An In-depth Study of GMOs and Associated Issues
A Brief analysis of GMO Historical and its theoretical underpinning s
History and countries orientation
Though the history of GMO can be traced back to the onset of the 19th century when Charles Darwin concluded his natural selection theory, greater emphasis has been given to the last two decades development due to GMOs intensified use in addressing various problems in the society. In the last decade of the 20th century, the Flavor Savr Tomato was genetically produced with great success to alter its ripening characteristics and therefore suite the market demands (Maliga, 845-846). This development presented the people with a different viewpoint towards GMOs and their possible accrued advantages. Following this success, scientists gathered courage and cloned a sheep at Roslin Research Center of Scotland in 1997 (Hileman). Food and Drugs Administration at this point argued that indeed the genetically modified foods were safe for people to consume. Therefore, the previous requirement for products that were genetically modified to be specially labeled for warning the consumers of negative impacts was lifted. Following this consideration by FDA in the year 2002, sharp resistance from GMO opponents immediately emerged not just in the US but globally. One major question that appears to lack an answer is who between the scientists and the opponents of GMO is indeed telling the truth
Earlier on in the year 1998, the fast growing European Union officials viewed GMOs with contempt and therefore emphasized that all related products be labeled to caution the consumers. Indeed countries such as France and Czech Republic only allowed a few crops to be produced using genetic engineering. As Jennifer (349-350) explains the reaction by the greatly cautious European Union sent strong ripples that were further exaggerated or poorly interpreted to reflect GMOs to be bad. Two years later in the year 2000, Russia, Australia and Japan passed legislations that discouraged GMOs and required all related products to have clear warning labels. In Canada, Jos, Montserrat and Bruce (101-102) report that though GMOs use is considered safe by the government, a tug of war has remained since the onset of the 21st century with several private bills to declare GMOs illegal failing to pass through parliament (Bakshi, 212-214).
Angelika and David (56-57) record that in the year 2004, the United States Department of Agriculture estimated that biotechnology crops in the nation valued about US 44 billion. Globally, over 8.5 million farmers were growing biotechnology crops in the year 2005 with the number rising to 13.3 million by the year 2008 (Holst-Jensen, 1071-1073). By the end of year 2010, Richmond (464-466) estimates that the area under genetically modified corn in the United States will rise from the current 17 million acres to about 50 million acres. Presently, over 1billion acres of land have GMO crops while over 70 of the products in the United States supermarkets shelves have GMO incorporated ingredients (Jennifer, 353-354).
Hategekimana and Beaulieu (2) report that in the year 2001, about 29 of the total corn produced in Canada was from modified seeds. Beside, 24 of soybeans produced in the same year were also modified. Quebec and Ontario, the main Soybeans and corn producing regions in Canada further saw the fast rise in the total acreage of the genetically modified crops from the consideration that they were more resistant to pests compared to others. While explaining the reason why smaller scale farmers (with less than 400 acres) were faster to assimilate GMOs, Hategekimana and Beaulieu (4-6) appears to concur with the views of Verhoog (397) on the reduced demand for more herbicides. Ball (406-407) reports that about 75 of the Canadian supermarket foods and 30,000 items in the grocery shelves are believed to have GM products.
Key issues related to GMO and theoretical underpinnings
Fear of the unknown
As more people get absorbed into the unending debate on GMOs, one major question that appears to recur is whether indeed the ethics quagmire presented in the case is being viewed correctly to address the problem The largest concern over introduction and use of GMOs is the fear of the unknown. Maliga (853-854) argues that despite the security confirmation by scientists at different levels, there is indeed a lot that is not comprehended about the possible latter manifestation of the involved genes and possibility of a widespread disaster. According to the social theory as Wickson (329) explains, decision making should be constructed from the most certain standpoint that creates support by all. From past experiences with GMOs on insecticides as Wickson (344-345) argues, there is a cause for worry. Application of GMO technology results to their transgenic products getting into contact with many non target species and therefore risking the holistic ecological integrity. In addition to that, the long term genetic implications of the genetically modified products has lonely remained a subject of speculation as scientists basements are based on laboratory simulations. However, this is bound to drastically change with the environmental conditions changes being experienced in the globe.
Lack of control for GMOs
In his view, Jos et al (103-104) indicate that people should also be worried of the poor control that characterizes GMOs and their use in the society. The intensified use of GMO plants in the field has already resulted to major silent disasters as loose genes accidentally pollinate other crops in the field (Bakshi, 219). Under this consideration, Claudia (75-76) bitterly laments that indeed the problem is loose and can no longer be tamed. Owing to this consideration, analysts indicate that it might be possible that over 80 of the US population have at one time of the other consumed GMO products (Darrell, 69). Naturally, plants growing in the field easily cross pollinate to produce higher quality products and therefore promoting biodiversity in any ecosystem. However, cross pollination between GMOs and other plants require further studies to establish the expected results. Richmond (466) records that Monsanto GMO company have over the years remained in controversy with other local farmers due to cross pollination of their products. On 30th March of the year 2001, the ruling in favor of the Monsanto Co against a farmer whose plants were pollinated by pollen from neighboring GMO fields was saddening. As Kaufman reports, the movement of the pollens was beyond the farmer or companys control. However, with the law supporting the new GMOs establishment, the farmers are indeed losing their rights to even use local seeds.
