Genetically Engineered Foods – Pros And Cons Essay Example

enables easier and more precise movement of genes than ever before. Utilizing these techniques, scientists believe they can enhance the quality and traits of the food we consume ("What is Genetic Engineering?") ("What are the Dangers?"). Genetically modified food (GM food) contains ingredients that have undergone genetic alterations to possess certain traits such as increased size, resistance to pests, and faster growth.

One example is the utilization of genetic engineering to make tomatoes resistant to freezing by inserting a flounder gene into their DNA code. This allows tomatoes to withstand cold temperatures and extend their growing season ("What is Genetic Engineering?").Recently, a new gene has been discovered that helps wheat thrive in harsh conditions where it would normally struggle. Not only that, but even cows with modified DNA can now produce milk containing substances like human insulin, which is crucial for diabetics ("Frequently Asked Questions"). These examples demonstrate how scientists use gene-splicing technology to modify the characteristics of plants and animals. The potential benefits of this technology are extensive and captivating. Supporters argue that biotech crops can reduce pesticide usage, increase agricultural productivity, improve the nutritional value of food, and require less water for cultivation.

The US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, highlights the transformative impact of genetic engineering in medicine through its involvement in producing human insulin, cancer drugs, antibiotics, and vaccines. Glickman also mentions a genetically engineered drug with potential in preventing fatal bleeding in hemophiliacs. Scientists are even exploring the possibility of using genetically modified bananas to administer vaccines in impoverished regions. Advocates believe that genetic engineering offers significant environmental advantages.

In his article "Monsanto: Playing God," Kirkpatrick Sale discusses Monsanto's role as a major

player in genetic engineering and research. He reveals that Monsanto has developed crops capable of withstanding the powerful herbicide Roundup without being harmedThe use of "Roundup Ready" seed by Monsanto enables farmers to eliminate weeds and plants without plowing or cultivating the field. This is beneficial because it helps prevent topsoil loss caused by erosion, which is estimated to be 25 billion tons annually. According to Monsanto, this seed reduces the need for pre-planting plowing and allows for post-planting weed spraying. When used in conjunction with Roundup, it can increase crop yields by 5%, resulting in higher profits for farmers (Sale 17).

Genetic engineering also offers advantages such as reduced pesticide usage. Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto, explains in his article "How Genetic Engineering Will Save Our Planet" that genetic modification in plants eliminates the need for chemical pesticides, which are costly and harmful to both the environment and farmers. This technology is more efficient than chemicals as it requires less raw materials and energy for production and application (Shapiro 29). Moreover, genetically modified crops have been engineered to produce their own natural pesticide called Bt, significantly reducing the reliance on chemical insecticides among Arizona farmers by 75% (Nash 46).

Advocates argue that genetically engineered food can help alleviate world hunger since there are currently around 800 million severely malnourished individuals who cannot function normally (Shapiro 28-29).The global population's growth will lead to a higher demand for food, estimated to be two to three times more than the current supply. Biotechnology, as discussed in Shapiro's book, plays a significant role in meeting these demands by increasing food production. In Nash's article "Grains of Hope," the connection between

genetically modified (GM) foods and world hunger is extensively explored. The article emphasizes that vitamin A deficiency causes over one million child deaths annually, with 350,000 resulting in blindness. Many impoverished individuals in developing countries rely on insufficient amounts of rice per day for their nutritional needs. To address this issue, scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer developed GM rice seeds capable of producing beta-carotene-enriched rice plants. This text examines both the benefits and controversies surrounding beta-carotene, the distribution of GM rice seeds, and genetic engineering's role in assisting third-world countries. It also highlights how carrots provide vitamin A through beta-carotene and enhance immunity. However, there are anti-GM food activists who oppose a British biotech corporation's distribution of GM rice seeds to Asian farmers due to concerns about increased dependency on successful nations like the US. Despite this opposition, the text underlines the advantages of genetic engineering in third-world countries.Genetically coded sweet potatoes have been developed to resist feathery mottle virus, while transgenic produce has been created to slow down ripening for reduced rotting during transportation (Nash 46). Florence Wambugu, a Kenyan plant scientist, believes that weeding is enslavement for Africans. However, herbicide-resistant crops can free Asian farmers from constant weeding and allow them to use pesticides on their crops, potentially preventing children from missing school (Nash 46).

In Hawaii, genetic technology has helped papaya farmers fight ringspot virus by developing resistant strains with successful results in test fields. Consequently, most papaya growers switched to these virus-resistant lines in 1998 (Nash 46). Despite its advantages, genetic engineering has faced public outcry and protest. During the World Food Conference in Rome in 1998, US Secretary of Agriculture

Dan Glickman shared an experience where naked protesters pelted him with genetically modified soybeans (Glickman).

Protesters raise various concerns about genetic engineering and its potential consequences. The article "Whats Wrong with Genetic Engineering?" questions whether genetically modified (GM) crops will actually reduce chemical usage as claimed by manufacturing companies. One concern is that pests could develop resistance to pesticides like Roundup and Bt, potentially necessitating stronger and more harmful chemicals.In addition, researchers at Michigan State University made a discovery that plants which have been modified to resist certain viruses can cause those viruses to mutate into stronger forms that attack other plants. Another concern is that genes for pesticide resistance could transfer to targeted weeds, resulting in the creation of "superweeds" that cannot be eliminated by herbicides.
However, ecologist C. Neal Stewart Jr. conducted a study on offspring from herbicide-resistant plants and concluded that although the offspring possess resistance genes, it is unlikely for these genes to worsen weed infestations. Furthermore, there is a possibility to insert these genes into specific areas of a plant's genetic code where the likelihood of transfer to weeds is minimized (Barrett 74).
Protesters also raise questions about the motivations of biotech corporations who argue that genetically engineered crops will reduce chemical usage – an important selling point. It should be noted that these companies selling biotech crops are also the manufacturers of the chemicals they claim to reduce. This raises doubts about their incentive to forego profits from chemical sales.
"What's Wrong with Genetic Engineering?" emphasizes how these companies develop genetically modified plants resistant to their own herbicides. This allows them to sell more herbicides to farmers who can then extensively use them

