Gentic Enginering Essay Example

traits such as increased size, resistance to pests in the field, and accelerated growth. Gene-splicing technology enables scientists to manipulate the characteristics of plants or animals.A tomato's DNA code can be modified by introducing a flounder gene, resulting in resistance to frost and an extended growing period. Similarly, scientists have identified a gene that helps wheat grow in unsuitable fields. Altered DNA in cows allows them to produce milk containing beneficial chemicals like human insulin for diabetes patients ("Frequently Asked Questions"). The potential benefits of this technology are fascinating; supporters argue that biotech crops have reduced pesticide usage, increased crop yields, improved food nutrition, and required less water for cultivation. The US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, has emphasized the transformative impact of genetically engineered products such as human insulin, cancer drugs, antibiotics, and vaccines on the medical field. Furthermore, there is hope that a newly developed genetically engineered drug can save the lives of hemophiliacs by preventing fatal bleeding. Scientists are also researching the use of genetically engineered bananas as a means to deliver vaccines to children in third-world countries. Proponents believe genetic engineering also offers environmental advantages. Kirkpatrick Sale discusses Monsanto's significant role in genetic engineering research in his article "Monsanto: Playing God."The company has created crops that are immune to their own herbicide, Roundup, enabling farmers to spray the chemical on their crops without causing harm. This eliminates the need for traditional cultivation methods that contribute to significant loss of topsoil due to erosion. According to Monsanto, their "Roundup Ready" seed reduces the requirement for plowing before planting and increases crop yields by 5% when used with Roundup, resulting in greater profits

for farmers (Sale 17). Additionally, genetic engineering has the advantage of decreasing reliance on pesticides. In an article titled "How Genetic Engineering Will Save Our Planet," Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro explains how genetically engineered plants can independently defend against insects and pests, eliminating the need for chemical pesticides. Shapiro emphasizes that a large portion of expensive chemicals sprayed on crops ultimately goes unused, negatively impacting both the environment and farmers' expenses. Furthermore, genetic technology is more efficient than chemical-based approaches as it requires less raw materials and energy for production and application (Shapiro 29). Moreover, genetically modified (GM) crops incorporate Bt, which is a naturally occurring pesticide found in the environment. Crops like corn and soybeans have been genetically modified to produce Bt from its gene code.These plants have the ability to protect themselves from pests without using chemical insecticides (Nash 46). Advocates of genetically modified crops believe that this technology will have a positive impact on the environment. One commonly mentioned advantage is its potential to combat world hunger. In his article "How Genetic Engineering Will Save Our Planet," Shapiro explains that severe malnutrition affects 800 million people worldwide, hindering their ability to live normal lives or work. With the global population rapidly growing, there is expected to be a significant increase in food demand. Some estimates suggest that we will need two to three times more food than currently required. To meet this demand, food production must greatly increase, and biotechnology is seen by Shapiro as an essential part of the solution (Shapiro 28-29).

The topic of world hunger and genetically modified foods is extensively explored in J. Madeleine Nash's article "Grains of Hope".

The text emphasizes the devastating effects of vitamin A deficiency, which leads to over one million child deaths annually and causes blindness in 350,000 individuals. Many impoverished people in developing nations rely on a meager diet consisting mostly of rice, which fails to provide adequate nutrition. To address this issue, scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer developed genetically modified (GM) rice seeds that produce beta-carotene-enriched rice – a nutrient that can supply vitamin A and enhance the immune system.A British biotech company partnered with Asian farmers to distribute these GM rice seeds for free. However, anti-GM food activists oppose this distribution as they believe it will further increase third-world countries' dependence on successful nations like the United States. Despite the controversy surrounding GM foods, genetic engineering presents other potential benefits for developing countries.

For example, sweet potato crops in Africa suffer from low yields due to a disease called "feathery mottle virus," which is challenging to control. Scientists are currently working on genetically engineered potatoes that are resistant to this virus to help improve crop yields. Furthermore, the article mentions significant post-harvest losses in African produce caused by rapid rotting – an issue being addressed through genetic engineering research efforts as well.

The development of transgenic produce that ripens at a slower pace has the potential to greatly increase the availability of fruits and vegetables for Africans, according to Kenyan plant scientist Florence Wambugu. In an article, she explains that weeding negatively impacts Africans' livelihoods by preventing children from attending school. Wambugu believes that herbicide-resistant crops would allow Asian farmers to use pesticides on their crops, reducing the need for constant weeding (Nash 46). Genetic technology has

also proven beneficial for papaya farmers in Hawaii.In 1994, approximately half of the papaya fields were devastated by a ringspot virus, leading to many farmers being forced out of business. However, genetic scientists were able to develop two transgenic varieties of papaya that had the ability to withstand this virus. Through positive results in experimental plots, these virus-resistant transgenic lines became widely adopted by most papaya growers by 1998 (Nash 46).

Despite the advantages presented by genetic engineering, there has been significant public outcry and protest against it. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman recounted an incident during his time as chair of the U.S delegation at the World Food Conference in Rome in 1998 where he was targeted by naked protesters who threw genetically modified soybeans at him (Glickman). These protests are rooted in concerns about potential consequences associated with genetic engineering.

