Advantages of Genetically Modified Food - Assignment Example

Advantages of Genetically Modified Food Introduction With global population growing at an alarming rate, it has been predicted that by the year 2025there will be a severe crisis of cereals. It is estimated that there will be annual shortage of 68.5 million tones. The concept of genetically modified food (GMF) can serve as a solution to this grave problem. Many countries like the U.S., China, South America and Africa are already cultivating genetically modified crops on a large scale. In spite of its virtues in the food market GMF is surrounded by controversies, especially in Europe, regarding its impact on human health and environment (Purchase, 2005, p.19). However, the benefits of GMF clearly outweigh any such concerns. For any emerging technology to become successful, it is necessary to consider public perceptions and trust. In case of GMF, publication of scientific journals discussing the pros and cons will not be sufficient. The need is to integrate public approach within any debates about technological innovations. GMF is referred to those crops which have been altered by using scientific technologies in order to meet certain beneficial standard for human consumption. GMF consists of plants and animals whose internal properties are modified in laboratories so that their benefits are enhanced like improved nutritional content. By altering their genetic composition, new characteristics are developed that are more beneficial to people. Genetic modification of food makes it possible for crops to grow in areas where they cannot be cultivated by traditional means. For instance, scientists are altering genetic composition of certain crops so that they can grow in extremely dry places (Freedman, 2009, p.6). In the past few decades GMF has played an important role in increasing production of farmers across the world thereby increasing global welfare. In spite of this, a large chunk of population in developing countries is poor and under-nourished. Therefore, it has become imperative to cultivate crops with genetic modifications in order to increase productivity (Herdt & Nelson, 2011, p.2). Thesis It was in the year 1987 that GM crops underwent outdoor tests. By 1996, official permission was provided to 23 crops in the U.S., 12 crops in Canada and 7 crops in Japan (Franks, 1999, p.565). As of 2008, 13 million farmers are involved in GMF cultivation across 25 countries. Principle GM crops are cotton, maize, soybean and canola; but the list also includes other crops like papaya, tomato, squash, alfalfa etc. (Fedoroff, 2010, P.464). There is now sufficient evidence to prove the future positive implications of the technology. Today, scientists have assured that transgenic food that is available is safe for consumption (Bett et al., 2010, p.332). Genetically modified food items are the outcome of technological advancement and need of the economy and hence should be accepted in all countries considering their benefits. Benefits of genetically modified food Genetic technology has been used in crop production by farmers from early historical times; however modern science has developed the technology to a high level. Today, the food that people consume are “either genetically modified whole foods, or contain ingredients derived from gene modification technology” (Uzogara, 2000, p.179). One important positive impact of genetic technology on fruits and vegetables is that products have increased shelf-life. The Flavr Savr tomato which was the first genetically modified crop was genetically modified so that it ripens on the vine. This tomato is characterized in the manner that its rotting process is delayed thereby having increased shelf-life. Therefore, this technology makes the crops more sustainable for longer transport and marketing phases which is important for developing countries where storage and transport facilities are not much above the rudimentary level. The second positive of genetic technology on food is increased protein content and reduced allergic risks like the Brazil nut and peanut. Also, crops like potato are genetically modified to increase its carbohydrate content (Uzogara, 2000, pp.191-192). The positive effects of genetically modified food on the poor countries have always been a matter of controversy but there are various benefits that are experienced by farmers like reduced costs on insecticides, greater productivity and higher revenues. Today, most of the commercially available GMF are technologically developed to become immune to herbicides and have resistance to insects. There are further aspects of food cultivation that are currently undergoing research. In spite of all the surrounding criticisms regarding artificial modifications of food, the advocators of GMF claim that technology has the potential to enhance commercial yields and reduce seasonal variations of crops. With potential food scarcity in the near future, the first priority of genetic research needs to concentrate on increasing productivity of crops. This is needed keeping in view the declining natural resources, climate changes and perpetually growing population. The second generation of genetically modified food has increased nutritional content which means it has the potential to contribute largely towards reducing nutritional deficiencies among the poor. With higher productivity and reduced need of insecticides, the farmers have largely benefited economically, and this is important in the context of poverty alleviation in developing countries. Finally, genetically modified food can reduce the negative impacts on human health and environment with reduced need of chemical pesticides during farming. Yet critics opine that genetic technology will disrupt traditional farming technologies, and multinational companies in order to pursue profits will resort to exploitation of small farmers. However it is undeniable that the small farmers would get a better source of income and therefore a better price for their product if they produce genetically modified food even if they have to work for the companies to gain profits (Qaim, 2010, pp.552-553). Since controversies are part of any kind of technological innovations, therefore the need remains to consider whether the positive impacts have more significance. There are three broad benefit of GMF in developing countries. First, improved productivity makes traditional farming more convenient. Also, lands with unfavorable conditions like high salinity can also