Genetically Modified Foods †Friend or Foe Essay

In 1998 the get-go genetic bothy change (GM) nutrition was authorise for barroomlic consumption. Since so GM aliments thrust be settle part of the worlds food fork out and atomic number 18 produced in several countries. unpredictable hookup horror stories in the 90s promised dire consequences for introducing GM foods to the human race almost of those problems have failed to arise as promised. near scientists say that GM foods atomic number 18 altogether dependable and the proof might be that we ar on the whole still here to debate the point. GM foods argon non labeled in the coupled estates and meets are that most Ameri seats have already eaten GM foods.Still, how much is be intimaten about the GM foods that Ameri bears are unknowingly feeding to their families? Is managing to croak the experiment the precisely yardstick we should uptake to measure hazard? Genetically modified foods might be touch-and-go and much interrogatorying is desperately neede d to rescind wellness hazards. While the FDA and their scientists say that GM foods are safe, the U. S. government is already awake(predicate) that at that go under have been problems with GM foods. unconstipatedtide before genetic modification became the sedulousness it is today in that location were problems linked with hormonally heighten foods.Small changes in our food tot up pot ca mapping large results. Of course, the problems are clean a small per centum of the whole. In 1998 Harvard Medical School released a study (as cited by Larsen, 1998, 1) showing turn out that a product cognise as Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) increased the chances of homo developing malignant neoplastic disease. Bovine Somatotropin is a hormvirtuoso produced by cattle which is in addition known as Bovine branch Horm 1. The Recombinant spatial relation means it was synthetically produced enjoyment recombinant DNA technology. The synthetic chemical is injected into kine to stimulate take out production.Milk awe in the United States and England were once tempered with this chemical precisely England banned its use after the link between rBST and cancer was shown (Larsen, 1998). The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) says that the chemical is safe and not only approves of its use but does not allow labeling of the products that come from the cows that are injected with rBST (Epstein, 1996 FDA Consumer, 1999). Of secondary hit when dealing with rBST injected cattle is the worry of infection. The more(prenominal)(prenominal) milk a cow produces the more likely it induces that she leave behind suffer from grip inflammation.This inflammation is regularly treated with antibiotics to which the cows are developing a immunity to over time. Not only can this resistance be passed a spacious to the human resistant who drink the milk but humanity can also have hypersensitive reactions to the antibiotic traces left in the milk (Epstein, 1996). In 198 9 approximately 5000 individuals became suddenly ill. This unhealthiness was later traced back to a health food supplement that had been created using GM enhanced bacteria. Of those 5000 people, 37 later died and 1500 were permanently disabled. The toxin which caused the problem was present in only 0. 01% of the product.One percent is below the aim that would have caused concern or a halt of production. In 1996 a federation created a B2 vitamin to be sold with GM bacteria and the FDA approved it as big as any contaminants were not put at greater than 0. 01%. With that standard in place the 1989 toxin problem would not be detected even if it happened today (Antoniou, 1996, 5-6). While the FDA does set the standards in that location is very small(a) actual oversight of the biotech companies. As of 1992 (as cited by Whitman, 2000) the FDA policy is that biotech companies may voluntarily subscribe for a consultation with the FDA.The consultation is not compulsory and even if u sed the telephoner does not have to follow the FDA recommendations. The United States surgical incision of Agriculture (agribusiness) has the power to quarantine dresss that are a danger but the biotech companies do not require a permit from the USDA as long as their product determines a con set of standards created to ensure the caoutchouc of the groom itself. To put it simply, the FDA is responsible for food safety and the USDA is responsible for plant and crop safety (Whitman, 2000, 32-35). The FDA sets the fates that GM foods must(prenominal) meet to be declared safe.The main requirement for safety is that the modified food existence judged is substantially similar to the original non-modified food (Physicians and Scientists for the Responsible Application of Science and technology PSRAST, 2006). For example, if a biomed modified potato is ready to still be substantially equivalent to a regular potato because no further interrogation is needed. The scheme is tha t being substantially equivalent gives them the same level of safety. For a food to be judged substantially equivalent it must be similar on several points, which are chosen by the manufacturers themselves.There must be no overt dissimilarity between the GM food and the non-GM food in regard to taste, appearance, and several points selected by the manufacturer in the areas of chemical report and nutritional composition. The only separate test required is to do an analysis expression for allergen markers. If the computers find no reason to bank that the product can cause allergies then the product is approved. Human testing is neer required (PSRAST, 2006, 20-25). If genetically altering foods is an inherently safe procedure then the above tests are a perfectly logical behavior to test GM foods.If the foods are as unsafe as approximately claim then it is a dangerous policy for the biotech companies and the U. S. government to decide upon. In 1994 the FDA stated that modifie d foods were as safe as their non-modified counterparts and policy decisions have been ground on that statement. The government believes so powerfully in the safety of GM foods that they do not require labeling of any kind to differentiate GM foods from non-modified food sources (Whitman, 2000, 38-43). Since there is no way to differentiate GM from non-GM products there is no way for Americans to know if they are eating GM foods.In 2003 six countries produced 99% of the transgenic crops, also known as GM crops, sold in the world. Of these six countries the United States sold, by far, the largest part of these crops (James, 2003). The chart below lists the acreage of these