Ecological impacts
Ecological analysts have indicated the need for long term assessment of expected ecosystems implications of GMOs. As indicated earlier, the escapee genes either in the field through cross pollination or in GMO scientific processes are increasingly polluting the previously existing genetic pool in the ecosystem. Besides, use of GMO plants is seen as a terminal strategy to many species because they often lack the ability to propagate as experienced with seedless fruits (Verhoog, 391-392). With the earth system being entirely dependent on ecological interdependence, Fletcher (797-798) argues that there is need to worry about sustainability. From the invasive species theory, the GMOs are external invasive species and lack the necessary natural enemy a consideration that leads to their domination and making them a key threat to other species. Every organism in an ecosystem is very critical and operates towards self sustainability. In contrast to this consideration, GMO made pesticides as Angelika and David (71-73) explains pose a major threat to pests in the ecosystem and therefore eliminating their critical in the ecosystem to maintain self sustenance. .
How different entities have taken GMOs development and use
As one of the emerging issues, GMOs developments indeed require careful consideration that can culminate to a harmonically and ethically acceptable conclusion. As a result various entities have taken the issue differently a cfactor that leads to further controversies from their viewpoints.
Social Movements
The concern on safety of the genetically modified foods has led to many social movements strongly opposing the new technology and its products in the market. Based on the notion of uncertainty presented to human health, they indicate that it is critical for more studies to be conducted before such products can be released to the market. According to Holst-Jensen (258-259b), it is argued that food being a major human necessity in life GMOs present the human race with a key threat from their negative implications. The Florence Declaration in Global Food Rights as Richmond (467) explains contributed to the current cold consideration of GMOs in the European Union member countries. Consequently, most products sold in the European Union are required to have precautionary labels for the consumers.
Environmental groups on the other hand have indicated their dislike of the new technology and consider it to be terminal to ecological sustainability. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as Hileman (11) explains considers use of GMO technology as an additional factor towards threatening more species on the globe. While referring to the International Convention on Biological Diversity, Verhoog (395-397) indicates that environmental organizations and lobby groups are accusing the United States Food and Drug Administration for failing to reveal all the information on GMO security and therefore posing one of the greatest threats to ecological sanctity and integrity. Besides, Friends of Earth International (FoEI) has strongly embarked on anti-GMOs campaigns all overt the world and emphasizes on the ecological and human health risks posted by their continued use. In the year 2004, Friends of Earth facilitated the strong push aimed at reducing the pressure put to Sudan and Angola by USAID and WFP in adopting GM aid donation against their will (Friends of Earth, 1). Other organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States and Consumer Union of Japan have strongly advised their members and the public to avoid GMO related products as the only way to remain healthy.
However, World Health organization views the notion of GMOs from a positive viewpoint. WHO indicates that so far, GMOs have been effectively tested and no negative implications have been cited to it (WHO). However, though WHO indicates its consideration towards addressing the problem of food insecurity, the long term viability of the same has often fallen under strong criticism. World Health Organization should seek further emphasis on the impacts to be accrued from GMOs use.
Business community
In his view, Verhoog (399-400) considers the problem of GMO to be simplistic to address, but poorly handled and therefore resulting to extended problems. As a result, various entities view GMOs with contempt and bias their consideration to their own advantage. For instance, the business fraternity considers the benefits to be made out of the whole consideration. Due to GMO products ability to maintain a steady supply of the raw materials, it creates stability for their production systems and therefore a guarantee for their market. Beside, GMO give farmers and other Agri-business stakeholders the advantage of economies of scale (Bakshi, 221-222). However, this strategy has been likened to poisoning the same fruit basket that one feeds from (McHughen, 86). In addition to that, the business community considers application of GMO to be even better in that products such as fruits characteristics could easily be changed to suit the market demand and increase their durability. Though the business community considerations are true, they fail to be holistic in factoring the extended ability of the products to support human health and ecological integrity.
One major aspect that GMOs have ultimately resulted to as Vandana (123-124) indicates, is the inherent costs of producing them. As Vandana continues to say, GMOs unlike the conventional methods, requires the farmers to continuously keep going to the market for seeds to plant every season. Vandana (129-130) further laments that GMOs have taken a different turn where corporate entities see the chance to reap easy profits. In India and other third world countries, GMOs seeds companies require that farmers also take specified pesticides for the plants to effectively meet the target returns.
In her article, from seeds of suicide to seeds of hope, Vandana reports that most third world countries are forced to take loans to apply the new genetic engineering technology. She reports that over the 20,000 farmers in India had committed suicide due to their inability to repay the loans for employing GMO technology in their farms. Most of the genetically modified plants require almost idealistic weather conditions such as water supply and humidity. As a result, Kimberly and Teitel (119) indicates results of GMO success presented from third world countries fail to factor these added considerations and are therefore untrue.
