What Can We Expect from Genetically Modified Organisms - Term Paper Example

Genetically Modified Organisms Various developments took place in the world in 20th century. The period saw various forms of transformation. One of the significant transformations was the advancement in technology. Technology made several things to emerge that were not there before. One of the significant innovations that took place was in the field of science. In the filed of science, there emerged genetically modified organism (GMO). Many in the world saw the GMO as a way of solving various challenges of the day. The primary focus of the paper is to offer an explanation on GMO and various controversies that surround the advancement. GMO’s have been in existence for a long time. GMO technology has been incorporated in both plants and animals. GMO is an organism that the genetic material has been changed by means of genetic engineering (Götz 1961). The technology helps in incorporating new trait to the living organism. Such traits may be resistance to herbicides, droughts, weeds, and some predators. The traits are derived from other organisms mostly bacteria. The technology has been dominant in plant. Plants have been produced that makes their chemicals for fighting insects as well as produce modified starch (Götz 1961). The technology is also in the advanced stage to produce food with high levels of vitamins as well as the antibiotics. The current trend in this technology employs incorporation of several traits to plants genome. GMO has been on the rise in the world. The major GM crop includes soy, maize, cotton, and rapseed. In fact, in 2008, there were over 100 billion hectares of cultivated GM crops (Götz 1961). Moreover, the number of countries practicing this technology has been on the rise. The technology has been prevalent in countries such as America, India, and China. However, it has received little acceptance in parts of Asia, Europe and Africa (Götz 1962). GMOs are considered beneficial in various ways. First, the technology has been shown to help in reducing agricultural costs (Lanton 2). Such costs are related to weeds, pests and crop diseases. This occurs through production of plants that are resistant to weeds, pest, and crop diseases. Moreover, the technology is seen as a way of achieving human needs of more food. This has been due to the burgeoning human population in the world. Consumers have questioned whether technology presents long-term health risks. A recent survey done in United States by New York Times found that three-quarters of the American population raised issues about health by having GMOs in their food (Harmon 1). Various issues have arisen due to the rise of GMOs. One of the issues that have been raised is whether the technology is safe. There has been debate whether foods emerging out of this technology are fit for human consumption. The proponent of the technology notes that the new technology leads to diseases such as allergy and cancer. The activist against the technology notes that the cancer has bee identified in rats used in testing the technology (Harmon 1). Moreover, they note that there has been increasing rise of childhood allergies upon consumption of GM food. The other controversy has been an overuse of pesticide by companies producing such foods. The overuse is said to lead to the disappearance of important insects that play a significant role in the environment (Harmon 1). Such insects include butterflies and bees. They argue that their killing through overuse of pesticides will make crops fail to be pollinated. As a result, there will be few food produced. They note that this is against the notion created that the technology will lead to increased food availability in the environment. Moreover, the technology is said to have a profound risk in the environment. Those calling for the ban of GMOs note that the new technology is likely to harm the environment (Harmon 1). They equate the harm to the DDT chemicals that have been banned in various countries around the world. The activities of the technology are also said to be unsustainable. The environment activist argues that the technology is not eco-friendly. On the other hand, environment activist argues that the scientist have failed to offer a credible opinion on the technology effect on the environment. They argue that the scientist most of the time acts as a proxy of biotechnology companies (Harmon 1). As a result, it has been impossible to get the real issue concerning the new technology. On the other hand, the seed producing biotechnology companies are seen as lacking genuine information concerning the technology. The distrust has emerged as these companies have actively resisted regulation from authorities. The companies are said to give a stipend to politicians to approve of the new technology. Such companies include Monsato, Sygenta, and Dow (Harmon 1). The companies have been said to be dishonest on the rate of pesticide use in their seed nurseries. The companies are also seen as devising ways of controlling people. Activist notes that the companies control seeds that mean they control food (Harmon 1). This makes it possible for companies to control people lives. On the other hand, scientist notes that there has been misinformation concerning the technology. Scientists such as Ilagan have written articles dispelling the notion. They argue that there is no way companies such as Monsato would realize a profit at the expense of public safety (Harmon 1). Ilagan notes that such food can be produced sustainably. The scientist further notes that a ban on such foods would do little help to solve the challenges that have faced food industry before the invention. The technology is also said to lead to rise of resistant weeds. The opponent notes the overuse of technology can lead to rise of superweeds (Harmon 1). As such, weeds will be challenging to control in the future. On the other hand, the opponent indicates the technology will help in controlling some of the common pests and diseases. The other controversial issue has been a lack of labelling of GM foods. There has been call for labelling of GM foods in various countries around the world especially in United States. Consumers have led this focus as they seek to be informed of the content of GM foods. Moreover, consumers want to know what type of food is available to them once they go out to shop. Consumers are also seeking to be informed whether food available to them is genetically modified. Consumers are calling it to be made mandatory labelling goods containing GMOs and traceability of GMOs throughout the entire value chain (Götz 1962). Some countries have also put conditions on the contents of GMO that can be allowed in the country. For example, in EU countries the regulations allow GM content of 0.9 % for authorised GMOs while unauthorised food should have zero percentage of GMOs (Götz 1962). The manufacturer of such food sees the issues as a way of scaring consumers. Hence, the companied put a strong opposition to labelling. The other issue is that GMO lack inherent value. Some of the activists argues that some of the fruits and vegetable from the technology are not natural (Harmon 1). The activist sees this as a way of endangering public health. This has led to protest such as in the Philippines where they cite safety concern from GMO rice said to have improved level of vitamin (Harmon 1). In conclusion, it is clear that GMO is a new technology. The technology is yet to get wider acceptance in various countries around the proud. The technology has also been controversial. Hence, the debate on the topic is likely to continue. Works Cited Götz, Franz von. “See what you eat—broad GMO screening with microarrays.” Anal Bioanal Chem 396 (2010):1961–1967. Print. Harmon, Amy. “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.” New York Times 4 Jan. 2014: 1. Print. Lanton, Ron. “What’s Behind the GMO Debate?” News Hampshire Business Review 24 (2014): 1-2. Print. Read More