Genetic Modification: Growing Global Population - Essay Example

 Genetic Modification: Growing Global Population Even though "biotechnology" and "genetic modification" normally are used interchangeably, GM is a particular lay down of technologies that amend the genetic structure of such living organisms as animals, plants, or bacteria. Biotechnology, a further broad term, refers to by living organisms or their components, for instance enzymes, to make products that comprise wine, cheese, beer, and yogurt (Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms, Online). According to Evenson and Santaniello (2004), during 2003, around 167 million acres (67.7 million hectares) developed via 7 million farmers in 18 countries were planted with Genetic Modified crops, the major ones being herbicide- and insecticide - opposing soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola. Other crops grown-up commercially or field-experienced are a sweet potato defiant to a virus that could destroy the majority of the African crop, rice with enlarged iron and vitamins that might assuage chronic undernourishment in Asian countries, and a diversity of plants proficient to stay alive weather extremes. During 2003, countries that cultivated 99% of the global Genetic Modified crops were the United States (63%), Argentina (21%), Canada (6%), Brazil (4%), China (4%), and South Africa (1%). While development is predictable to be raised in industrialized countries, it is growing in emergent countries. The subsequent decade will see exponential development in Genetic Modified product expansion as researchers expand increasing and unparalleled right to use the genomic assets that are valid to organisms further than the extent of individual developments. According to Cummins, Ronnie, and Lilliston (2000) technologies intended for genetically modifying (GM) foods present spectacular assurance for meeting some regions of maximum confronts for the 21st century. Similar to all novel technologies, they also pretense a number of dangers, both identified and unidentified. Disagreements adjoining Genetic Modified foods and crops usually spotlight on human and ecological safety, labeling and consumer selection, intellectual possessions rights, ethics, food safety, poverty lessening, and environmental protection. According to Ruse and Castle (2002, Pg 32-33) increasingly, genetically modified foods are making their way to the marketplace. Since they are not labeled, consumers generally do not know that they are eating such products. Not everyone is comfortable with the present system. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 1996, about 8 million U.S. acres were devoted to crops that had been genetically engineered. By 1998, that figure was up to 67 million acres . A March 2000 article in Frozen Food Age noted that in 1996 only 2% of all soybeans were genetically modified. By 2000, that figure was up to more than half. “About a third of corn (maize, or hard corn used for corn meal—not sweet cob corn) has also been genetically modified” (Ando, Amy and Madhu, 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) say that GMO’s are satisfying the layers of shelves in stores. “Tomatoes, potatoes, squash, corn, and soybeans have been genetically distorted throughout the budding science of biotechnology. So have ingredients in the whole lot from ketchup and cola to hamburger buns and cake mixes” . A 2000 article in Better Homes and Gardens said, “By one estimation, 70 percent of the developed foods sold in the United States surround some GM [Genetically Modified] elements” (Pollack, 2004). In the meantime, a 2000 article in Current Health distinguished, “If you’ve gobble up down a crunchy taco, a bowl of cornflakes, a baked potato, or cheese pizza recently, probability is that you’ve consumed genetically engineered foods”. The controversy shows no sign of diminishing. GMO opponents present some compelling arguments. The Organic Consumers Association contends that genetic engineering deconstructs basic, fundamental genetic barriers between species. “By uniting the genes of different and not related species, eternally shifting their genetic codes, new organisms are shaped that will pass the genetic changes onto their progeny through heredity…. Animal genes and still human genes are being placed in into plants or animals generating unimagined transgenic life”. Completely new organisms will be created. The association believes that these have the potential to compromise human health and well-being, animal welfare, and the environment. The Health Authorities considers that current farming methods are responsible for many factors leading to ill health including raised fat in diet and obesity. Coronary heart disease was cited as being the single most common cause of death in 26% of all deaths in UK in 1991. According to Becker (New York Times, 2004) supporters of Genetically Modified (GM) Farming advocate that GM crops have an increased resistance level; improved nutritional content and any desired change can be achieved in very few generations. These advantages in turn benefit consumers in terms of improved flavour, texture and vitamins. The added benefits to farmers include unproved yields with reduced use of pesticides, the ability to grow crops in a drought or extreme temperatures, and an improved ability to feed the