The debate surrounding genetically modified crops primarily revolves around their ability to truly reduce chemical usage, despite assurances from manufacturers. An online article titled "What's Wrong with Genetic Engineering?" raises concerns about increased pesticide use resulting from genetic engineering and suggests that pests may develop resistance to these chemicals over time, necessitating the use of stronger and potentially more dangerous substances. Additionally, a study conducted by researchers at Michigan State University found that genetically modified plants resistant to certain viruses could lead to mutations in these viruses into more potent forms capable of attacking other plant varieties.There are several concerns regarding the possibility of transferring resistance genes to weeds, resulting in the development of invincible "superweeds" that can withstand herbicides. However, research conducted by ecologist C. Neal Stewart Jr. suggests that while offspring from

herbicide-resistant plants do carry resistance genes, it is highly unlikely for them to exacerbate weed issues. Additionally, there is a potential solution to strategically insert engineered genes into safe sections within a plant's genetic code in order to reduce the chances of gene transfer to weeds.

Protesters also question the motives of biotech corporations who claim that genetically modified crops will decrease the usage of harmful chemicals when these same companies are responsible for producing such chemicals. In Barrett's article "What's Wrong with Genetic Engineering?" (74), he raises concerns about companies modifying plants to tolerate their own herbicides. This modification enables them to increase sales of these products to farmers, ultimately leading to an upsurge in harmful herbicide application on crops.

The argument surrounding chemicals in agriculture has two perspectives: some believe that genetic engineering will result in decreased pesticide usage, while others view it as a tactic employed by corporations to boost sales. It is logical for companies to prioritize increasing chemical sales rather than reducing them. Scientists predict a significant rise in herbicide usage due to the cultivation of herbicide-resistant crops, which raises concerns about heightened pesticide application by farmers.
The lack of long-term testing for this technology is a concern for many individuals. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the International Center for Technology Assessment, criticizes the FDA for prioritizing certain biotech companies over public health interests and expresses concerns about biotechnology. The FDA's lack of testing and labeling for genetically engineered (GE) foods has raised concerns about potential harm from unknowingly consuming these substances. Genetic engineering involves incorporating genes from organisms not previously consumed, making it unclear how they may affect our immune systems. The

safety of proteins derived from various sources remains unknown due to a lack of long-term testing, which could lead to allergic reactions in individuals who are unaware they are consuming outsourced proteins. This poses challenges for vegetarians and those on religious diets who may unintentionally consume meat proteins due to inadequate labeling on GE foods. Additionally, the absence of proper labeling makes it difficult to trace the origin of these proteins. On one hand, Monsanto claims to have conducted extensive tests comparing substances in their modified soybeans with no difference found compared to regular soybean plants.The text emphasizes that feeding rats, chickens, and fish high doses of enzyme from genetically modified (GM) soybeans did not have any negative effects. Monsanto argues that even "natural" foods would not meet the FDA's allergen testing standards as their GM crops do. However, there are concerns about genetic engineering being an imprecise process with potential risks that cannot be contained in case of a disaster. It is believed by Philip James, Director of the Rowett Research Institute, that assuming everything is safe and straightforward is naive because we don't fully understand the consequences of our actions. While genetic engineers can accurately extract genes from DNA codes, inserting them into desired organisms is a trial-and-error process that introduces the risk of disrupting gene functioning ("What are the Dangers?"). Furthermore, genetically engineered organisms have the ability to mutate, migrate, reproduce, and display unforeseen traits. The text highlights how genetic pollutants pose a greater threat than chemical pollutants since once a genetically engineered organism escapes a laboratory it cannot be recovered and will permanently impact the environment.The text addresses concerns about the

potential harm that GE organisms may cause to ecosystems by spreading in their natural habitats. It discusses the negative impacts of genetic engineering on ecosystems and genetic diversity, suggesting that genetically altered plants could outcompete natural species just like diseases such as Dutch Elm Disease have affected ecosystems. This can result in a reduction of genetic diversity if scientists only prioritize "perfect" variations of each species and disregard those with less desirable traits. The loss of genetic diversity can also lead to crop failure as seed companies patent the genetic structure of GM seeds, resulting in all seeds and plants having identical genetic makeup.

Two articles titled "Dangers of Genetic Engineering in Agriculture" and "Genetically Engineered Food- Is GE Food Safe?" discuss the dangers and safety concerns associated with GE in agriculture. One concern is that a virus or fungus affecting one plant with specific genes has the potential to spread to others, leading to widespread crop failure.

While there are various advantages of using genetic engineering technology in areas such as the environment, medicine, and aiding developing nations with food supply, opposition exists against using genetically engineered food for human consumption due to concerns about insufficient long-term testing on its effects.There is still much unknown about genetics and potential environmental damage. It may take society years to fully accept this technology, so caution and understanding different perspectives are important. Scientists have a responsibility to ensure responsible use of this powerful technology for the benefit of more than just a few corporations (USDA, 2000; Barret et al., 1999). In his article "New Crops, New Century, New Challenges" (13 July 1999), Dan Glickman discusses the new challenges faced

in agriculture as we enter a new era. Madeleine J. Nash's article "Grains of Hope" (31 July 2000) explores the promising aspects of genetically engineered crops. The website Purefood's article "Quotes from Scientists on the Dangers of GE Food" (15 Nov.2000) includes quotes from scientists explaining potential dangers associated with genetically engineered food. Kirkpatrick Sale's article "Monsanto: Playing God" (8 Mar.1999) raises ethical concerns about Monsanto's role in genetic engineering. On the other hand, Robert B. Shapiro's article "How Genetic Engineering Will Save Our Planet" (Apr.1999) argues that genetic engineering can benefit the environment Safe-Food websites offer explanations on genetic engineering and genetically modified food.Additionally, Purefood's article titled "What's Wrong with Genetic Engineering?" (15 Nov.2000) delves into concerns and issues associated with genetic engineering.