Government
While the social rights movements and the business community appear to take divergent views on GMO, the Canadian government appears to be reading from a different script. According to Fletcher (797-798), GMO policies of Canada have largely been influenced by scientific guidelines that appear to give a nod to the new technology. Canada government has since the year 1992 supported biotechnology research and its application in the country. As a government policy, biotechnology is viewed to present people in the country and indeed in the globe with a sustainable source of food. In the year 2005, massive demonstrations and call for illegalization of GMOs in the country by social groups such as Greenpeace have been met by a strong resistant force from the Canadian government (Richmond, 467). Failure of the standing committee to convince the government to change the biotechnology laws has resulted to GMO products remaining legal to produce and use in the country.
Key questions on GMO
Which approach you believe to be mostleast promising
The social movements approach which requires harmony to be established between the products considerations of reality appears to be more promising in that it factors the demands of human beings first. Jane and Lee (39-40) agree with the social movements consideration that indeed GMOs present a high level of uncertainty to the people and therefore the need to take effective caution. In addition, their emphasis on ecological sustainability presents their inter-generational concerns for mankind. On the other hand, though governments have the overriding forces in influencing the use of biotechnology, it is no doubt that their supporters are fast becoming highly polarized and may eventually face mass resistance as more people through unions and social movements join the fight (David, Cocklin and Jacqui , 145-147).
Where is cooperation required and where it is unlikely
To effectively address the current dilemma, cooperation must be exercised by the different stakeholder. As central legislative authorities, the governments should seek to bring together other stakeholders with regard to the contentious areas that are critical towards reducing the current uncertainty. Particularly, Angelika and David (81-82) suggest areas related to research should be expanded to bring specialists of the government, the social movements and the business community. In addition, there should be even greater cooperation in areas of health to determine the suitability of GMO products to human health. However, with genetic engineering beings a highly technological initiative, it will be hard to cooperate in areas of environment where the resulting products such as pollen from genetically modified rice move to the local plantations (Jeroen, 593-594).
Most critical questions to be answered for this topic
Why has the GMOs dilemma persisted for a long time
Are the presented theoretical considerations genuine and oriented towards addressing the problem
What has or is being done to address the problem in the society
What are the international considerations of the problem
Are there signs that the problem will be addressed in the near future
What measures further stapes should stakeholders take to address the problem
Are there certain theoretical perspectives dominant or excluded by those addressing the issue
While addressing the problem of GMO by the governments as the central authority and the peoples representatives on key issues, Bakshi (224) argues that there is great omission of ethical concerns. Fletcher (797-798) argues that though feeding the people is indeed very crucial, it is more dangerous to threaten their health because of two core factors. First, the expected negative results are unclear and therefore making it even harder to prepare for it. Then the resulting problem may indeed obscure the benefits that had been accrued and perhaps form an expanded basis. For example, if use of GMO products results to ecological breakdown, the resulting implication which could include climate change, irregular weather patterns, and loss of biodiversity are very hard to restore (Wickson, 331-333).
Explain how this research has changed or enhanced your opinion. What will you as an individual can do as a result of your research
Over the years, I have held the opinion that genetically modified organisms are the best way to go and opponents were not genuine. Particularly, the reports and pictures of starving people strengthened my conclusion. As a result, my mind became highly polarized towards the problem as opposed to holistically analyzing it and its possible negative implications. However, this study has effectively revealed new insights on related problems that should be considered simultaneously if the food problem is to be addressed effectively. There is need to assess the possible future impacts of using GMO in the society before it can be considered safe. In addition, it is crucial to involve all the stakeholders in the society and therefore incorporate their concerns to gather greater support at all levels of GMO technology. To effectively address it therefore, it must be viewed for the global point of vie as opposed to the localized outlook. Finally, I will seek to create a forum that can bring together major stakeholders through dialogue on key issues and therefore harmonize their understanding on the problem. From this forum, I will seek to expand the involvement of the different professionals and therefore make key recommendations that could be assimilated to address the problem.
Summary and conclusion
Technological advancements in the globe remain some of the most important aspects for the human kind existence. GMOs present the apex of the historical search for the answer to the food problem in the society. However, the controversy emerging form the same technological application was brought out in the paper to have culminated to the current dilemma between the different entities in the community. The key issues presented in this document came out to be very critical and pertinent to the whole world. The fear of unknown was presented to bring key rifts between the implementing units mostly the government and the social movements. Ecological impacts and poor control of the different GMO products were further considered to increase the overall threats that people and the ecosystems are faced with. Various stakeholders differing viewpoints further led to intensification of the dilemma as it appears to have shifted from the ethical orientation to economic competition among them.
From the above discussion, the problems posted by GMO technology application are very crucial and require urgent address due to the looming uncertainty. As a result this paper concludes by supporting the thesis statement, though invention and development of genetically modified organisms has remained a center of controversy for long, its assimilation and full application requires a more in-depth evaluation to facilitate holistic address of the current global food problems. The technology must be employed with greater openness and future focus to reduce the negative implications arising from it. In addition to that, there must be clear cooperation between the different stakeholders in addressing the problem with the main focus being sustainability. Comparing the past and the future it is no doubt that the future is indeed brighter owing to the high level criticism that seeks improvement while inferring the least minimal impacts.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment