'Genetically Modified Food – Pros & Cons Essay\r'

'Never before in account has mankind so masterfully commanded its nutrient bowed stringed instrument. Thousands of old age ago, some(prenominal) of our species made the leap from a hunter-ga on that pointr take aim of subsistence to an bucolic society. With horticulture, slowly but surely umteen a(prenominal) an(prenominal) a nonher(prenominal) allowances were made to gives and animals utilize and domesticated by us for the purpose of feeding ourselves. New specialized varieties with particular desirable traits slowly emerged; with the advent of k nowledge of hybridization, this dish out was greatly expedited. By today, much has changed in the modal value we shape the aliments we put into our bodies.\r\nWith modern feed experience has come the dawn of heritable readjustment. intellectual nourishment scientists working in tandem with cistrontic engineers can now isolate the genes for specific desirable traits from an entirely misrelated organism and splice the m into an organism that we have traditionally consumedâ€say hello to â€Å"franken f atomic number 18. ” As a practice, genetic engineering is the c beful modification of a reinforcement organism put one oere by essentially revising its DNA, thus altering its genetic get under ones skinup â€Å"in a way that does not occur naturally” (Domingo 535).\r\nThe process of genetically modifying a embed entails inserting genes into plant cells by injecting vir angiotensin converting enzyme-valued functions which copy specialized DNA into the cells. The extirpate goal is that specific traits deemed beneficial become pertly expressed in the GMO (genetically modify organism). The movie Food Inc. , narrated by well-known precedents Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser (authors of The Omnivore’s Dilemma and degen durationte Food Nation, respectively), dedicates a large portion of beat to the modern map of genetically modified sustenanceâ€particularly soybe ansâ€in American agriculture.\r\nThe scene hints at the various do of using GM soybeans in agriculture, in time operatems to be mainly foc apply on the economic impact the Monsanto GM soybean has on Midwestern utmostmers. It does at snips indirectly offer some possible wellness set up, though, at the time the movie was produced (2008â€only four years ago), not respectablely as much was known active(predicate) such(prenominal) ill bodily effects. The pro-GMO diet in pigeonholing often boasts of the feats of this space age engineering in bounds of productivity, efficiency, and health benefits.\r\nSkeptics, on the other hand, see how this practice can wreak havoc on the environment, exploit the economically disenfranchised, and also pose m whatsoever an(prenominal) risks to benignant health. Here, through the scope of the critical, food- unhazardousty concerned ( volume identifying with the questions raise by authors Pollan and Schlosser), we exit explore th ese various claims about human health as they pertain to the almost current technologies in â€Å"frankenfood. ” unrivalled of the main purposes of genetically modifying crops is to improve forage. There is simply less food to go around in today’s universe.\r\nWith the growe race and lessened crop expects collectible to drought (a wantly implication of climate change), â€Å"the charge of wheat and corn [has] tripled” (Bourne) in recent years. Multitudes of people have been banly modify by this. The stimulate shortage has prevented many of the piece’s poorest citizens from getting the basic, nutritious food fix they need to survive. In some of the hardest transfer places, food riots have miserable out in response to the startling scarcity. unit of measurementness of the clear voltagely benefits of genetic modification in plants is its capability to lessen hunger worldwide.\r\n contagiousally modified crops could help reverse the decli ne in abide growth by increasing drought tolerance, due north efficiency, pest resistance, and photosynthesis rates (Crosson and Anderson). The â€Å"challenge of putting seemly food in nine billion mouths by 2050 is daunting” (Bourne) with the increasing prevalence of food shortages. Genetic engineering of plants on a global denture whitethorn prove to be pivotal in averting a Malthusian catastrophe; that is, necessary for the survivalâ€or at least(prenominal) ephemeral sustenanceâ€of humanity.\r\nCompanies involved in the genetic modification of crops, such as Monsanto, believe that â€Å"biotech will make it possible to double yields of… core crops of corn, cotton, and soybeans by 2030” (Bourne). Introducing such crops to malnourished regions will potentially help meliorate the rising demand for food the world is currently facing. In Uganda, where cassava, a potato-like tuber, is the primary food staple for the masse shots, a destructive plant v irus struck the nation in the early 1990s.\r\nThe pathogen devastated the cassava plant’s yield, damages many farmers livelihoods, led to near economic ruin, and, most importantly here, jeopardized health and nutrition of many thousands of native Ugandans. In some of the hardest hit atomic number 18as of Sub-Saharan Africa, the cassava yields had been halved, all while the population of the continent continued to grow at a truly fast pace. In terms of health, this accident has led to, among other deleterious effects, far-flung malnutrition and starvation.