Genetically Modified Food - Research Paper Example

Genetically Modified Food BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Genetically Modified Food Introduction Food that has been altered through scientific measures, such as altering DNA sequences of agricultural products or injections of hormones into living cattle to increase beef yields, has posed considerable debate in the 21st Century. Research suggests that these processes to modify food products have the ability to improve agricultural yields, make foods resistant to certain pests and diseases, or simply help to manage the global food crisis by making agriculture adaptable to a variety of different environmental conditions. This process is also conducted through a process known as recombinant DNA technology, giving the altered food product the label of being genetically modified. All of these efforts to improve yield and enhance durability of food products continue to meet with ongoing resistance due to issues of ethics, religion, or fears of competition from organizations involved in foods manufacture. This report identifies the advantages and problems with genetically modified foods at the political, social, and health sustainability levels. The Magnitude of Issues First and foremost, the concept of using biotechnology to improve or modify the condition of different food products creates political issues that are far-reaching. Says one expert in the field, “The regulation of agricultural biotechnology continues to be the subject of one of the most difficult and intractable disputes in the transatlantic relationship” (Carrau, 2010, p.285). There are different cultural and societal viewpoints in different regions of the globe that either support or refute the validity or sustainability of these practices, therefore no global consensus can be reached. The European Union and the United States are two of the largest proponents for introducing genetically modified foods into the global food supply, while countries such as India continue to oppose this activity for food products. Coupled with the regulatory body known as the World Trade Organization (WTO), that often acts as an intermediary in these disputes, movement of these scientifically-modified products continues to move at a slow pace. Since many opponents and proponents of this activity are involved with the WTO, political relationships are impacted, often negatively, as the dispute is allowed to continue. In an effort to maintain positive political relationships between nations, this issue is often put on the proverbial back burner in favor of more mutually-rewarding scientific outcomes. There is also a growing consumer trend for organically-farmed products, or those products that are produced without the assistance of different pesticides. This demand continues to grow as consumers grow more concerned about the agricultural process and their own personal health. Currently, only a very modest three percent of crops grown in the United States are the product of organic farming (Herper, 2010). It is argued that genetically modified agricultural products, with their ability to, ideally, resist pests and disease can improve organic options for consumers by improving crop yields. However, social and political resistance to these efforts continues to limit organic food options when authorities yield to concerns about health and safety at the consumer level. There are also geopolitical concerns that have arisen in areas of competition, where more developed countries are able to produce more food options through genetic manipulation than their less-developed counterparts. The GM seed market, in 2009, represented profitability of $10.5 billion, with crops grown from these seeds valued at over $130 billion (The Economist, 2010). Poor countries, without access to the scientific resources needed to grow similar GM crops, concern themselves that they will be overshadowed by larger, more scientifically-oriented nations and will be eliminated from competing once they gain the resources to accomplish similar outcomes. In this situation, foreign opposition to flooding the food market with these products tends to limit their exposure on consumers’ plates. As one advantage to genetic modification, there is a continuing trend in the global food market that has many different meat and agricultural products witnessing significant rises in cost. In 2007, global wheat and rice prices have more than doubled, leaving poorer countries with fewer resources to feed the needy (Staley, 2009). These rising prices can be explained by increased foreign demand for diets similar to their Westernized counterparts, unpredictable and changing weather patterns, and rising demand for biofuels that command high volumes of certain agricultural crops (Bradley, 2008). Genetically modified foods have the ability, in the best case scenario, to improve yields on a variety of different food products and could lessen the financial burden faced by less-developed nations in the face of ongoing food price increases. India has recently agreed to remove restrictions on certain genetically modified crops, such as cotton, therefore allowing GM cotton to be a common practice. However, in this region, there are strong religious beliefs that continue to concern regulators and citizens alike about the ethical construct of this process and they refuse to budge (Lamont, 2009). Cultural and religious beliefs are a powerful factor in the slow process of adopting routine GM agriculture to continue and this has the potential to sour relationships with more progressive nations. At the business level, certain food and beverage manufacturers are concerned that genetically modified foods could cause them serious profit problems when competition from foreign or domestic growers begins to build. In the European Union, a recent piece of legislation demands that applicants desiring to develop GM products must gain this authorization five years prior to entering new markets with their modified foods (Osborn, 2009). This looks to be an effort to ensure that food manufacturers have ample time to change their business models to adapt to rising food supply to guarantee profitability or develop their own research and development teams to prevent heavier competition. Pressures from food manufacturers are yet another reason why this process continues to meet with global resistance. At the consumer level, many people in global society are simply concerned that they will experience adverse health reactions to GM food products and are resistant to adopt them. “The standard