increasing world population at reduced environmental costs and waste reduction. According to Fedoroff and Brown (2004, Pg 98-99) some people contend that the negative publicity that consumer groups generate about GMO’s is most harmful to the world’s most vulnerable people—the poor. They say that unlike residents of wealthier countries, large segments of the population of developing countries worry about dying from malnutrition and starvation. By using GMOs, farmers in developing countries may harvest more crops with less pesticide. Playing on this theme, frequently appearing television and magazine ads have featured rice that has been genetically altered with a daffodil gene. As a result of that modification, the rice contains beta-carotene, which the body converts into vitamin A. The ads claim that by eating this form of “Golden Rice,” countless numbers of people in poorer countries will be spared blindness (Ford, 2000). According to the Rockefeller Foundation, about 400 million people may be in danger of vitamin A deficiency. Of these, 100 to 200 million are children. Mammals do not manufacture vitamin A, so it must be obtained through the diet. People who eat lots of fruits and vegetables and animal products obtain adequate amounts. Millions of people are not as fortunate. “1.0 to 2.5 million deaths per year of preschool children—up to 30% of total deaths in that age group—could potentially be averted by bringing vitamin A deficiency under control worldwide…. Combined with expanded vitamin A supplementation programs—which will continue to be important—Golden Rice is expected to make a major contribution to improving the health of millions of the world’s poorest children”. Regardless, it is impossible to deny that the population of the world is growing at a sometimes mind-boggling rate. Presently, the world has about 5 billion people. By the year 2050, that figure will double to 10 billion. Large numbers of these people will live in the developing world, where hunger is rampant. The International Food Information Council states, “By growing a crop’s capability to survive environmental factors, growers will be competent to farm in parts of the world at present inappropriate for harvest production. Together with supplementary food, this could offer the economies of developing nations with much-needed occupations and greater yield”. EarthSave International disagrees with the notion that genetic engineering may play an important role in feeding the world’s growing population. “World hunger is not a dilemma of technology or inadequate creation, but first and foremost one of uneven sharing and economic dissimilarity. As farmers lose their territory and move to the cities, they also lose their food-independence and start on to depend on money, frequently in noticeably short contribution for many in the third world countries, to facilitate and buy food that they previously grew themselves” (EarthSave International Web site, 2001). All the same, Ford does not believe that the public should simply accept whatever the bioengineering companies do. Rather, he calls for a careful monitoring of the industry and the introduction of safeguards. “This is a huge new industry, and it will have pronounced effects on us all…. We will need to control it” (Ford, 2001). According to Charles (2000) in current years, controversy over genetically modified (GM) food is reaching ever-greater heights. There are a couple of opinion put ahead saying we do want it - one that we require GM food to nourish the people of the world - the other is that it is the means forward for British and European agriculture. From the studies of Mark and Myrna (2002, Pg 16-17) the truth is that there is enough food in the world to supply everyone. It is poverty and disparity that guides to people not receiving adequate. The making of GM food is aggravated by revenue. As far as agriculture in the UK and Europe goes, all the believed reimbursement of GM foods are totally tentative, yet we know that it is methodically, quantifiably established that natural agriculture is better. There is a necessity to twice the food supply by 2025 due to population increase, alterations in diets and natural disasters brought about by weather transform. Less arable land will be obtainable and there will be a requirement to obliterate. And environmentally, we can create agriculture more sustainable by lesser pesticide use and by rising competence through manufacturing higher yields. We require producing more food on less land and doing so in a more sustainable way. More primary habitat unless technology convenes confronts. (Dr. Ian Taylor is the Scientific Political Adviser for Greenpeace, and Clive Rainbird is Biotechnology Communications Manager for manufacturers AgrEvo, May 1999.) From the studies of Scott and Juliane (2006) no GM products are permissible into the food chain if there is any probability of damage to human healthiness. All such foodstuffs are, and have been, subjected to severe directive at both UK and pan-European levels. This means that we can encompass even better assurance in the security of GM than non-GM food (non-GM foods are not focus to the similar level of inspection). Protection evaluations of GM foods are fairly dissimilar from those that were functional in the case of BSE, which has condensed the public's assurance in the authoritarian