Facts About Genetically Modified Organisms

The problem of food security is becoming more and more difficult as the world’s population rises every day. Since they are expected to meet the bar and offer a fix for the issue, the scientific and agricultural communities have been given the challenge. The outcome has been improvements in food grain production, but despite these successes, it is estimated that 800 million people, largely in developing nations, still go to bed hungry every night. In addition, it is stated that 2400 people perish every day due to a lack of food, and numerous other statistics show that the issue has reached a crisis level (Marstrand 62). The outcome has been that conventional processes have been designed to meet the demands of the growing population mostly in the developing nations through the use of genetic engineering. The improved systems through the use of genetically modified organism have resulted in improved plant breeding an animal production for food purposes as the technological advances seek to boost the availability of food and its production. While the subject of the use of genetically modified organism in food production has drawn negative criticism, it is underscored that the use of these technological processes in food production is not only safe but also provides better food choices and help curb food crises.

Background

It is first important to describe the development of the technology that affirms that GMOs are safe considering the techniques that are used in the production process. The food is made by inserting the genes other animal and plant species into the DNA of the targeted organism. A survey by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has concluded that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are safe for their use in the production of food as they do not pose a substantial risk to human and environmental health (Gilli 275). The conclusion comes amid a hotly contested subject of the use of GMOs with a considerable number of people equally believing that the foods are unsafe for human consumption. Other arguments have described that because of the stalemate that exists, the genetically engineered foods need to be labeled for the user to decide for themselves whether they would consume the foods or not. It is thus affirmed that the subject has shifted from whether the foods need to be labeled for the public to whether the user is safe consuming them (Gilli 288). From a biological perspective, it is affirmed that GMO should be used as an option and is preferred for human consumption because they have no adverse effects on the human users and other animals.

The Arguments to Support the use of GMO

The consumption of these foods is advocated for because science has proven that they do not cause harm to the animals from which they are derived. Few negative potential problems are associated with the consumption of these foods because most of them are derived for natural modification techniques. On many occasions, it has been cited that the foods are just good for human health because they tend to change the DNA of the organisms and in the process could have a benefiting effect on them (Van 34). It is an argument that is presented on many occasions especially among those who have no clear understanding of laboratory and natural modifications. Researchers have since indicated that there is no huge difference between laboratory genetic modification and the natural modification techniques that many people seem to agree (Van 39). It is thus affirmed that the use of GMO is safe because the topic has not been subjected to intensive studies but are critical because according to research is it not much different from what is understood as hybridization. Interestingly, some observers often cite hybridization and natural breed yet genetic engineering ones close to it. However, while this concept relatable, the greatest impression has been that counterarguments have been raised arguing that GMOs tend to impact negatively on animal species (Van 31). As a statement to challenge the use of GMO, one of the priorities to advocate against genetic engineering in food production is that it causes unintended harm to the organisms used in the process. The subject draws serious concerns over the ethics associated with it because of the insensitivity to animal dignity. Studies have since been focused on the subject, with the revelation being that there is an increased harm to animals from the engineering processes. For example, a laboratory study showed that pollen from B.t corn had a high mortality rate on the feeder organism, the monarch caterpillars (Reichman 2010). While the monarch caterpillars rarely only eat milkweed plants, the challenge comes when the B.t. corm is blown into the plants, and the butterflies eat it and perish. The assertion above fails to consider that there have been studies related to the hybridization processes that have indicated that it is safe to use the products on animals. It is thus recommended that the subject of GMOs should be eliminated studied in entirety to examine the supposed adverse effects because the still remain to the top misconceptions about the use of the foods.

It is also important to underline that the use of GMO should be encouraged for human use because there are zero risks to the human user provided they are consumed based on a given schedule. The studies that have been done of GMO are so intensive and detailed that the products are often found to be absolutely safe for consumption and have no negative effects for the human user. The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) has indicated that the studies that were illustrations as early as the 90s have not established any correlation between the animals being adversely affected (Howarth 257). In a statement, is described that, “While recognizing the inherent difficulty of detecting subtle or long-term effects in health or the environment, the study committee found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops” (Barnato). In fact, regulatory bodies often communicate issues related to the advances in the genetic engineering to the public, and it is unlikely that the subject of safety would be ignored for all this while. However, while this has been communicated, it has also been found that counterarguments have been raised to contradict the assertions made about the safety of GMO as pertains to how they impact on the human user. In disputing the statements, it is worth emphasizing that some observers have established that there are human health challenges associated with the consumption of such engineered products (Goyal and Gurtoo 45). The issue thus forms the primary basis upon which opponents argue their views against the technology with studies further proving the suspicions. In fact, some have even backed up their claims by documenting their observations in academic journals and newspaper articles to try to create a feeling that GMO as harmful to human health. For example, a research paper published in Lancet has shown that genetically modified potatoes have notable negative effects on the digestive system of rats (Bakshi 35). It was found that there are morphological differences in the intestines of rats fed with genetically engineered foods compared to those that were not fed on such products. In fact, the gene that was introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flower lectin that has since been found to be toxic to mammals. While the findings described above could be thought to be worthy of debate, it is underscored that they have been done on a different species and one cannot deduce that the outcomes are indicative of what happens to the human body.

