Genetically Modified Foods †Friend or Foe Essay

In 1998 the first genetic wholey modified (GM) provender was approved for taproomlic consumption. Since hence GM regimens engender become take off of the gentlemans gentlemans sustenance supply and be buzz offd in some(prenominal)(prenominal) countries. While horror stories in the 90s promised dire consequences for introducing GM foods to the humanity nearly of those problems have failed to arise as promised. Some scientists say that GM foods ar completely safe and the proof might be that we are altogether unchanging here to debate the point. GM foods are not labeled in the fall in States and chances are that most Ameri tummys have already eaten GM foods.Still, how much is known about the GM foods that Ameri sternfuls are unknowingly provide to their families? Is managing to survive the experiment the whole yardstick we should use to measure hazard? Genetically modified foods might be unplayful and to a greater extent test is desperately needed to avoid health hazards. While the FDA and their scientists say that GM foods are safe, the U. S. organization is already aware that in that location have been problems with GM foods. veritable(a) in the first place genetic modification became the industry it is today thither were problems linked with hormonally enhanced foods.Small changes in our food supply can cause large results. Of course, the problems are just a small portion of the whole. In 1998 Harvard Medical School released a study (as cited by Larsen, 1998, 1) cover evidence that a product known as Recombinant Bovine gentle growth internal secretion (rBST) increased the chances of humans developing cancer. Bovine Somatotropin is a horm wiz produced by kine which is also known as Bovine yield Horm angiotensin converting enzyme. The Recombinant status means it was synthetically produced use recombinant DNA technology. The synthetic chemical substance is injected into cows to stimulate take out production.Milk cows in the U nited States and England were once treated with this chemical only if England banned its use aft(prenominal) 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 include labeling of the products that come from the cows that are injected with rBST (Epstein, 1996 FDA Consumer, 1999). Of secondary concern when dealing with rBST injected cattle is the worry of infection. The more draw a cow produces the more probable it becomes that she bequeath suffer from udder inflammation.This inflammation is regularly treated with antibiotics to which the cows are developing a resistance to over time. Not only can this resistance be passed along to the humans who drink the milk but humans can also have allergic reactions to the antibiotic traces left in the milk (Epstein, 1996). In 1989 approximately 5000 individuals became suddenly ill. This disease 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 defer in only 0. 01% of the product.One percent is below the level that would have caused concern or a halt of production. In 1996 a community created a B2 vitamin to be sold with GM bacteria and the FDA approved it as long as any contaminants were not found at great than 0. 01%. With that standard in ship the 1989 toxin problem would not be sight however if it happened today (Antoniou, 1996, 5-6). While the FDA does set the standards there is very low actual oversight of the biotech companies. As of 1992 (as cited by Whitman, 2000) the FDA policy is that biotech companies may voluntarily ask for a consultation with the FDA.The consultation is not compulsory and withal if used the confederacy does not have to follow the FDA recommendations. The United States part of Agriculture ( husba ndry) has the power to quarantine crops that are a danger but the biotech companies do not require a permit from the USDA as long as their product as indisputables a short set of standards created to attend the safety of the crop itself. To put it simply, the FDA is responsible for food safety and the USDA is responsible for kit and boodle and crop safety (Whitman, 2000, 32-35). The FDA sets the sine qua nons that GM foods must meet to be declared safe.The main requirement for safety is that the modified food being judged is substantially analogous to the original non-modified food (Physicians and Scientists for the Responsible diligence of Science and Technology PSRAST, 2006). For example, if a biomed modified potato is found to still be substantially equivalent to a regular potato therefore no further testing is needed. The theory is that 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 elect by the manufacturers themselves.thither must be no overt categorization 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 composition and nutritional composition. The only other test required is to do an analysis feeling for allergen markers. If the computers line up no reason to believe that the product can cause allergies then the product is approved. Human testing is never required (PSRAST, 2006, 20-25). If genetically modify foods is an inherently safe procedure then the above tests are a perfectly logical focus to test GM foods.If the foods are as unsafe as some 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 modified foods were as safe as their non-modified counterparts and policy decisions have been based on that statement. The government believes so strongly 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 sestet countries produced 99% of the transgenic crops, also known as GM crops, sold in the instauration. Of these six countries the United States sold, by far, the largest percentage of these crops (James, 2003). The chart below lists the acreage of these crops by millions. Figure 1 Obviously, not all is doom and gloom when looking at the above figures. Although biotechnology can do malign it can also supporter the world, maybe. harmonise to Raney, Pingali, T. R, & R. R. in 2007 a new variety of rice named Golden Rice was modified to produce beta-carotene.The rice was unquestionable specifically to help the starving and poor in third world countries who become ill from vitamin A deficiencie s (p. 108). Three servings of Golden Rice a day will provide an adult with 10% of their daily requirement of Vitamin A. While this does not seem earth shattering it shows a company attempting to use biotech to help others. Of course, even assuming the FDA is right and the problems caused by GM foods are an aberration there is the USDAs bailiwick to ponder. atomic number 18 the crops safe for the biosphere itself? That is a difficult question to answer, as well.Just wish well the food safety issue there are people on both sides of this argument who are convinced that they are right. On one side are the scientists who fully believe that the creation of GM foods cannot harm the biosphere and on the other are the scientists who believe that fall guy pollination will cause problems. According to the Department of Soil and Crop Sciences at atomic number 27 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 divider crops are place then the risk for migration or cross pollination is minimal.Divider plants are tall plants that will block 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 unproven phenomena. The air region in the picture was planted with wheat in 1999. In the year 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 sea wolf known as Round Up but somehow an weedkiller resistant strain of canola plants migrated into the field. The bushes in the below picture are all a GM crop that was never planted by the farmer. No one is sure how it appeared in the field (Holdrege, 2004, 11). Figure 2 Even discounting the possibility of seed migration via accident or wind there is eer the chance of cross pollination. With cross pollination one plant can pollinate or breed another plant via biting louse help or wind that it was not scheduled to pollinate.In this way a plant type that was supposed to be non-GM can be infect 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 both in the field or the food supply (Vogel, 2006). Besides cross pollination and migration one other crop issue needs to be addressed.Monsanto has produced crop plants that either target the RNA in insects to kill off their larvae, are panoptic of herbicides like Round Up to kill off weeds, or produce pesticides of their own to kill predatory 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 ingest 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 control 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 safety device our future is to demand that congress takes our safety seriously.References Antoniou, M. (1996). Is GM food impeccant of DNA safe. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http//www. purefood. org/ge/noDNA. htm Department of Soil and Crop Sciences at atomic number 27 State University. (2004). Concerns about current farming practices. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http//cls. casa. colostate. edu/TransgenicCrops/croptocrop. html Epstein, Samuel S. (1996). Unlabeled milk from cows treated with biosynthetic growth hormones a case of regulative abdication. International Journal of Health helpers, 26(1), 173-185. Holdrege, C. (2004).The trouble with genetically modified crops. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http//www.natureinstitute. org/pub/ic/ic11/gmcrops. htm James, C. (2003). Preview Global status of commercialized transgenic crops 2003. Ithica,NY International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech practical applications ISAAA. Larsen, H. (1998).Milk and the can cer connection. Retrieved December 27, 2007, from http//www. vvv. com/healthnews/milk. html Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology 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 December 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 injurious or helpful. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http//www. csa. com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview. php.