Genetically Modified Food - Research Paper Example

Genetically Modified Food Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 References 11 Thesis ment United States of America has similarity in regulating the Genetic modified organism with Europe that dates back to 1970. Non-Governmental organizations are avoided in this regulation since regulators are granted more power to come up with new ideas in technological field. It talks briefly about the rules governing GMO. There are some issues, which are reviewed concerning the GMO in Europe and United States. They include difference in policies, and how Europe handles the problems arising from this new Agricultural technology and how the food being processed should be safe for human consumption. This paper will focus on these aspects majorly and explain in details. Canada has a policy, which protects its environments, and it takes note of biotechnology since what should be done to achieve better health in terms of food consumption (Miller 2002). Introduction According to Hawkes (2000), genetically modified food (GMO) refers to types of foods produced through genetic engineering processes. The food is produced out of organisms with specific changed modified because of DNA. The process has contributed to introduction of various traits of breeding and mutation of organism. United States restricted the rules of health, surrounding and safety more than Europe where rules are not that strict. Mistrust exists between the government and these industries because of politics and their highly contentious issues, which involves a large level suspicion between them. Bernauer et al. (2003) explains that, United States of America has similarity in regulating the Genetic modified organism with Europe that dates back to 1970. Non-Governmental organizations are avoided in this regulation since regulators are granted more power to come up with new ideas in technological field. It talks about briefly the rules governing. There are some issues, which are of essence that are reviewed concerning the GMO in Europe and United States. They include difference in policies, and how Europe handles the problems arising from this new Agricultural technology and how the food being processed should be safe for human consumption. This paper will focus on these aspects majorly and explain in details (Forman 2010). Canada has a policy, which protects its environments, and it takes note of biotechnology since what should be done to achieve better health in terms of food consumption. Healey (2010) asserts that it is harmful to the surrounding thus the environment should be assessed for it to be considered safe for products manufacturing. American states has an act which are in line with GMO such as the Plant quarantine act , the Federal food act, Drug and Cosmetic act ,Rodenticide act and the Toxic substance act. They help other bodies such as the US Department that deals with Agriculture, Food and Drug administration and United States Environmental Protection. These bodies have a say on biotechnology and they help in making sure it is utilized accordingly to the above acts. Canada depends on innovation top speed up the oversight thus they encourage the modernized food, thus they are properly represented in the scrutinizing of biotechnology by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Environment Canada thus leads to proper involvement in curbing risk factors of this technology by the health Canada. Modern plants in Canada are discussed widely in that they are plants, which have different traits absent in other plants of the same species. The policies in Canada consider this plant to have undergone all stages and are good for consumption and growth by the farmers for the population Canada. It is not harmful for consumption, and Agricultural engineers have proved it beyond reasonable doubt. Canada being a smaller state than USA the difference arises in handling this Biotechnology and United States America has better ways of handling the risk imposed by this technology. United states of America comes up with individual effect of controlling the pests and they force biotechnology industries to have a permit. Which allows them to work on this kind of innovation and it follows a wider path in getting this permit and several consultancy must be made aware and must agree to it before the assessment is performed. EPA has no mandate in checking the GMO but rather they focus on the product approach. United States of America has taken the toll order in conducting and controlling the Genetically Modified plants through many engineers who have been innovative enough to come up with this type of plant. This kind of technology received a total boost from the White House through its Science and Technology office. Due to the interest they had and biotechnology and its products because it was considered in raising the economy of United States and improving the level of technology in the country. The Engineers came up with a framework to involve all the participants in this process like the government and other agricultural agencies. Europe being a wider continent and considered developed America borrowed a leaf from them in terms of the biotechnology it came up with educating the people about Genetically Modified Organism this ha been embraced in the states fully. Brunk (2009) explains that the policy in European Union on biotechnology is different from that of United States since there is clash in time of their initialization and America began its mandate earlier European countries. European Union through the British Council was approved to take the GMO to the market to satisfy the engineers test the results and improve its policy. European Union had some controversies in the biotechnological environment where the people have opposed the Swiss corn, which is a GMO seed because it was considered as creating environmental risk. This led to reorganizing this EU rule since they allowed Swiss Corn, which was sold in the market, which was considered as a failure to this rule. The impact to this difference between biotechnology in European Union and United States was realized when States introduced the soy oil into the market. It enhanced further the policy and called for improvement in this rule. Another controversy arose among members of the public in that they did not approve to it due to the harmful effects in the environment and its high intensity of risk it creates to consumers. Prince Charles even argued that it is risky to the environment human healthy and it goes against God’s rule. The Body Hillstrom (2012) asserts that a research conducted by Alessandro Nicolia, Fabio Veronesi ,Danielle Rosellini and Alberto Manzo An Overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety . They argued that so far the genetically modified crops in not risky to the surrounding. They dwelt on all fields of crop wellbeing, it has responded to the surrounding, and their harmful nature to the population that is involved in it. Some years back several scholars argued on this issue of GMO that has raised so many eyebrows on how the seeds are kept safe. Jose L. Domingo and Jordi Gine Bordonaba in their article Environment International pg 37 argued that genetically modified seeds should be studied on a wider basis as proposed also by non-governmental organizations before giving humans to feed on. They also argued that there is limited risk in genetically modified seeds to the surrounding since it passes several tests before its presentation to the public for utilization. They consider it safe for animal usage and should not be discouraged from the environment. Their major aim was to come up with a view that the modernity can help in making the Genetically Modified Organism safe. Many views about genetically modified seeds are not explained to the public and many people do not understand it fully. It is discriminating because not all the population in each country is learned; the illiterate individuals cannot understand it perfectly unless the awareness is created. This has not been realized since it also requires funds to educate these individuals. The present state of GMO has been criticized but also has been accepted since it doubles the harvest and it saves time in that the time taken for maturity is squeezed. Evidence and Discussion According to Brunk (2009), within the face of fiscal proximity to the US, Canadian coverage-makers have adopted stricter common of threat assessments for biotechnologies. This may best be a puzzle for rational option political economists who would predict huge pressure on Canadian coverage-makers to align regulatory specifications on these of the USA. The paper attributes that policy community standpoint goes a long way toward resolving this puzzle. Take one (Nigel, 2000), Ruse (2002) explains that, policy networks, we argue, are huge as they provide a working out of collective procedures through which coverage beliefs, policy preferences, coverage discourses and policy decisions are constructed. At the center of these strategies are the exact mandate and historical past of network actors who assemble their perception, preferences and discourses concerning each other over time. The character of actors in relation to itself varies in time and house, with giant coverage influence. The measure of openness of coverage networks, for instance, creates patterns of exclusion that explain the coverage beliefs expressed in legit coverage discourses. In the United States, two policy networks handle biotechnology. According to Santaniello (2001), one especially handles agricultural vegetation whilst the others handle meals. Key state actors overlap the two GMO networks. In Canada, the coping regulations, that is two overlapping networks assessing environmental and wellness risks. On the other hand, a community to manipulate biotechnology merchandising. Promoting and regulation represent a community boundary in Canada, but no longer in the U.S. Unsurprisingly, American networks have promoted a notion construction method beneficial to extra permissive regulatory preferences than the Canadian environmental and evaluation networks. The distribution of capability and the interconnections between state and civil society actors have nourished extra this trend. USA capability has overwhelmed EPA, a state actor with an inclination extra beneficial to legislation than advertising. The Canadian environmental chance evaluation network has fewer linkages that exist in regard to civil society than USA networks, Canadian officers preferring global discussions to assemble their possess theory of sound scientific regulatory techniques. Conclusion In summary, various countries have different views in regards to genetically modified organism since it contributes to agricultural inventions in regards to globalization. GMO is significant for the development of countries’ development in relation to new technologies and globalization. Besides, GMO is a positive tie between the country and the farmers since it has increased economic realization of various countries all over the world such as US and Canada. Even though GMO has negative impact on agriculture, many scholars have contributed to positive research in regards to making it an excellent mode of agricultural laboratory practises. In the present world, people are used to genetically modified food even though people do not know the effects it has on human beings as far as health is concerned. The government should adopt various ways and processes to help create jobs to the youths in regards to genetic engineering. References Hawkes, Nigel. (2000), Genetically Modified Foods: Copper Beech Books Hillstrom, Kevin. (2012), Genetically Modified Foods: Lucent Books, Gale Cengage Learning Fedoroff, Nina V., and Nancy Marie Brown. (2004), Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientists View of Genetically Modified Foods: Joseph Henry Press Forman, Lillian E. (2010), Genetically Modified Foods: ABDO Pub. Ruse, Michael. (2002), Genetically Modified Foods: Debating Biotechnology: Prometheus Books Santaniello, V. (2001), Market Development for Genetically Modified Foods: CABI Brunk, Conrad G. (2009), Acceptable Genes? Religious Traditions and Genetically Modified Foods: Suny Press Healey, Justin. (2010), Genetically Modified Foods and Crops: The Spinney Press Mchughen, Alan. (2000).Pandoras Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods: Oxford University Press Miller, Norman. (2002), Environmental Politics Casebook: Genetically Modified Foods: Lewis Publishers Anstey, T.H. (1986) One Hundred Harvests: Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, 1886-1986. Ottawa: Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Barrett, Katherine and Elisabeth Abergel (2008) Breeding Familiarity: Environmental Risk Assessment for Genetically Engineered Crops in Canada. Science and Public Policy, 27: 2-12. Bernauer, Thomas and Erika Meins (2003) Technological Revolution Meets Policy and the Market: Explaining Cross-National Differences in Agricultural Biotechnology Regulation. European Journal of Political Research, 42: 643-683. Read More