Genetic EngineeringJoin now to read essay Genetic EngineeringGenetic EngineeringGenetic engineering is used to create, improve, or modify plants and animals. Using conventional methods, such as selective breeding, scientists have been working to improve plants and animals for human benefit. Modern methods now enable scientists to move genes in ways they could not before. Many scientists say that this could be the solution to world hunger, other scientists say it is damaging to our earth. Genetically engineered foods have made their way onto our grocery shelves, but there are a growing number of scientists voicing concerns over the spread of these foods into the market place.
Most of what is currently on the market is simply things. Like the first genetically engineered whole product, a tomato went on the market in 1994. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that the new tomato, which could be shipped vine-ripened without rotting rapidly, was as safe as other commercial tomatoes. Since then, there have been many other genetically engineered foods that have been determined by the agency to be as safe as their conventional counterparts.
Richard Hindmarsh believed that “Benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies” (58). Foods like the tomato that have had their genetic material modified so that patented chemicals can be used on the fields they are grown in without killing them. Therefore, the plants themselves act as an insecticide on particular crop pests supposed to be cheaper and easier for the farmer. In fact, what happens is the farmer is trapped into using the patented seeds the chemical company sells, along with the chemical. The export of the technology to poor, third world countries winds up trapping those farmers into a dependence on the patented crops and chemicals.
The farmer and the Monsanto researchers at University of Chicago, Michigan, have also shown that the pesticides have improved their insecticides’ abilities to kill. The results have been published in The Journal of Insect Protection (12) & the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (11) and suggest other scientists are beginning to think like this. I’m not sure if you’re talking about me or if I’m talking about you. If you are, this issue is going to make a lot of sense for a decade or more and I’m sure you’ll agree. But while this might sound a bit out of place right now, in the next few years there may be a lot more people interested in trying to understand what went wrong with the pesticide industry with this.
(Visited 8,235 times, 1 visits today)
Those big companies would love it if every corn plant in the world were their patented variety. That could only be bought from them, and would only produce a crop if used with the chemicals that also have to be bought from them. As numerous well-known scientists point out, genetically engineered foods have not been demonstrated safe through standard scientific testing.
Promila Kapoor Vijay said “Modified organisms resulting from biotechnology which are likely to have adverse environmental impacts that could affect the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account the risks to human health; Prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species” (123). The assumption that producing new varieties of food-yielding organisms through recombinant Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) technology is naturally no more hazardous than doing so through traditional breeding.
Not only is this assumption not proven, the weight of the evidence is against it. Traditional breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar to genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell.
Deeply different from the way it behaves within its native organism and from the way, the engineered organisms own genes behave. Due to its deep differences with traditional breeding, genetic engineering entails unprecedented risks to human health. Because the foreign genes enter the host DNA and disrupt the region into which they wedge, they can alter cellular function in a very negative way. Each of these types of disruption can cause the generation of new substances that have never before been in the species, and these substances can be toxic or otherwise harmful. The FDA also recognized the unique hazards of genetically engineered foods, and they repeatedly warned their superiors about them.
[Crossref]
The FDA’s new policy is to consider new, complex, and costly risk tests that may uncover new and potentially harmful genetic mutations. FDA is in the process of testing synthetic genes, including those that use RNA to produce proteins. These new test techniques are expected to allow regulatory agencies, universities, researchers, and private companies to study how these potential mutations affect public health.
This claim of general recognition of safety remains the sole legal basis for the U.S. marketing of genetically engineered foods, despite the fact, FDA officials are well aware that substantial disagreement exists in the scientific community. If the FDA had told the truth, no genetically engineered foods would currently be marketed, since no other country would have approved them if the U.S. had not. Moreover, regulation in other nations ignores genetically engineered foods unique potential for unpredictable problems, fails to employ the tests recommended by the FDA experts, and instead relies on tests that do not adequately screen for the potential hazards about which they warned.
John Hyde Evans said that we should “Conduct a comprehensive investigation and study to identify the basic ethical principles which should underlie the conduct of biomedical