'Negative Effects of Genetically Modified Food/Crops\r'

'Author: Instructor: Course Title: get word: Negative Effects of genetically extra fargon/Crops Genetically limited organisms refer to organisms whose contagious components lease been changed to produce an unnatural occurrence. Genetic plan refers to the engineering employed in the alteration of the contagious elements, which likely facilitates the transfer of genes mingled with related and non-related species. This engineering is apply in the forbiddenpution of Genetically Modified (GM) crops/ victualss in set out to meet the desired objectives of the intentness operators.The 1980 US Supreme Court pronouncement on the legitimate patentability of biological flavor in the Diamond vs. Chakrabartyn topic opened the gateway to genetic engineering (Lex Orbis). at that place argon some perceived benefits of the GM solid provenders diligence, ii to the producer and consumer, especially in regard to change magnitude forage productivity and nutrition. Conversely, in that location acquire been account cases on potential run a risks to human race health and the surroundings receivable to GM victualss/crops. The ruinous effectuate of GM nutritions toil and custom can non be overlooked, collectable to their shock absorber on human health, the environment and socio-economic operation of a society.The introduction and widespread make use of of Genetically Modified (GM) food for thoughts has been met with uncertainties in regard to public acceptability referable to the confirmed and potential vilifyful personal cause of this technology. GM foods be disputable for various indicates, one of them man the adverse effects of these foods to human health. at that place argon concerns over deaths, near-deaths and indispositions such(prenominal) as cancer and bacterial infections arising out of GM foods. Human beings need food for survival plainly it is incongruous to consume potentially ruinous food for one’s existence just for survival.Studies indicate that there mystify been preserve deaths attri onlyable to Genetic Engineering in foods. In 1989, a genetic modification of the food affix cognize as L-tryptophan produced a devastating disorder k nowadays as the Eosinophilia Myalgia syndrome (EMS). There were astir(predicate) 37 people who died from the ailment, as s headspring as around 1500 who were physically impaired. The GM food appendage was manufactured by a Japan’s chemical substance play along known as Showa Denko, which offered a $2 billion settlement to the victims, but investigations into the product were not carried out.In addition, initial GM tested products such as Flavr Savr read been reported as harmful to sentient beings, evidenced by the premature deaths of the faunas apply in these lab tests. Further, in 1996, a company known as Pioneer Hi-Bred, the great(p)st seed company in the US, produced soybeans with the added protein methionine, through with(predicat e) splicing Brazil nut deoxyribonucleic acid into the conventional soybeans (Cummins, Lilliston and Lappe 36). Researchers from the University of Nebraska reported that the use of the GM soybeans whitethorn result in fatal allergies to individuals supersensitized to Brazilian nuts.Fortunately, the company withdrew the product from the market before any fatalities occurred. Allergenic reactions to GM foods are some some opposite area of concern to the consumer public. There has been an increasing station of food-allergenic individuals in the nation, especially among children, which was confirmed by the centre for Disease Control. The increased alteration of diets contributes to the rising localize of food sensitivity, since GM foods are not like to regular foods (Nestle).Other indications of the allergenic quality of GM foods admit the following: A study on GM potatoes with cod genes indicated they were allergenic; two independent studies indicated that GM Bt corn produced allergenic effects, even on the farmers who apply genetically engineered Bt sprays to produce such corn; in 1999, York Laboratory researchers discovered a connectedness between the rise in allergic reactions to soy and the consumption of GM soy. The potential risks of GM foods extend to disease causality and bacterial infections.Scientists have accomplished a connection between a protein hormone known as GH and a chemical hormone called IGH-1 associated with disparager cancer, and in some instances, prostate cancer. The protein hormone GH is injected in dairy cows to facilitate the take of to a greater extent milk, thus it has been employ to boost the productivity of dairy corporations. Genetically change versions of the hormone have been O.K. to enhance milk productivity despite warnings by scientists that this GM hormone increases the IGF-1 hormone in consumers, from around 70 to 1000%. Dr.Samuel Epstein, a University of Chicago regenerate and the Chairman of the Cance r Prevention Coalition explained the connection between GH and IGF-1; that the GH induces the malignant conversion of human mamilla epithelial cell types that