Ethical Concerns about Genetically Modified Organisms.edited

docx

School

Kenyatta University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1101

Subject

Biology

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChiefFogHedgehog37

1 Ethical Concerns about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Student Professor Course Institution Date

2 Ethical Concerns about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Humans are profoundly endowed with alienated inventive abilities unequaled by any other living organism on Earth. Indeed, they can recreate their surroundings to suit their preferences. The late 20 th Century was historical in the scientific and biological world as it will be remembered when scientists began manipulating the genetic material of organisms. Illustratively, the above visual shows the consequential knowledge that humans acquired in the 1970s (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013) . The knowledge to recreate a naturally-existing plant species by introducing new genes intended to improve its development and productive characteristics. While the discovery that DNA is transferable between organisms was made centuries ago, the first genetically modified organism (GMO) was made by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, who recreated a GM bacterium that is resistant to antibiotic kanamycin in 1973. A decade later, the first GM plant, a virus-resistant tobacco, was produced as the first commercial GMO by China in 1983. A decade later, the first GMO whole food, Flavr Savr tomato, was produced for human consumption after the FDA’s approval in 1994 (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013) . Subsequently, other genetically engineered crops, including corn, potato, cotton, soybean, squash, canola, and other species of GM tomatoes, were approved for consumption in the following year, 1995. By 1996, nine GM plants had been approved for production in six countries, including the EU, and by 2011, the United States was the leading producer of GMOs. As such, more countries have adopted the production and consumption of GMOs and related products worldwide. However, the continued marketing of GMOs has elicited a worldwide public debate expected to continue as more discoveries are made regarding transgenic organisms. The public is concerned with the safety of genetically modified food and the associated implications of producing GMOs. Undeniably, GMOs have significant benefits to the global human population, but at what cost in a long-term perspective? Will the

3 current and succeeding generations reap the benefits of GMOs at the expense of the future human population? Hence, the following paper investigates and argues the ethical concerns and the need for long-term studies that will facilitate more insights into the long-term implications of GMOs on humans and the environment. Notably, no expert, whether a scientist or a biologist, will give an outright yes when asked if GMOs are safe and healthy for consumers and the environment. Instead, they tend to give a detailed answer, including biological terms that are difficult to comprehend in layman's knowledge. One can hardly blame the expert on the use of the difficult vocabulary, nor can one complain about not understanding the answer given because it is the language of the specialists. Of significance is the conclusion on whether GMOs are safe for human consumption and how their production affects the environment. Unsurprisingly, positivity and optimism are reflected in the detailed answer, leading to the inference that no negative health effect is yet to be associated with consuming genetically engineered products. Also, the conclusion contains a statement similar to "nothing substantial on the environment has been found to say that production of GMOs is harmful to the environment." All of these are true because GMOs have proven to have many benefits, and their usefulness will continue for generations, primarily because technology is rapidly advancing. Plants are growing in areas that were previously left uncultivated because of the apparent unfavorable conditions. Besides, disease and pest-resistant crops are proving productive to farmers while others are maturing faster than their conventional counterparts, which is a plus to food supply. Herbicide and pesticide-tolerant plants help farmers reduce the cost of production as fields as chemicals for weed and pest mitigation are easily applied without affecting the crops. Also, genetic engineering has allowed the creation of transgenic species with medicinal purposes of providing plant-derived vaccines (Kumar et al., 2005) . Such candidates are potatoes, lettuce, and banana plants, which are still being studied to determine whether they can provide vaccines for hepatitis B virus (HBV), Norwalk virus, and Escherichia coli (ETEC) (Phillips, 2008) . Such discoveries entail conducting multigenerational explorations and experimentations to determine the viability of vaccines in preventing human diseases. Correspondingly, GMOs are fronted as the solution to future increased demand for food with the expected global population proliferation. An expert opinion by David Zilberman, an agricultural and environmental economist at U.C. Berkley, depicts that the benefits of GMOs outweigh their health risks, which he claims are still conspiracy theories around the issue. He further insinuates that GMOs have increased production while reducing the price of foods as the cost of production declines. In his suggestion, Zilberman believes that GM food will be the solution as the world anticipates growing 70% more food by 2050 to meet the demand of the surging population (Freedman, 2013) . Indeed, the solution viability is backed up because GMOs can grow in dry and organically unstable lands, produce better even in unfavorable temperatures, and have more yields than conventional crops. Besides, the modified plants are resistant to diseases and pests, but the traditionally cultivated plants are susceptible because they lack the resistance abilities exhibited by GMOs. Another researcher and a proponent of GMOs like Zilberman, Robert Goldberg, a biologist at the University of California, asserts that GM technology is 'a clean record' compared to other modification methods humans have used for years, such as selective breeding and mutagenic technique. He