The other justification that confirms that the use of GMO is warranted for humans is the finding that they are reliable and effective as food alternatives as any other foods. The emergence of technology and its application of food production processes has only ensured that the foods that are at disposal are of better quality. It could be thought that the foods that have been produced so far are questionable regarding their quality but research has backed up the hypothesis that they are also effective and more nutritious (Jurkiewicz 21). Biotechnology advances have shown that the use of GMO can have benefiting outcomes on the quality of food. For a long time, biotechnology has been the preferred technique that is used by researchers in improving the food outcomes for the food users. There are varied examples that can be cited to confirm that indeed, the products are effective. For instance, the tomato is a product that was engineered through scientific processes and then made to produce higher nutrients such as the anthocyanin that is protective to the human users and enable people to overcome a broad range of diseases. Another example is the Golden Rice Project that has been cited to contain high levels of vitamin-A and in the process enable the prevention of many cases of blindness all over the world. It is estimated that just by consuming the rice produce from these farms, it has been possible to prevent over 500,000 cases of children going blind and to overcome a further 2 million deaths that are often as a result of vitamin-A deficiency (Tian 353). It is thus relevant as it is thought that a third of the population in the world would be affected in some way from blindness or deaths due to these diseases. However, the statement has since been received with resistance as some respondents say that rather than the improvement of plant and animal quality, the GMO and the technology of genetic engineering (Tian 360). To counter the claim, the other biological standpoint that opposes GMO is based on the finding that there are associated resistance issues that make the medication less effective. To defend the statement it is stated that production of the genetically engineered organism results in the formation of animal and insect species that are more modified to thrive in their natural environment (Jurkiewicz 5). They argue that while this is beneficial to the plant, it is noted that there is a challenge when medication is directed at these organisms and subsequently causes lower responses. For example, some strains of mosquitoes have been cited to have developed a resistance to pesticide DDT, and there are other concerned that they might become resistant to B.t and other genetically modified medications. Those who oppose the use of the drugs justify their assertion from the finding and which has motivated them to think that there are no benefits from the use of GMO. However, to counter the claims, it is affirmed that there are more studies which have indicated that the technology is good compared to those that cite that it is a bad technology.

It is further affirmed that the concept of GMO needs t be factored because the crops can be modified to eliminate the negative effects that are common and instead make them less harmful. A significant finding has been the realization that foods often tend to be changed in some way through the gene manipulation techniques and in the process, they could result in better foods (Guevara-Lara 611). The process is achieved by ensuring that the foods are prepared by targeting and eliminating the gene that causes a defect such as an allergy, and in the process, the resulting product will not cause allergy to the user. The most significant case in literature is that nuts would often be altered so at the remains to be a great product that is devoid of adverse effects and most notably allergy. In fact, the gene manipulation process can also be suited better and in the process enable the production of foods that have therapeutic potential rather than those that have medical disadvantages. Meanwhile, the counterarguments that have been forwarded on this subject have been based on the fact that it is likely that the world will end up depending on transnational biotech processes that will be used to supply seeds and chemicals. It is thought that such setbacks will be costly in the long run because by targeting and eliminating there are additional processes that call for additional costs (Miller and Brooke 4). However, while it is plausible to defend the statement it is affirmed that the subject of costs should always be highlighted with precautions and with consideration of whether the ends justify the means. It is relevant because it creates the feeling that those who oppose are ready to treat adverse effects use medical products the natural and biological way yet they tend to opt for the more tedious and more damaging alternative.