on crops for weed elimination.
Since 1988, nearly half of all field testing requests submitted to the USDA have been for herbicide-tolerant crops.There are differing opinions regarding genetic engineering. Some argue that it will decrease pesticide usage, while others believe it is a strategy to increase sales of products such as Roundup. Corporations have a logical incentive to aim for increased chemical sales rather than reduced sales. Experts predict that the adoption of herbicide-resistant crops will lead to a significant rise in herbicide use. As stated in "What are the Dangers?", farmers may apply larger amounts of pesticides if their crops can tolerate them. Another concern is the lack of long-term testing conducted on this technology. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the International Center for Technology Assessment, has expressed concerns about biotechnology and how certain biotech companies' interests have influenced the FDA's responsibility in protecting public health. By not requiring testing and labeling for genetically engineered (GE) foods, the agency has made consumers unknowing subjects in consuming potentially hazardous unregulated food substances ("Quotes from Scientists"). The primary concern with genetic engineering is introducing genes from organisms not previously part of the human food supply into consumed food. This introduces new elements into the human immune system, making it challenging to predict their impact.
Food scientists can add proteins to genetically modified (GM) foods that have never existed in the food chain before, such as those derived from soil, bacteria, algae, or other living organisms. Due to insufficient long-term testing, it is unknown whether these proteins are safe for humans to consume. The inclusion of foreign proteins in GM foods could potentially lead to allergic reactions in certain

individuals. For instance, if a GM banana contains a fish protein and someone with an allergy unknowingly consumes it, they may face fatal consequences. This issue also affects vegetarians or people following religious dietary restrictions who might unintentionally consume meat proteins through fruits and vegetables. Without mandated labeling on genetically engineered foods, it would be impossible to trace the source of these proteins.

However, Monsanto claims to have conducted 1,800 tests on its modified soybeans comparing various substances like fatty acids, proteins, and other materials resulting in no discernible difference compared to regular soybean plants. They conducted tests on rats, chickens, rats (again), and fish using high doses of enzymes derived from their GM soybeans but observed no adverse effects. According to Monsanto's assertions their GM crops undergo FDA testing for allergens that even most "natural" foods would fail. Nonetheless there is a prevailing concern regarding genetic engineering as an imprecise practice with potential uncontrollable disasters.
Philip James, Director of the Rowett Research Institute, argues that assuming the safety of genetic engineering is naive because it is not fully understood. Genetic engineers can accurately cut genes from a DNA code when transferring them between organisms. However, there is a risk of disrupting functioning genes when genetically engineered organisms are inserted into target organisms ("What are the Dangers?"). These organisms are unpredictable and have the ability to mutate, migrate, and reproduce. Once they are released from a laboratory, they become practically irretrievable and can cause irreversible impacts on the environment. This makes them more dangerous than chemical pollutants or nuclear accidents. Concerns exist about genetically engineered organisms proliferating in the wild and causing harm to ecosystems. Genetically altered

plants, such as those resistant to Dutch Elm Disease, have the potential to outcompete and overpower their natural counterparts (source: "Whats Wrong with Genetic Engineering?"). Another concern is that genetic engineering may prioritize cloning "perfect" species, which could result in reduced genetic diversity. If a virus or fungus attacks one plant with identical genes, widespread crop failure could occur (source: "One concern with genetic engineering..."). The ongoing debate surrounding genetic engineering includes various valid perspectives.Although genetically modified foods have numerous advantages in developing countries, such as environmental benefits and increased food production, there is opposition when it comes to their consumption by humans. Critics argue that long-term testing on the impact of genetically modified food on human health has been insufficient. Additionally, there are concerns regarding potential irreversible damage to the environment due to genetic mishaps. Consequently, it will likely take society years before fully embracing this technology. However, individuals can currently exercise caution and common sense when dealing with genetically engineered foods while striving to understand different viewpoints in the ongoing debate. It is also the responsibility of scientists to ensure responsible use of this powerful new technology for the greater benefit beyond just a few large corporations. Undoubtedly, agricultural biotechnology holds immense potential (USDA 1).The articles "Are Bio-Foods Safe?" by Barret, Amy, John Carey, and Ellen Licking, "New Crops, New Century, New Challenges" by Dan Glickman, and "Grains of Hope" by Madeleine J. Nash discuss the safety, challenges, and potential for agriculture in relation to bio-foods and new crops. Kirkpatrick Sale's piece titled "Monsanto: Playing God" offers criticism of Monsanto's actions. In contrast, Robert B. Shapiro believes that genetic engineering can save our

planet in his article "How Genetic Engineering Will Save Our Planet." For further information on the topic of genetic engineering in agriculture and genetically modified food (GE food), the websites "Dangers of Genetic Engineering in Agriculture," "Genetically Engineered Food- Is GE Food Safe?," "Quotes from Scientists and on the Dangers of GE Food," "What is Genetic Engineering?," and "What is Genetically Modified Food?" are valuable resources. Additionally, Purefood addresses problems with genetic engineering in their articles titled "Quotes from Scientists and on the Dangers of GE Food" and What's Wrong with Genetic Engineering?"