eventually leads to cancerous growths. However, the US nutriment and Drugs Administration rejected the importance of such findings. The proponents of GM foods point to some science reviews which assign that GM crops in the market pose limited risks to human health. GM foods downstairsgo protocol tests to work their effects on human health as considerably as their allergenic quality.These tests have been evaluated by the universe of discourse wellness Organization (WHO) and the Food and land Organization (FAO), and the result is that the GM foods currently in circulation pose no allergic effects to people. The World Health Organization further maintains that all GM foods in the global market have been approve after passing the necessary risk judgement tests; hence they are not harmful to human health. Additionally, t he organization claims that adverse effects of these foods have not been proved among the general public where the GM foods have been permitted thus there should be no reason for alarm (World Health Organization).However, this position falls im supportnt of completely meeting the concerns of consumers, since various scientific studies have reflected negative health effects of GM foods, contradicting WHO’s position. Despite the observation of harmful effects on a minority, GM foods cannot be ruled as completely expert for human consumption. In retainer of all the evidence presented, it is certain that genetic engineering technology presents certain dangers and health hazards that need to be thoroughly assessed before GM foods are take up into the global market.The assessment criteria for these products should to a fault be rewrite with reference to case studies and reports highlighting potential harms of genetic modification (The Economist 19). Consumers should also be ful l cognisant of the type of products displayed in the market in order to make sure choices. Genetic modified foods and crops have also been frowned upon for their potential negative effects to the environment. There are concerns over the toxicity levels in the bemire due to genetic engineered farming, jumper cable to flaw pollution and destruction of whole works and animal life.Despite the dictatorial effects of genetic engineering technology in boosting food contribute to the public, the application of this technology raises the use of chemicals and bio-engineered products in farms, hence the environmental degradation. It is essential to defend a food crop exertion arrangement that maintains environmental standards rather than ruin them, thus maintaining the tang of environmental conservation. The GM crop manufacture advocates for this technology on the grounds that genetic engineered seeds and gear ups are facilitatory to the environment by decreasing the amount of c hemicals used in farms.However, most of the GM clownish products have a high chemical resistance, which in disco biscuit increases rather than decreases the use of weed killers or pesticides with toxic effects to the farms. The GM crop industry seeks to profit from the bargain of much products, and these allow seeds as well as pesticides and herbicides. In light of this issue, it is conceivable that the industry intends to transport more genetic engineered agricultural products as well as chemicals; hence environmental safety is a challenge if farmers rely on these products, since they go hap in hand with great use of herbicides/pesticides.According to environmental scientist, R. J. Goldburg, scientists expect that the use of herbicides exit triple due to GM agricultural products (Goldburg 647). An example of a company in this industry is Monsanto, which is a military personnel leading corporation in the outturn of genetic engineered seeds as well as the herbicide known as Roundup. The herbicide glyphosate, also called Roundup, has damaging effects to plant and animal life. The US Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that Roundup poses a threat to 74 endangered species; it affects natural processes in plant life such as photosynthesis.Further, the herbicide decays in the deformity but it leaves deposits on the crops harvested for the consumer. Glyphosate, which is the main component in Roundup, is harmful to humans, and has led to numerous cases of illness among farmers. Various scientific research projects also indicate the harmful effects of GM products to the soil; these include the research carried out by operating theatre scientists which indicates the GM microorganism, klebsiella planticola killed vila soil nutrients and rendered it aseptic.Similarly, in 1997, it was open up that Rhizobium melitoli, a GM bacterium, released toxins in the soil that caused pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency also denotative its concerns over the ma tter, but these microorganisms are still in operation. The Oregon research also indicated that some of these microbes killed shuck plants when introduced into the soil. Other indicators of the environmental effects of GM products include the creation of super weeds and super pests; plant and animal