process. With BSE, the supposition was that the public would not be uncovered to the danger. With GM foods, it is implicit that the public will eventually eat it and it is the penalty of revelation to them that are evaluated so that these crops are only approved if they are publicized to be safe. (BBC NEWS, AgrEvo, Tuesday, 18 May 1999) According to Scott (2004) the public desires to be guaranteed that no human or animal genes have been used in any of the GM crops that are presently being commercially developed anyplace in the world. In his book, Dave (2004, Pg 34-35) says advocates of G.M.O’s squabble that approximately each organism that humans use -- whether grains, vegetables, cattle or pigs --- has previously been "modified" by centuries of careful reproduction that has nipped definite desirable uniqueness and required to get rid of less pleasing ones. According to Scott (2004, Wall Street Journal) the naturally happening antecedent of the potato, for example, was poisonous until selectively bred for human utilization. "G.M. is just much faster than traditional cross-breeding," says a spokesperson from The Biotech Industry Organization, a G.M.O. "information, sponsorship and business support group." "You can be more accurate and achieve change in a generation with biotech that would take many generations with traditional cross-breeding. In Hawaii biotech saved the day lately. There was a virus that affected the papaya crop, and without biotech the crop would have been permanently wiped out, no doubt about it", says a spokesperson from The Biotech Industry Organization, a G.M.O. information, sponsorship and business support group. Monsanto assert that biotech permits them to manufacture crops that fight plant pests, are easier to process and hold precious extra nutrients. In addition it's possible to incorporate traits for certain nutrients. Many health problems in the Third World are related to malnutrition, something G.M.Os can address. For example G.M.O. Golden Rice has high levels of Vitamin A/Beta Carotene [C.H.K.], the lack of which is responsible for 1000s of cases of childhood blindness and immune deficiencies (Hegarty, 2000). According to Morris (CNN.Com, Friday, May 5, 2006), "It's not a magic bullet -- many Third World problems are political, not agricultural. But methodically it has the potential to make a real difference. There's no scientific confirmation that G.M.Os harm humans. Quite the contrary: The health benefits of G.M.Os, in terms of food security, better diet and nutrition will be overwhelmingly constructive." Most of them maintain Genetically Modified Farming and Contemporary Farming. They contain customary and severe farming methods that happened after the Second World War. They dispute that "Organic agricultural" does not have a prospect. Contemporary Farming supporters (Huggett & Meyer, 1980; Seddon, 1989, Hudson 1992, and Sasson 1994) emphasize the advantages of producing strangely high yields as agreeing food contribution and really increasing choice in addition to making food reasonable to the customer. However, none of them measured the political and public hold up as well as the heavy subsidies that have all led to higher output and greater competence. Supporters of Genetically Modified (GM) agricultural promote that GM crops have an increased struggle level; enhanced nutritional content and any preferred modification can be attained in very few generations (Coster 1997, Avery 1999). These rewards in turn benefit consumers in terms of better flavour, texture and vitamins. The additional benefits to farmers comprise unproved yields with compact use of pesticides, the aptitude to grow crops in a drought or severe temperatures, and an improved skill to feed the rising world population at reduced environmental costs and waste lessening. Much of the disagreement to G.M.Os focuses on "Frankenstein Foods," and there is substantial public concern about eating G.M.Os. Something disproved by advocates of the crops. "Most G.M.Os undergo thorough lab testing to check human and animal tolerance," argues Morris. "If something is found to cause an adverse reaction, it is not put on sale, it's as easy as that. Conventional crops don't have that advantage." However, says Oxborough (CNN.Com, Friday, May 5, 2006), "All the testing is carried out by the G.M.O. companies. There's no independent scrutiny. We believe that warning signals are being ignored." "The biotech industry asks scientists to do the research," said a representative from The Biotech Industry Organization, "then in the U.S., for example, the Food and Drug Administration looks at the data and draws its own conclusions. The R&D for a new product is exact and takes 6 to 12 years. No products are rushed out." The discussion rages on. Hardly any technologies are as contentious as G.M.Os, and there's no lack of opinions, and believable influence on both sides: There isn't much that's added political than the food we eat. But whatever the industry and experts argue, eventually you -- the customer -- will have to ponder up the options accessible, and make a decision (Morris; CNN.Com, Friday, May 5, 2006). Conclusion Though the controversy shows no sign of diminishing, the market for genetically engineered crops continues to grow. In 1995, global sales were projected at $75 million. Five years later, that had reached about $3 