It is also important to highlight that the support for the use of GMO is based on the fact that it is possible to produce better yields that are not only of better quality but that can also withstand harsh environmental conditions. The challenge of food security is largely relevant in this case because, in many parts of the world, the land cannot be used for agricultural production. It is then that the use of genetic engineering proves to be relevant because it is possible to manipulate the genetic make-up of a plant to suit the climatic conditions of a given place and thus make it possible to practice farming of any kind (Kucinich 217). In fact, it is a strategy that can be used for both animals and plants and in the process result in better yields that are relevant to the conditions. Reports have indicated that there are even more products that cannot be produced and many of them are resistant to the challenging climatic factors. It is asserted that “Advances have also been made in developing crops that mature faster and tolerate aluminum, boron, salt, drought, frost, and other environmental stressors, allowing plants to grow in conditions where they might not otherwise flourish” (Wolf 178). The impression that that one gets is that of a product that is highly resistant, and that can help many populations engage in more widespread economic farming practices to ensure there is increased food production and subsequently, the food security. However, the benefit has still been subject to critical analysis with some respondents arguing that it is not feasible that GMO and the technology surrounding it can be used as references. It is said that the crop developments often tend to benefit the northern counties and markets but they do not have the same effects on the small-scale farmers (Mawunou and Maroodza 22). Respondents argue that it would be feasible to defend the statements if it has been established that there is a way that the developing nations would benefit. In summing their arguments, many believe that food security can only be best understood by arguing it in the perspective of the equal distribution of resources, equity in the access to food, and the availability of inputs such as land and money (Mawunou and Maroodza 20). However, it is worth highlighting that the argument raised by those who oppose the idea as a solution to food crisis fail to consider that the technology behind the use of gene manipulation is intended to ensure that countries are self-sufficient and self-suitable. It is thus unlikely that a country will depend on the more developed countries for land and money when they are able to produce plant species that can grow in their respective countries.

Conclusion

In summary, it is worth underscoring that the justification for the use of GMO and gene manipulation technology is a controversial topic but that holds better outcome for humanity as it is based on the fact that it will result in better foods that will ensure that the human species realizes the dream of better health and food security. A majority of the arguments that have been raised are founded on the fact that scientists have used technological advances to improve the food production processes. However, there have been instances where counterarguments are raised to oppose the methodologies used in the production process or the results that are anticipated. While such hold value, it has been found that many of the counterstatements lack validity and are based on misconceptions and myths related to the use of GMO. It is thus affirmed that based on the research findings, the subject of genetically modified organisms being used for food production seems to be the future of the world with the increases in population. It is thus recommended that government ought to support scientific effort through providing for research facilities to ensure that better system are put in place.

Works Cited

Bakshi, Anita. “Potential Adverse Health Effects of Genetically Modified Crops.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, vol. 6, no. 3, 2003, pp. 211-225.

Barnato, Katy. ”GM foods are safe for humans and the environment, top scientists say.” CNBC, CNBC.com, Accessed 16 Nov. 2017.

Gilli, Rosario S. ”Genetically Modified Organisms in MERCOSUR.” The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches, 2010, pp. 274-298.

Goyal, Parul, and Stuti Gurtoo. ”Factors Influencing Public Perception: Genetically Modified Organisms.” GMO Biosafety Research, 2011.

Guevara-Lara, Fidel. ”Role of Genetically Modified Organisms in Food Safety.” Microbiologically Safe Foods, pp. 611-631.

Howarth, Anita. ”Genetically Modified Organisms and European Journalism.” Genetically Modified Organisms in Food, 2016, pp. 257-265.

Jurkiewicz, Anna. ”Attitudes of Polish Adolescents toward Genetically Modified Organisms and Genetically Modified Food.” Genetically Modified Organisms in Food, 2016, pp. 413-421.

Kucinich, Dennis J. ”Genetic Engineering.” Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture, 2001, pp. 217-224.

Marstrand, Pauline. “The world food crisis.” Food Policy, vol. 4, no. 1, 1979, pp. 61-62.

Mawunou, Zinse, and Rangarirai G. Maroodza. ”Globalization and Economic Development: What is Francophone Africa Benefiting from Asian Emerging Economies and the West?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011.

Miller, Henry I., and Graham Brookes. ”A ‘Genetically Engineered’ Label: Way More Expensive Than You Think.” Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, vol. 21, no. 3, 2015.

Reichman, Daniel. ”Cultures of Corn and Anti-GMO Activism in Mexico and Colombia.” Food Activism,

Tian, Li. ”Carotenoids, Genetically Modified Foods, and Vitamin A Nutrition.” Genetically Modified Organisms in Food, 2016, pp. 353-360.

Van Eenennaam, Alison. ”Gene editing: Breeding or GMO?” National Institutes of Bioscience Journal, vol. 1, no. 0, 2017.

Wolf, Clark. ”Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods.” Labeling Genetically Modified Food, 2008, pp. 178-200.