invasions; destruction of woodwind instruments; the death of adept insects and genetic pollution.GM elements such as Bt endotoxin have been reported to hitch in the soil for about 18 months and could be transported to other wild plants, thus forming super weeds, rebarbative to beetles and butterflies, and this process affects the balance of nature. Super pests are created when popular pests like budworms and cotton woolboll worms develop immunity from toxins due to repeated exposure. Research indicates that cottonboll worms have developed immunity from Bt sprays used in organic farming (Tabashnik, Gassmann and Crowder 199-202).Plant and animal invasions exist the existing species a nd result to the imbalance of nature. Emerging GM strains can induce bio-invasions into plant or animal life, such as the invasion of the kudzu vine, which is an foreign plant from Japan with rapid growth. The damage to forest life is yet some other justification for the claims against the production of GM foods/crops. GM trees have developed a resistance towards chemical sprays thus when spraying is carried out in a forest with GM trees, they go far but the plant life around them are killed.Unlike rainforests or tropical trees that support animal life such as fungi, insects and birds, GM trees are flowerless and sterile; hence they cannot support forest life in its entirety. Research further demonstrates that GM components destroy beneficial insects in plant life such as the monarch butterfly larvae which feeds on milkweed. In 1997, natural Scientist reported that the proteins found in genetically modified canola flowers could potentially harm honeybees (Pain) Additionally, gene tic pollution is another negative effect of GM production on the environment.Genetic pollution is facilitated by the transfer of GM pollen through rain, wind, birds or insects, and it becomes difficult to contain since unlike chemical pollution, it does not decay. The government of Thailand terminated field assessments for Bt cotton from Monsanto after the Institute of Traditional Thai music established genetic pollution of nearby plants (GRAIN 1-7). In the face of the controversy around GM technology and its effects on the environment, the supporters of the technology advocate that it offers a solution to environmental strain caused by overpopulation.The proponents of genetic engineering contend that the technology is beneficial to the environment since it presents a solution that prevents further depletion of the environment as the world population rises. It is evident that overpopulation has caused negative effects on the environment, due to the constant struggle for land, wate r, fuels and other resources necessary for human existence. For this reason, supporters of this technology view it as the means to support the food requirements of the world as a whole fleck aintaining the status of the environment. GM food production has the potential to support the increase need of food supplies in the present world, but its damaging effects to the environment cannot be disregard since they pose long-term risks, that impact on time to come generations. These destructive effects on the environment, plant and animal life have been scientifically proven, thus they are not negligible GM crop production definitely introduces harmful effects to the environment and its inhabitants, do it an unsafe means to support food demands.The collaboration of core organizations in the environmental sector should be established in order to forge a way that incorporates stringent environmental standards in the GM food industry. Such organizations include the US Food and Drug Admin istration and the United Nations Environment Programme. There are a lot of concerns in the GM food industry, with some risks already identified while some remain to be discovered, hence there should be more emphasis on safe food production strategies rather than a technology filled with uncertainties (Krech 580).The other argument against genetically modified foods arises out of the negative political, social and economic implications of the industry to modern society. The extensive application of biotechnology in food production will change established farming drastically, the strongest effect being on the endemic farmers, and eventually the consumers. GM food production requires patenting, and the large corporations in this sector will eventually stir the indigenous farmers out of their farms, while they control food products and prices.Advocates against GM crop production argue that his industry will displace farmers out of their livelihoods, since they face the risk of being b ought out by large multinational companies that can pursue genetic engineering from a large-scale level. The control of the GM food production industry by large corporations amounts to bio-colonization, which by reference refers to the power that bio-technology controllers possess in the current and hereafter market. The ability to control genetic components as well as agricultural resources is the source of so untold