be put to use for agricultural purpose. Second, reduced used of pesticide as crops are more insect-resistant. This has dual effects of reduced health risks of farmers and low production cost. Finally, GM crops can increase the nutritional content which is especially beneficial for the poor population (Bouis et al., 2003, p.191). Belgium-based Plant Genetic System was one of the first companies to introduce insect-resistant plants (Forman, 2010, p.40). Recently, there is emphasis on gene modification of crops to make them more resistant to abiotic stresses. It has been estimated that there will be acute water shortage worldwide by 2025 which is a serious threat to the sustainability of human health and agriculture. Genetic technology is focusing on inserting certain protein in crops so that they become draught tolerant as well as tolerant towards extreme high and low temperatures (Thomson, 2003, pp.212-213). Qaim (2010) has provided in his article examples of genetically modified crops that contribute positively to both the poor farmers and consumers of developing countries. The first one is Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) cotton which is has been genetically modified to become more resistant towards insects. Since it is the first generation GM crops and has already been popular among poor farmers in developing countries, therefore its economic benefits can be conveniently studied. BT cotton was first commercially tested in the mid-1990s and got official permission for cultivation in the year 1995. Since then it has become widely popular commercialized genetically modified crop in many countries like Australia, China, Mexico, South Africa, Argentina and India. The rapid growth of its cultivation proves that the farmers are satisfied with its commercial impacts. Studies have confirmed the socioeconomic benefits of BT cotton. Its production is covered by 5 million farmers in India which comprises almost 90 percent of the total cotton production area (Qaim, 2010, p.553). According to the available data, it has been confirmed that there is a significant decrease in the use of insecticide sprays on BT cotton which varies depending on season changes. This has resulted in decline of target pest population resulting is reduced need of insecticide sprays for conventional cotton production. With the declining use of chemical sprays causing economic benefits for the farmers as they have to spend less on insecticides, there are also the additional environmental benefits. Moreover, with more insect resistance power, BT crop has significant yield advantage due to less damage of crops. In spite of all the advantages there are some attached controversies. Since BT cotton production is mainly popular in developing countries, therefore there is often the problem of lack of awareness of the technology causing the farmers failing to achieve economic benefits due to improper use of the technology. Moreover, availability of less varieties of BT cotton resulted in not all lands appropriate for the crop’s production. However, all such disadvantages have been overcome as is evident from the growing popularity of the crop among small resource farmers. In addition to the direct effects, there are certain other effects like increased crop yields lead to employment growth for agricultural laborers. This in turn boosts the rural economy which means development in the transport facilities and trading businesses. With increase in the income of farmers, there is also growth in purchasing power of majority of rural population and in turn will increase demand in the rural economy (Qaim, 2010, p.554). Public concern about the benefits of genetically modified food – some counter arguments Although GMF is being extensively cultivated in many countries, its benefits are still subjected to public concern. In order to make GMF fully acceptable by the public, the important thing is to convince people to hold positive perception of GMF. People’s confidence level regarding benefits of GMF depends on the authenticity of the source of information and trust on the regulatory process. In many countries, people seem to have reduced trust on scientists and the government which makes it difficult to make GMF acceptable to the public. For the purpose of more advancement of genetic technology, the need is to study the factors that affect public perception and also their trust on scientific institutions. The important thing is to find convenient and transparent channels to convey to the public about the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food (Purchase, 2005, pp.19,24). Europe, in particular, has negative public perception concerned with GMF. Such perception is generally attributed to health risk factors, environmental risk factors for current and future generations. Moreover, many people consider the cultivation of GMF as unnecessary and without any strong significance. Other than this, people also tend to doubt the moral values attached to GMF like food industry will compromise with safety issues for the purpose of earning huge profits. Studies have shown that explicitly mentioned benefits of genetically modified food can increase consumer acceptance, and absence of apparent benefits can lead to rejection by consumers. For instance, without effective labeling of food having genetically modified ingredients public trust cannot be earned. This is because where both genetically and non-genetically modified food are sold in same stores without explicit labeling, consumers tend to believe they are manipulated towards lack of choice. People feel that they are compelled to take risks while there are no apparent benefits of GMF (Miles et al., 2005, pp.247-248). In case of GMF, exposure to the same and by experiencing the food a person’s attitude may undergo change. Whether the change of attitude will be favorable or unfavorable depends upon the person getting positive or negative experiences from consuming GMF. However, there are other associated factors to be considered. For instance, consuming GMF can produce attitude change in individuals if there is positive interpretation of any new information released by the food industry or the regulators of technological implementation. Generally, people develop positive attitude from any information that emerges from credible source, i.e. any source which is trustworthy for concerned individual. However, if the information carries content with which the individual cannot agree then further processing of such information