crops by millions. foretell 1 Obviously, not all is doom and gloom when looking at the above figures. Although biotechnology can do harm it can also benefactor the world, maybe. According to Raney, Pingali, T. R, & R. R. in 2007 a new-sprung(prenominal) variety of rice named palmy strain was modified to pro duce beta-carotene.The rice was substantial specifically to help the starving and unforesightful in third world countries who conk ill from vitamin A deficiencies (p. 108). Three servings of Golden Rice a day will provide an adult with 10% of their chance(a) requirement of Vitamin A. While this does not appear earth shattering it shows a companion attempting to use biotech to help others. Of course, even presume the FDA is right and the problems caused by GM foods are an aberration there is the USDAs bailiwick to ponder. Are the crops safe for the biosphere itself? That is a difficult question to answer, as well.fair like the food safety lie with there are people on both views of this argument who are confident(p) that they are right. On one side are the scientists who fully believe that the foundation garment of GM foods cannot harm the biosphere and on the other are the scientists who believe that impair pollenation will cause problems. According to the Department of n ation and Crop Sciences at cobalt State University (2004) a list of recommended separation distances for GM crops was released by the USDA. According to the USDA if the separation distance is maintained and segmentation crops are plant then the risk for migration or cross pollination is minimal.divider plants are tall plants that will resolution the flow of pollen from wind caused migration. With these precautions in place biosphere damage is supposed to be minimal. A photo taken by Percy Schmeiser and provided by The Nature Institute in 1994 shows that even if the worry of cross pollination or plant migration is overblown it is not an on trial phenomena. The field in the picture was planted with wheat in 1999. In the course 2000 they allowed it to lie fallow, in laymans terms they did not plant anything so to regenerate the soil.They sprayed the soil twice with a weed exhauster known as regular recurrence Up but in some way an herbicide resistant strain of canola plants m igrated into the field. The bushes in the below picture are all a GM crop that was neer planted by the farmer. No one is sure how it appeared in the field (Holdrege, 2004, 11). Figure 2 Even discounting the possibility of inseminate migration via accident or wind there is evermore the chance of cross pollination. With cross pollination one plant can pollinate or breed another(prenominal) plant via insect help or wind that it was not scheduled to pollinate.In this way a plant font that was supposed to be non-GM can be infected with GM genes without the farmer or company being aware of the problem. This has happened before to rice crops that were sold to Europe from the U. S. and caused the temporary halt of rice exports to certain companies in Europe. The rice in question was not approved for human consumption and no one is sure how it appeared either in the field or the food supply (Vogel, 2006). Besides cross pollination and migration one other crop issue need to be addressed .Monsanto has produced crop plants that either mastermind the RNA in insects to kill kill their larvae, are tolerant of herbicides like Round Up to kill off weeds, or produce pesticides of their own to kill vulturine insects (Whitman, 2000, 4-5 Webb, 2007). While these functions are beneficial to farmers in that they save money and protect the crops, there are some concerns with these changes. There is always the possibility of cross breeding or cross contamination affecting a species for which these changes were not intended. There is also the chance that the insect killing modifications will kill off non-pest insects like butterflies.Lastly, there is a chance that plants that produce pesticides will be toxic to the humans or animals that bring it (Whitman, 2000, 18-22). While opinions still vary on GM food safety, what becomes obvious is that there are more questions than answers. More testing and more rigorous safety and master laws are needed to protect the populace from unmeant harm. While GM foods can be a boon to the world they can just as easily become a curse. Disease, poisonings, and even dangers to the biosphere itself are just some of the risks we currently run. The best way to safeguard our future is to demand that coitus takes our safety seriously.References Antoniou, M. (1996). Is GM food innocent(p) of DNA safe. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http//www. purefood. org/ge/noDNA. htm Department of Soil and Crop Sciences at Colorado State University. (2004). Concerns about current farming practices. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http//cls. casa. colostate. edu/TransgenicCrops/croptocrop. hypertext mark-up language Epstein, Samuel S. (1996). Unlabeled milk from cows treated with biosynthetic growth hormones a type of regulatory abdication. International Journal of health Services, 26(1), 173-185. Holdrege, C. (2004).The trouble with genetically modified crops. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http//www.natureinstitute. org/pub/ic/ic 11/gmcrops. htm James, C. (2003). Preview Global status of commercialized transgenic crops 2003. Ithica,NY International Service for the eruditeness of Agri-biotech Applications ISAAA. Larsen, H. (1998).Milk and the cancer connection. Retrieved declination 27, 2007, from http//www. vvv. com/healthnews/milk. hypertext markup language Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and engine room PSRAST. (2006). Inadequate safety assessment of GE foods. Retrieved January 18, 2008, from http//www. psrast. org/subeqow. htm Raney, T. , Pingali, P. , T. R. , & P. P. (2007, September).Sowing a gene revolution. Scientific American, 297(3), 104-111. Retrieved celestial latitude 7, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Safety of rbST Milk Affirmed. (1999, May). FDA Consumer, 33(3), 4. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from EBSCOhost database. Vogel, G. (2006, September).Tracing the transatlantic spread of GM rice. Science, 313(5794), 1714. Webb, S. (2007, November 10). Silencing pests . Science News, 172(19), 292. Retrieved December 7, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Whitman, B. (2000). Genetically modified foods harmful or helpful. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http//www. csa. com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview. php.