power, for its food production.Indigenous farmers in the U. S. are currently self-sufficient in food production, but with the advancements in the GM food industry, more and more people will be dependent upon these industry controllers for food. These industry controllers may be referred to as the bio-colonizing companies, which will possess a lot of decisive power in the world economy due to their control of genetic and agricultural resources. Agricultural workers will also be greatly afflicted with the transfer of control in the industry from individuals to corpor ations or governments.The result will be translation of farmers from their economic activity by more right on forces, leading to a high rate of food dependency from companies and the government (Committee on the blow of ergonomics on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability 206). Unfortunately, the WTO, World Bank and GATT provide regulations that facilitate large-scale and foreign interests at the outlay of local economies, which further impede self-sufficiency in those countries. Another socio-political issue of concern is the debate on the labeling of GM foods.Proponents of GM foods argue that these foods are similar to regular foods thus the need for labeling is unnecessary, but a counterargument is that with the potential risks of GM foods, consumers should be fully aware of the contents of their foods in order to make informed choices. The consumer has the right to be informed of the ingredients in his/her food, disregarding of the safety or harmful levels of the food. Som e parties argue for genetic engineering in food production as the solution to world hunger and other economic paradoxs that arise out of food shortages.The suggestion is that GM foods can be produced even under harsh soil and climatic conditions since they can be engineered to withstand such conditions. For this reason, most lands that have previously not been utilized for farming can now be made useful, and eventually solve the problem of overcrowding on the fertile lands. According to the proponents, this move is evaluate to increase food productivity, thus solving two problems at the same time; the scramble for resources and food security. However, such an argument fails to consider the bigger ideate in regard to autonomy in food production among local farmers and regions.It is clear that the GM food industry is controlled by large corporations and governments, hence they would in turn control productivity and supply on the international front. In this regard, indigenous far mers as well as small economies do not master food security; rather they become more dependent on multinational companies. In summary, genetically engineered foods raise a lot of questions and concerns among the public due to the insufficient information regarding the sector and the potential harm it presents to the people and the environment.There are proponents with valid perspectives who argue for and against the concept, but it is important that the benefits of this technology are weighed against the risks, in order to determine the true value of the industry to consumers (Ackerman). convinced(p) effects include increased food supply and control of overpopulation in fertile lands, but these benefits are overshadowed by the numerous reported and unreported harmful effects of genetic science in food production.From health complications to environmental degradation and negative socio-economic impacts, the GM food production industry is potentially catastrophic in the present time and in the incoming ahead. Works Cited Ackerman, Jennifer. â€Å"FOOD: How Altered? ” topic geographical Magazine. (2002). Web. 18 show 2011. Committee on the Impact of biotech on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. Washington, D. C. : National Academies Press, 2010: 206-207. Print. Cummins, Ronnie, Ben Lilliston and Frances Moore Lappe.Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2004: 36-38. Print. Goldburg, R. J. â€Å"Environmental Concerns with the Development of Herbicide-tolerant Crops. ” Weed engineering science 6. 3 (1992): 647-652. Print. GRAIN. â€Å"Bt Cotton through the Back Door. ” Seedling (2001): 1-7. Print. Krech, Shepard. encyclopaedia of World Environmental History: F-N. London: Routledge, 2004: 580-581. Print. Lex Orbis. â€Å"Patenting Microorganisms. ” Lex Orbis: intellectual Property Pra ctice. (30 April 2005). Web. 18 March 2011. Nestle, Marion. Agricultural Biotechnology, Policy, and Nutrition. ” The new-made England Journal of Medicine (2002). Print. Pain, Stephanie. â€Å"War in the timberland †Dutch Elm Disease is back with a Vengeance. But this time Biotechnology. ” New Scientist. (1997). Web. 18 March 2011. Tabashnik, BE, et al. â€Å"Insect Resistance to Bt Crops: Evidence versus Theory. ” Nature Biotechnology (2008): 199-202. Print. The Economist. â€Å"Whos Afraid of Genetically Modified Foods? ” The Economist. (19 June 1999): 19-21. Print. World Health Organization. WHO: 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods. 2011. Web. 18 March 2011.\r\n'