\r\nIn 1999, â€Å"scientists genetically engineered the plant… to resist the [devastating] virus” (Hand). Since then, there has been appreciable improvement in the situation. The recent g everyplacenmental situation in Uganda (and many other famine-stricken, war-worn African nations), however, has prevented such ambitious implementations of genetically modified crops from reaching their full potential in luck to solve the global food crisis. In accompaniment to alleviating this hunger crisis, the genetic modification of plants can foreseeably advance advances in modern medicine.\r\nOne very realistic use for genetic engineering is to turn bacteria into circumstanceories to make proteins and other compounds that are useful to humans. Researchers at Harvard University, for example, have recently â€Å"added a few genes to [E. coli’s] solitudinarian circular chromosome, coaxing the organism to produce lycopene” (â€Å"bacteria into Biotech Factories”). In bacteria, this process allows for useful and vital products like insulin to be produced much much easily, and at note costs. Likewise, genetic engineering of plants can be apply to increase the concentration of beneficial botanical compounds use in medicine and health supplements.\r\nAlthough certainly not without risk, GMO technology has been around for almost two ecstasys now, and has had much fewer nega tive implications on human bes than, for instance, impudently developed pubic louse treatments. Yet trial and demerit for cancer treatment does not get the negative publicity that the genetic modification of plants does, despite the feature that both aim at improving health for people who are otherwise very throw off (be it cancer or starvation). In the unite States, where antonym to â€Å"frankenfood” has steadily grown over the past decade, many scientists fear public suspicion regarding genetically engineered foods (inside the surface area and abroad) could derail further question and development of them.\r\n wondering(a) public sentiment whitethorn hinder the packaging of such crops that could potentially improve nutrition and boilers suit health in regionsâ€such as ravening Sub-Saharan Africaâ€that could desperately use it. In app reverseix to solving the modern world-wide hunger epidemic, a more(prenominal) indirect yet very fundamental demonstrab le impact on human health owing to the implementation of GMOs in agriculture would be the change magnitude or cessation of mass deployment of harsh, cyanogenetic pesticides over acres upon acres of cropland.\r\nPesticides have long been cited as producing many detrimental effects with regards to human health. One of the largest indirect positive health implication of implementing GMOs in bucolic is the reduced use or end of pesticide application on food crops. First and foremost, pesticides in the long run sire â€Å"target organisms [to] develop resistance” (Lu and Cosca) to their chemic components. In the end, this leads to increasingly larger, more widespread use of pesticides and the need for more serious, more expensive, and more oto virulent pesticides to be applied to food crops.\r\nStudies have specifically demonstrated that agricultural workers undecided to pesticides on a routine basis â€Å"developed higher incidence rates of cancers of the nervous, lympha tic and hematopoietic systems” (Lu and Cosca). Furthermore, it has been documented that among infants whose mothers were exposed to routine pesticide use, there has been a â€Å"significant connection between in utero organophosphate [(a very common agricultural pesticide)] exposure and abnormal reflexes” (Lu and Cosca). For this same commonly used pesticide, researchers have discovered a severe and widespread incidence of â€Å"neurotoxicity among the exposed” (Lu and Cosca).\r\nLess severe yet nonetheless very disturbing effects of â€Å" muscleman pain, weakness… change in taste… oculus pain, headache[s], drowsiness… tremors… difficulty in breathing, palpitations, throat irritation, and excrete” (Lu and Cosca) have been linked to pesticide use as well. umpteen of these symptoms and conditions have been correlated to just now the level of â€Å"pesticide levels comprise in soils” (Lu and Cosca), and have not only affe cted agricultural workers, but also individuals living within relatively close proximity to intensely farmed areas.\r\nIf (and/or possibly when) genetically modified food crops designed to resist pests â€Å"naturally” are introduced on a significant scale, the use of these chemical pesticides and their poisonous effects on human health will ineluctably be curtailed. Despite the growing yet relatively mild opposition to the genetic engineering of crops in the United States (as opposed to Europe), many scientists in the United States assertâ€including former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Mooreâ€that genetic engineering isn’t fundamentally distinguishable from traditional breeding.\r\nAmidst objections raised by opponents concerning health risks, scientists such as Moore â€Å"have questioned the verity of the environmental lobby’s arguments on ergonomics” and denounced such arguments â€Å"as scare tactics” (Lacy 195). To this groupâ€⠄¢s way of thinking, the benefits of genetically modifying food in terms of health have so far outweighed the risks. As is true(a) in the scientific community, opinions on GMOs vary widely among different groups and individuals.\r\nIn the interviews I conducted, public opinion ranged from â€Å"I think it’s good” and â€Å"yes,” ‘I think it’s proficient from a health perspective’ to â€Å"I don’t like it,” â€Å"It is unethical,” and â€Å"it can’t be too safe. ” More people were uneasy with its use than those who were not. One person even stated his impression that â€Å"genetic modification can cause abnormal cell division… [and] spread bacteria. ” From a scientific standpoint, this person’s former claim is very plausible yet the latter is a pocketable more mystic.\r\nDespite the likely benefits of increase yield and its effect on mitigating the world hunger crisis, as well as indi rectly preventing many health problems associated with the use of pesticides on non-genetically modified crops, there are also many valid health concerns touch this young biotechnology. Many researchers and experts have conveyed their legitimate check over the potentially negative effects on health due to the consumption of genetically engineered agricultural products.\r\nMyriad studies have indeed found many potential health risks associated with consuming GM food products. Most of these ‘con’ findings and opinions are not merely hypothetical and based on sociobiological models all; rather, they are largely based on true scientific studies conducted in labs. In Food Inc. , author Michael Pollan is quick to point out that, contrary to the oft-cited positive of switching to genetically engineered crops that less harmful pesticides will be used, some GM crops are actually merely designed to better withstand pesticides.\r\nThe film makes an example out of Monsanto†™s Roundup Ready® GM Soybean, which has been engineered to withstand much larger quantities of glyphosate, the highly toxic main ingredient in that particular pesticide (Food Inc. ). This fact directly contradicts the common claim that the implementation of genetically modified crops will lead to less pesticide use, at least in some very significant cases. Given Monsanto’s mammoth market carry on within American agribusinessâ€which produces much of the world’s food in our â€Å"bread handbasket”â€this finding is all the more disturbing.\r\nMore pesticide (the dangers of which being previously mentioned), not less, coupled with the finding that â€Å"many GM foods have some common toxic effects” (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 172), may compound health issues in the near futures. For good reason, this combination seems at least somewhat likely to prove to be instead a venomous cocktail. In addition to allowing for increased pesticide usage in certain circumstances, one of genetically engineered crops’ demonstrated direct detrimental effects on the body is the increased incidence of allergenicity.\r\nFindings show that the â€Å" entryway of novel proteins into foods… may elicit potentially harmful immunological responses, including allergic hypersensitivity” (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 168). Due to the inherently tangled biochemical nature of cultivated food crops, the â€Å" origin of a gene-expressing, nonallergenic protein… may not always head in a product without allergenicity” (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 168). That is, allergies to foods that were otherwise unknown or non-existent could randomly crop up as a result of this unnatural exchange of proteins used to alter the core nature of a food crop.\r\nGenerally speaking, many â€Å"adverse microscopic and molecular(a) effects of some GM foods in different organs of tissues have been reported” (Domingo 537). Other than allergies, more ser ious health effects of GMOs include the potential â€Å"that they may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunological parameters” (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 172). Through GMO consumption, humans are being exposed to an unprecedented amount of mordacious â€Å"anti-nutrients such as phytoestrogens, glucinins, and phytic acid” (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 165).\r\nThese were proven to cause marked infertility in laboratory animals (sheep and cattle). Moreover, agitation of the GI tract due to GM foods â€Å"may lead after many years to cancer” (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 169). Of utmost concern, however, is the disturbing finding that â€Å"maternally ingested remote DNA could be a potential mutagen for [a] underdeveloped fetus” (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 170). Given these findings, it is clear not copious regulation is imposed and not enough research is made available and/or taken gravely by companies involved in the genetic modification of food crops.