approach to deal with these perceived risks is known as the precautionary principle, one that considers biotech foods unsafe until proven otherwise” (Bongyu, Billingsley, Younis and Nwagwu, 2009, p.192). Though this is a logical activity in order to protect human health, such research is quite expensive and would involve years of incorporated studies in order to measure whether any adverse health reactions are noticed. Because of the cost of these research efforts to satisfy the social condition, many nations or scientists would rather abandon the practice than endure the costs and labor of this effort to prove otherwise. There is also a third party influence that continues to impact forward progression of genetic modification, especially surrounding how the media continues to portray these scientific breakthroughs. Terms that are commonly used in media releases about GM activities include “Frankenfoods, unreliable, disaster, risks of cancer, environmental risks, and food health fears” (Knight and Paradkar, 2008, p.1019). Even though it is the responsibility of reputable news sources to deliver information in a fashion that is unbiased, oftentimes the method by which GM is represented continues to strike fear into consumers’ minds, making them resistant to these foods when released into the global supply chain. As one example, news reports highlighted several scientific breakthroughs in agricultural genetic modification related to corn. However, after spotlighting these efforts, noticeable and measurable decreases in demand for taco shells was noticed as a result of third party intervention (Lusk and Rozan, 2008). It is likely that if other agricultural products had been spotlighted similarly by different third party media sources, demand for these products would also decrease. This biased reporting of scientific discoveries tends to create very large risks to business’ profit margins, or to the profit expectations of the companies or institutions responsible for ongoing research and development into genetic modification. Third party influence plays an enormous factor in the pace by which these foods are adopted by global society and it should be addressed, especially considering it is the media’s absolute duty to present information without slant or personal bias. Especially if these news organizations are trusted, long-standing brands with high viewership, their biased reporting puts the hungry at risk when food supplies continue to be limited based on consumer misconception. Again, at the ethical level, there are also considerable issues with improving and advancing genetic foods modification because people believe it an unnatural science that goes against God or evolution, depending on personal values. “Some feel that respect for life implies that there should be no interference with it in this basic way. They protect the integrity of nature” (Polkinghorne, 2000, p.8). This type of outcry is often witnessed with organizations such as Greenpeace that continually challenge issues such as animal consumption, which by any definition is a natural part of the animal or human life cycle. In nature, animals devour one another which continues to keep nature balanced and certain species under population control. When another third party entity challenges right to life, they are basing it on personal opinion, however the damage they cause to GM progression is just as significant. It is the responsibility of national and international leaders to respond to the needs of society and, whether their opinion is valid or not, they have a responsibility to heed these concerns. Therefore, again, GM advancement moves at a very slow pace, putting the global hungry at risk. Conclusion Most of the evidence provided by scientists continues to reinforce that genetic modification of food products is safe and can provide rather rapid answers to growing problems with limited global food supply. Concerns over their safety seem to be drawn at the personal level, based on associations with different religious affiliations or due to third party influence such as biased and slanted media reporting. Research did not uncover any case studies that showed deaths or harmful genetic effects on humans for those that have been studied after consuming these products regularly, therefore it looks as though most social objections can be dismissed without much legitimate effort on behalf of the scientific community. Without this type of concrete data, the instances of resistance are attributed to mostly cultural problems that are clearly unique to each region or ruling party that offers these objections. This report identified the problems associated with improving genetic modification of food products at the social, political and human health levels and the research uncovered the very strong ability of third party entities to halt or slow this progression. At risk of causing political problems, leaders simply address different issues that have the ability to reach consensus while hungry people would likely clamor for a taste of any GM product if it sustained their health and well-being. References Bongyu, M., Billingsley, G., Younis, M. and Nwagwu, E. (2009). “Genetically modified foods and public health debate: Designing programs to mitigate risks”, Public Administration and Management, Middletown, 14(1), pp.191-218. Bradley, Anusha. (2008). “A lot on their plates”, Supply Management, 13(17), pp.22-27. Carrau, Javier G. (2010). “When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods”, Common Market Law Review, 47(1), pp.285-287. Herper, Matthew. (2010). “Green Genes”, Forbes, New York. 185(3), p.20. Knight, J. and Paradkar, A. (2008). “Acceptance of genetically modified food in India: Perspectives of gatekeepers, British Food Journal, 110(10), p.1019. Lamont, James. (2009). “India opens way for genetically modified food crop”, Financial Times, London. October 16, p.3. Lusk, J. and Rozan, A. (2008). “Public Policy and Endogenous Beliefs: The Case of Genetically Modified Food”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Logan, 33(2), pp.270-290. Osborn, Alan. (2009). “EU pushes ahead with additives and labeling legislation for food and drinks sector: Management briefing, novel foods”, Just-Drinks, Bromsgrove, March, p.13. Polkinghorne, J.C. (2000). “Ethical issues in biotechnology”, Trends in Biotechnology, 18(1), pp.8-10. Staley, Louise. (2009). “Engineering Plenty”, Institute of Public Affairs, 61(3), pp.20-22. The Economist. (2010). “Leaders: Attack of the really likeable tomatoes; Genetically modified food”. 394(8671), p.16. Read More