|
Humans have been modifying organisms for thousands
of years by conventional breeding methods. By selective breeding,
the ancient farmers were able to select for the most productive
crop or animals. Recently through biotechnology, people are able
to be more specific in the types of traits that are selected for
by changing the genetic makeup of the organisms. These genetically
modified organisms are “improved “ by adding, for example,
genes for insect resistance and herbicide tolerance. (1) This is
a fast growing business that may be slowing to a crawl because of
opposition created by concern about how this technology will affect
our health and future generations, as well as about the intentions
of the companies that that are developing them.
Genetically modified organisms have been developed to suit various
needs. For example, they can be used to produce pharmaceuticals.
Diabetes is a disease that is controlled by injecting insulin daily.
Before the 1980’s, insulin was derived from the pancreases
of pigs. E. coli that is transformed with the human insulin gene
now produces insulin. A plant that has been transformed to increase
yield and nutritional value is Golden Rice. Golden Rice was developed
to produce higher levels of vitamin A and iron to help reduce abnormalities
that are caused by deficiencies in malnourished children. One rice
gene was modified and two new genes were added. It receives its
golden color from beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. This
resulted in rice that contained beta-carotene in the kernel not
the husk. It also contains more iron that is not prevented from
being absorbed by products produced by regular rice. An animal that
is affected by genetic modification is the cow. Though not modified
itself, an enhanced protein, somatotropin, is given to cows to induce
them to produce more milk. (2) These are only a few of the hundreds
of organisms that have been manipulated.
Opinions vary about the necessity and safety of the
products produced by this technology. For instance, Golden Rice
was produced to help alleviate the blindness in poor children around
the world. But critics caution that a person would have to eat an
impossible amount of rice to receive the benefits. Other concerns
are growing that it will have adverse effects on the native rice
varieties. Many feel that providing a more varied diet with green
leafy vegetables can better fill these deficits. (3) The Round Up
ready soybean plants are also controversial. The company that produces
Round up added genes to this crop that allow it to resist the harmful
affects of their herbicide, which is used to kill unwanted weeds.
(4) It is believed that this will lead to greater yield in the fields
containing this species. The negative aspects of this plant are
that it may pass on this tolerance to the weeds that the farmers
want to kill. Recombinant bovine somatotropin has been used to increase
the production of milk in cows is also being questioned. This protein
is similar to a natural protein made by the cow and the composition
of the milk produced does not vary from the milk derived from normal
cows. Milk production is increased by 10-20%. This product has been
heavily tested before release to the public. (5) Animal rights activists
point out that using this recombinant protein causes pain to the
udders of these animals. The cows also have a slightly higher incidence
of mastiffs, infection of the udder, which is described in a research
study completed by the FDA in 1992. (6) Although there is controversy
surrounding GMO products, it should be a personal, but educated,
decision that a person makes about whether to use these products.
It is not a question about whether GMOs are hurtful
to our health, but the impact that using them will have on our communities
and cultures. Do these products provide a necessary improvement
to the original? The countries that are actually producing these
technologies have enough food to feed themselves as well as the
countries that aren’t able to. It would cause less controversy
if the foods that we already have were used. Perhaps better programs
to collect and distribute the food would be beneficial. “Biotechnology
is largely in the hands of huge international companies that have
the technological capacity to quickly exploit and patent new genes.
Most third world farmers simply cannot afford the new technologies
themselves and must rely on others for their development. It would
be very significant, if these people were given the resources to
become self sufficient as well.” A suicide gene was being
developed that would allow the crop to grow for only one season
because they produce sterile seeds. “The farmers would be
forced to buy seeds every year. This would be financially disastrous
for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed
each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest
to plant in the next growing season.” Even though its development
was voluntarily halted, this could be considered a form of economic
imperialism. (7) It is important that this technology not be banned
though because of the pharmaceutical and other benefits that have
yet to be discovered. Careful regulation is needed to protect those
who are most vulnerable to the whims of other people who believe
they may be doing the best thing for them. We can choose between
products that are labeled GMO or not, these people may not have
a choice.
Sources:
1. Pretty, Jules. “Genetic Modification: Overview of Benefits
and Risks.” Center for Environment and Society. 199-2003.
<http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/researchprogrammes/susag/ofpandora.htm>
2. “GMOs, Current Examples.” AgResearch 2000.
3 Aug. 2001. <http://www.agreserch.co.nz/scied/search/biotech/gene_gmoexamples.htm>
3. Grains of Hope: Golden Rice and other Genetically Engineered
Crops could revolutionize farming and help solve world hunger. Protesters
fear they could destroy the environment.” Time International.
12 Feb. 2001:34.
4. “Protests as GM Soya Arrive in Europe.” Agra
Europe. 8 Nov. 1996:E2 (2)
5. “Position of the American Dietetic Association: Biotechnology
and the Future of Food.” Journal of the American Dietetic
Association. Dec. 1995:1429
6. “FDA Approves BST for Cows.” FDA Consumer.
Jan.-Feb. 1994:2
7. Rhodes, Bill and Maha Alkhazindaar. “Care Teaching Notes
for ‘Frankenfoods’.”22 May 2000. <http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/gmfoods_notes.html>
|