\r\nNow that this new leap in biotechnology has been available for over a decade and a half, scientists have had time to regard the health implications of genetically engineered foods on the body more in-depth. The results the scientific community is gathering are startling. Pointing to a antecedent lack of extensive research on the subject, scientists underscore that â€Å"the lack of evidence that GM food is insecure cannot be interpreted as proof it is safe” (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 164).\r\nWe should also proceed with the production of such genetically modified food as â€Å"every single GM food through the food chain will eventually reach the consumer” (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 164). In fix up to ensure food safety, many concerned researchers reaffirm the assertion that every genetically modified food crop â€Å"containing a new marker gene should be tested for toxicity with long term studies, since GM food will consumed for a invigoration time” (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 167).\r\nAlthough the technology, as mentioned above, has been available to us for over fifteen years, this amount of time has not been sufficient enough to draw any such semipermanent conclusions. Until that is done, its implementation should be limited to reasonable, unbiased experts’ assessments of what is necessary, or situations in which the likely pros would outweigh the likely cons. It is human nature to fear the unknown. As yet, genetically modified foods are still largely unknown to us.\r\n bit these fears may legitimately stymie progress with regards to such a new, potential human health panacea, at the same time they also protects us as a species from over-ambitiously and haphazardly ‘playing God,’ thus potentially opening a biological Pandora’s recession of sorts. It can only help to push us further into solving our food dilemmas if we adopt a fundamentally cautio us and critical mind-set regarding food safety, a la Food Inc.\r\nBecause there are so many disconcerting findings regarding negative health effects on the human body with current GMO technology, it is imperative we continue to aggressively and objectively study it. And, given the very plausible positive effects of using GMOs in agriculture en masseâ€such as a well-nourished world exposed to fewer carcinogenic and neurotoxic substancesâ€the break to harnessing this technology to our species’ benefit as a whole is a slow, careful, unbiased approach to its research, development, and testing.\r\nIn any event, â€Å"frankenfoods” are charging their way into the modern world of agriculture and will almost certainly be a very significant hallmark of the near-future’s era of food science, technology, and agriculture.\r\nWorks Cited Bourne, Joel K. â€Å"The Global Food Crisis: The terminate of Plenty. ” National Geographic Magazine. Jun 2009: n. page. We b. 11 Apr. 2012. Crosson, Pierre, and Jock R. Anderson. â€Å"Technologies for group meeting Future Global Demands for Food. ” Resources for the Future. 2. (2002): n. page. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. <http://www. rff. org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-02-02.pdf>.\r\nDomingo, Jose L. â€Å" human race wellness Effects of Genetically circumscribed (GM) Plants: Risk and Perception. ” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International daybook 17. 3 (2011): 535-37. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, 08 June 2011. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. <http://dx. doi. org/10. 1080/10807039. 2011. 571065>. Dona, Artemis, and Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis. â€Å"Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. ” Critical Review in Food recognition and Nutrition 49 (2009): 164-75. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. Food Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Prod.\r\nElise Pearlstein. Perf. Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser. Magnolia Pictures, 2008. DVD. Hand, Eric. â€Å"St. Louis police squad f ights crop killer in Africa. ” St. Louis Post-Dispatch 12 family 2006, n. pag. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. <http://artsci. wustl. edu/~anthro/bnc/articles/StLPD1. htm>. Lacy, Peter G. â€Å"Deploying the Full Arsenal: flake Hunger with Biotechnology. ” SAIS Review 23. 1 (2003): 181-202. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. <http://www. todoroffs. com/79LCWB81STN/slippingthesurlies/Deploying%20The%20Full%20Arsenal%20%20Fighting%20Hunger%20With%20Biotechnology. pdf> Lu, Jinky L., and Katherine Cosca.\r\nâ€Å"Pesticide Application and Health Hazards: Implications for Farmers and the Environment. ” Internation Journal of Environmental Studies (2011): 37-41. Routledge, 13 Apr. 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <http://dx. doi. org/10. 1080/00207233. 2010. 542657>. â€Å"Researchers Rapidly Turn Bacteria into Biotech Factories. ” Wyss comprise at Harvard. Harvard University, 2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. <http://wyss. harvard. edu/viewpage/285/researchers-rapidly-turn-bacteria-i nto-biotech-factories;jsessionid=144C80533514983C37959598DA351930. wyss1>.\r\n'