can adversely affect the person’s attitude towards GMF (Frewer, 2003, pp.320-321). The second factor to be considered to make genetically modified food acceptable to the broader public is to study the manner in which an individual perceives risk factors and how such perception influences his attitude towards GMF. It has already been established by researchers that a person’s perception of risk is driven by his psychological definition of associated risks rather than the technical risks as warned by experts. It is also known that levels of risk perception by technologically aware people and lay person are very different. Therefore, for the latter group technical information about risk factors will not have much effect as such information will not address their real concerns. Hence, perception of risk factors depends upon which group decides what is communicated. In case of technological innovations, people tend to develop positive attitude as long as the associated perceived risks are outweighed by direct benefits derived from the innovations. In the case of genetically modified food, initially people rejected it since they were launched in the market without promoting their consumer benefits. However, this does not indicate that public will instantly become positive towards GMF if the products have direct consumer benefits since perception of benefits and risk factors differ between individuals (Frewer, 2003, pp.321-322). It is practically not possible to aim for zero risk; however the level of acceptance depends on social and ethical considerations which vary between different countries (Dibden, et al., 2013, p.61). In spite of all the benefits of GM crops, many farmers of poor countries are yet to receive government approval for their cultivation. This is because developed countries like Europe and Japan who are also leading importers may refuse to import GM crops (Paarlberg, 2002, p.247). Refutation According to experts, the risks associated with GMF are no different from any kinds of risks that arise from crops cultivated in the traditional manner. One major impediment to acceptance of genetically modified food by the general public is apprehension regarding its safety precautions. Since 1990s, it has been incessantly proven that food modified by genetic technology can improve the traditional techniques of agriculture in addition to new technologies. By genetically modifying crops, their characteristics have been structured so that crops have high immunity level against virus, bacteria, fungus and insects. Also, genetically modified crops are more tolerant to selected herbicides along with improvement in production, flavor and nutritional content. In the past two decades, governmental organizations have development safety strategies for proper assessment of safety of GMF. Moreover, all kinds of GMF undergo rigorous tests before they are approved for commercial markets and so far there has been no indication of health risks from GM crops like herbicide tolerant soybean or insect protected maize. The tests are executed in accordance with the crop’s characteristics and technologies used to modify the characteristics (Konig et al., 2004, pp.1077-1078). Conclusion The benefits of GMF are numerous from reduced use of pesticides, increased nutritional content, and greater productivity to decreased negative impact on the environment. The future of GMF is extremely bright, and scientific research must not be discouraged by few potential allergic syndromes. In spite of all the benefits, production level of GM crops is dependent on consumer acceptance. To achieve full commercialization of GM crops the need is to address the potential disadvantages. For this, it is important that consumers have full faith on regulatory systems that work towards elimination of all recognized disadvantages. However, complex regulation system can increase production cost of GM crops which in turn can adversely affect consumer demand. The solution lies in studying the factors leading to public concerns and alleviating those concerns through a transparent communication system. References Bett, C., Ouma, J.O. & Groote, H.D. (2010). Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food. Food Policy, Vol.35, No.4, pp.332-40 Bouis, H.E., Chassy, B.M. & Ochanda, J.O. (2003). Genetically modified food crops and their contribution to human nutrition and food quality. Trends in food science and technology, Vol.14, No.5, pp.191-209 Dibden, J., Gibbs, D. & Cocklin, C. (2013). Framing GM crops as a food security solution. Journal of Rural studies, Vol.29, No.2, pp.59-70 Fedoroff, N.V. (2010). The past, present and future of crop genetic modification. New Biotechnology, Vol.27, No.5, pp.461-65 Forman, L.E. (2010). Genetically Modified Foods, ABDO Publishing Co. Franks, J.R. (1999). The status and prospects for genetically modified crops in Europe. Food Policy, Vol.24, No.5, pp.565-84 Freedman, J. (2009). Genetically Modified Food: How Biotechnology Is Changing What We Eat, N.Y.: Rosen Publishing Group Frewer, L. (2003). Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Trends in food science and technology, Vol.14, No.5-8, pp.319-32 Herdt, R.W. & Nelson, R. (2011). Biotechnology and Agriculture: Current and Emerging Applications, pp.1-28, In Carter, C.A., Moschini, G. & I. Sheldon (eds) Genetically Modified Food and Global Welfare, Emerald Group Publishing Konig, A. et al. (2004). Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified crops. Food and chemical toxicology, Vol.42, No.7, pp.1047-88 Miles, S., Ueland, O & Frewer, L.J. (2005). Public attitudes towards genetically-modified food. British food journal, Vol.107, No.4/5, pp.246-62 Paarlberg, R.L. (2002). The real threat to GM crops in poor countries: consumer and policy resistance to GM foods in rich countries. Food Policy, Vol.27, No.3, pp.247-50 Purchase, I.F.H. (2005). What determines the acceptability of genetically modified food that can improve human nutrition? Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Vol.207, No.2, pp.19-27 Qaim, M. (2010). Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition, and health. New Biotechnology, Vol.27, No.5, pp.552-57 Thomson, J. (2003). Genetically modified food crops for improving agricultural practice and their effects on human health. Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol.14, No.5, pp.210-28 Uzogara, S.G. (2000). The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century. Biotechnology Advances, Vol.18, No.3, pp.179-206 Read More