertheless, follow-up studies in actual fields showed that pollen from Bt corn hardly hurt milkweed at widespread levels (Ackerman, 2002, p.34). Rick Hellmich, an entomologist with the Agricultural Research Service and one of the researchers of the follow-up studies, said: “The chances of a caterpillar finding Bt pollen doses as high as those in the Cornell study are negligible” (Ackerman, 2002, p.34). Hence, the debate on the negative effects of GMOs on plant and animal life continue to be contentious (Ackerman, 2002, p.34). Opponents of genetic engineering believe that it harms the environment through release of greenhouse gases. In the article “Presentation and Comments on EU Legislation Related to Food Industries,” Arvanitoyannis, Choreftaki, and Tserkezou (2006) asserted that GMOs also result to emission of greenhouse gases. Jordan (2002) also explained the energy losses because of poor thermodynamics of GM plants. These authors agreed that genetic engineering reverses the gains of the first Green Revolution by creating plants that are weaker in other, and equally important, respects. The costs of genetic engineering then may be higher due to these hidden costs that farmers will pay for in the long run. Additionally, genetic engineering can result to other weed problems, pest resistance, and other harmful changes in plants. The significance of evaluating weedy characteristics, when assessing the invasiveness of GM crops, has been debated (Fitter et al. 1990 cited in Singh et al., 2006, p.603). It is likely that that employment of GM crops would create agricultural weeds, and therefore, disadvantage farmers (cited in Singh et al., 2006, p.603). A study showed: “In some crops such as Medicago sativa, Brassica napus…that have some weed-like characteristics, their transgenic and novel traits could allow the crop itself to become weedier and invasive” (Raybould and Gray 1993; Regal 1994 cited in Singh et al., 2006, p.603). Pest resistance can also be a problem in the long run. For instance, pests may mutate into other forms that would eventually need pesticides. In “Genetic Engineering, The Farm Crisis, And World Hunger,” Jordan (2002) studied the negative effects of genetic engineering on the thermodynamics of plants. Purrington and Bergelson (1999) observed that seed production in herbicide-resistant Arabidopsis thaliana was subordinate when compared to nonresistant plants (cited in Jordan, 2002, p.524). Fineblum and Rausher (1995) illustrated that there was a “tradeoff between resistance and tolerance to herbivore damage in a morning glory” (cited in Jordan, 2002, p.524). Genetically changed plants have shallower roots, less stronger stems, and cannot compete with other weeds (Jordan, 2002, p.524). Conclusion Genetic engineering, like other technologies, is not a perfect science. It has pros and cons, but this paper believes that it can end global hunger. Genetic engineering has produced and can produce crops that can resists pests and diseases, while also including more nutritional value. Genetically modified plants can also thrive in harsh environments, such as in Africa. It can decrease land and water pollution, because of lesser pesticides and other chemicals used, and by reducing runoffs. Nevertheless, genetically modified animals present greater risks to human and animal health. They deserve greater scrutiny and monitoring from the government through toxicity studies and other guidelines. Hence, this paper is not saying that genetic engineering is the panacea of global hunger, especially with risks involved, but it does present a viable solution to it. References Ackerman, J. (2002). Food: How altered? National Geographic, 201 (5), 32-52. Arvanitoyannis, I.S., Choreftaki, S., & Tserkezou, P. (2006). Presentation and comments on EU legislation related to food industries–environment interactions: sustainable development, and protection of nature and biodiversity – genetically modified organisms. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 41 (7), 813-832. Dona, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I.S. (2009). Health risks of genetically modified foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition, 49 (2), 164-175. Jordan, C.F. (2002). Genetic engineering, the farm crisis, and world hunger. BioScience, 52 (6), 523-529. Rauch, J. (2003, October). Will Frankenfood save the planet? Atlantic Monthly, 292 (3), 103-108. Singh, O.V., Ghai, S., Paul, D., & Jain, R.K. (2006). Genetically modified crops: Success, safety assessment, and public concern. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, 71 (5), 598-607. Read More