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 argues that with contemporary GM technology, a scientist singles out a single gene and inserts it into a plant genome (Freedman, 2013) . Thus, it is traceable and manageable, and any unintended change that poses a health threat is identifiable and eliminated. Respectively, these are scientists promoting the benefits of GMOs and advocating for their adoption worldwide as they consider the prevailing resistance unnecessary. These scientists, however, are knowledgeable in their rights and understand the mutability of genes and the ability of living things to evolve whenever presented with a necessity to develop certain adaptation traits. An opponent of GMOs and Alzheimer’s researcher, David Schubert, elaborates on the mutation concept and asserts that a genome does stay in the same condition but continues changing through successive generations (Freedman, 2013) . He implies that a different arrangement other than the one intended might be developed, which entails distinctive results. A counter to the ‘clean record’ of GM technology suggests that altering a gene might be a subversive action that promotes it to evolve, producing new proteins or allergens. The implication is that engineering scientists might not realize the change as it is a gradual process that might actualize without anyone’s realization. More so, opponents add that the alterations could be more impactful, particularly to humans, the consumers of GMOs. The lack of evidence showing that the altered genetic material in the plants was transferred to the consumer does not guarantee that it will not happen. David Williams, a cellular biologist, hints that it is difficult to spot such an occurrence, especially where the protein produced has long- term effects on the consumers (Freedman, 2013) . Hence, Williams is saying that just because there is no evidence that GMOs are linked to cancer does not mean it is not a possibility. Indeed, new developments have indicated that exposure to glyphosate, a chemical ingredient in Roundup herbicide, increases the health risk of non-Hodgkins lymphoma by 41% (Zhang et al., 2019) . It illustrates an associated health risk to humans. Consecutively, it is a concern of how the weeds will adapt to resist the herbicides and the effect of pesticides on non-targeted organisms such as honeybees. Some GM plants, such as soybean and cotton, are herbicide tolerant. Thus, farmers can spray their crops without fear of damaging them to eliminate weeds. However, the evidence shows that some weeds have also become resistant to herbicides, implying that the primary purpose of engineering the plants is no longer viable (Bonny, 2016) . Others, such as corn, are resistant to insects, such as the European corn borer. The insects may move to another untargeted plant population, meaning the GM technology just facilitated the transfer of a problem rather than solving it. Further, another study revealed that Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops had harmful effects on some beneficial insects, and the problem is likely to affect other organisms at the top of the food chain, including humans (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013) . More so, it is yet to be determined whether the residues of resistant GM plants and chemical products harm the living things in the soil, entailing bacteria, nematodes, and fungi, among other microorganisms. The implication is that more sophisticated research is needed, and long-term studies must be conducted to provide significant evidence to some of the prevailing concerns about GMOs. Conclusively, it must be determined through evidence that GMOs do not have long- term harmful consequences on humans and the environment. It is undeniable that genetic

5 engineering could create a sustainable food supply to meet the surging global demands. However, the proponents cannot satisfactorily defend them as a solution to the prevailing global issue of food shortage amidst the proliferating population. As it is, there is not enough evidence to ascertain that GMOs are safe in the long run, as conventional crops have proven over the many years of consumption. The ethical question is whether the supporters led by international institutions such as UN FAO and WHO are concerned about future generations, and if so, are they concerned that GMOs might have harmful implications on humans in the long run?

6 References Bawa, A. S., & Anilakumar, K. R. (2013). Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a review. Journal of food science and technology , 50 (6), 1035-1046. Bonny, S. (2016). Genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops, weeds, and herbicides: overview and impact. Environmental management , 57 (1), 31–48. Freedman, D. H. (2013). The truth about genetically modified food. Scientific American , 309 (3), 107–112. Kumar, G. S., Ganapathi, T. R., Revathi, C. J., Srinivas, L., & Bapat, V. A. (2005). Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic banana plants. Planta , 222 , 484-493. Phillips, T. (2008). Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Transgenic crops and recombinant DNA technology. Nature Education , 1 (1), 213. Zhang, L., Rana, I., Shaffer, R. M., Taioli, E., & Sheppard, L. (2019). Exposure to glyphosate- based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a meta-analysis and supporting evidence. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research , pp. 781 , 186–206.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Ethical Concerns about Genetically Modified Organisms.edited

Related Documents