billion. By 2005, the figure is expected to climb to $8 billion. But, future research may change the public’s opinion of genetically modified foods. Having analysed and assessed the recompense and drawbacks of both opinions in this learning, it could be said that Genetically Modified Foods and Pesticides could have a dazzling prospect if deliberately subjugated. Rising stress from consumers for safer and improved food will very much be encouraged and promoted Genetically Modified Foods. A main benefit is that it is now a recognized truth that health is enhanced by eating food created by natural techniques rather through GM or Contemporary production methods. In addition, Genetically Modified Foods not only offers more service, as more farmers are obligatory to job on the land but also suggest an improved work surroundings it uses natural methods for restoring soil richness by using crop revolving and it controls weeds physically with integrated pest supervision. It appears now that, the chief restraint pertaining to Genetically Modified Foods and Pesticides are only mythology proposed by over- powerful rich organisations and political parties which make lots of money out of current circumstances. These organisations maybe, could be reliant on the chemicals, technology, science invention and development for big profit. The cost of changing them to Genetic Modification could be excessively high. Consequently, the genuine answer, for prospect of Genetic Modification in farming, lies somewhere else, further than any agricultural horizons. Though, it is obvious that the full prospective of Genetic Modification has not been subjugated due to the requirement of money spend on its expansion opposing to the case with Contemporary and GM production. Eventually, one could summarise that the potential of agriculture lies in telling the full prospective of, Genetically Modified Foods and Pesticides in the UK and worldwide. This would guide to a very hopeful potential for the Genetic production business. Though, a mixed policy of economic, social and legal improvement is required in order to ultimately provide for the growing populace of the UK and the rest of the world, ~ while not recalling the deprived amongst them. The initial steps are educating to use old abilities in innovative ways and taking the course of agriculture out of the hands of public servants, the chemical industry, the agribusiness and supermarkets, and placing it where it fits in - in the hands of the farmers. Bibliography Ando, Amy W., and Madhu Khanna. “Environmental Costs and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops.” American Behavioral Scientist, November 2000, 44(3): 435–463. Becker Elizabeth; Europe Approves Genetically Modified Corn as Animal Feed, New York Times; 7/20/2004, Vol. 153 Issue 52916, pC11-C11, 999p. Coster P.; Farming and industry, London: Watts, (1997). Pg 16-46. Morris; CNN.Com, Friday, (May 5, 2006). Online: Genetically Modified Food. Cummins, Ronnie, and Ben Lilliston. Genetically Engineered Food. New York: Marlowe and Company, 2000. Evenson R E, Santaniello   V.; Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods, CABI Publishing, (1st Jan 2004), ISBN: 0851997473. Pg 235. Fedoroff Nina, Brown   Nancy; Mendel In The Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Food, Joseph Henry press, (2004), ISBN: 0309092051. Pg 352. Ford, Brian J. The Future of Food, New York: Thames and Hudson, 2000. Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms, Online: [EXAMPLE :ACCESSED 18/05/06] Grigg D.; An Introduction to Agricultural geography, 2"d Ed, London: Routledge, (1995). Pg 86-201. Halford G. Nigel; Genetically Modified Crops, Imperial College Press, (1st Oct 2003), ISBN: 1860943535. Pg 112. Hatherill J. Robert; Online: http://www.earthsave.org, (August 5, 2001), http://www.earthsave.org/pdf/spring2000.pdf Hegarty, P. Vincent. “Covering Issues in Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s).” Quill, April 2000, 88(3): 25. Huggett R. & Meyer I.;, Agriculture, London: Harper & Row Publishers. (1980). Pg 58-92. Mark A. Goldstein M. D., Myrna Chandler Goldstein; Controversies in Food and Nutrition, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. (2002). Pg 246. Marwick, Charles. “Genetically Modified Crops Feed Ongoing Controversy.” JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, January 12, 2000, 283(2): 188–190. Miller Scott, Von Reppert-Bismarck Juliane; EU Seeks to Toughen Reviews Of Genetically Modified Foods, Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition; 4/13/2006, Vol. 247 Issue 86, pA10, 00p. Miller Scott; EU's New Rules Will Shake Up Market for Bioengineered Food, Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition; 4/16/2004, Vol. 243 Issue 75, pA1-A16, 0p. Pollack Andrew; U.N. Unit Sees Great Promise In Biotech Research on Crops, New York Times; 5/18/2004, Vol. 153 Issue 52853, pC8-C8, 1/6p. Ruse Michael, Castle David; Genetically Modified Foods: Debating Biotechnology, Prometheus Books, (November 2002), ISBN: 1573929964. Pg 350. Sasson A.; Biotechnologies and Development, Paris: UNESCO, (1994). Pg 3-15. Seddon Q.; The Silent revolution: Farming and Country side into the 21" century, London: BBC Books, (1989). Pg 3-13, 87-114. Toke Dave; The Politics of GM Food: A Comparative Study of the UK, USA, and EU, Routledge. New York, (2004). Pg 9. Read More