Genetically modified organism
Opponentsgenetic engineering define"genetically modified organism" or "GMO" as any organismwhichgenetic material has been altered inway that does not occur naturally. However, this definitionpossibly not useful, as all commercial strainswheat, including organic wheat, have been randomlymassively genetically modified by radiation mutagenesis. Interestingly, no one seemsbe concerned about this huge genetic modification, first performed in1950s.
| Tablecontents |
|
2 Controversies over genetic modification 3 Evidenceenvironmental impact 4 References 5 External links |
Terminology
Bothterms GE (Genetically Engineered)GMO (Genetically Modified Organism)commonly usedreferall organisms that have added genes from another species which were inserted throughtechniquesgenetic engineering.
Phrases such as "Genetically Damaged Food", "Genetically Diseased Food Substitutes", or "Frankenfood"sometimes heard.
Controversies over genetic modification
Genetic modification issubjectcontroversyits own right - some believe thatscience itself should be forbidden, but such peoplerarely trainedgenetics.
Proponentsgenetic modification argue thatallows great advancesagriculture (for instance, making plants more tolerantcertain diseases orwater shortages, increasing their nutrient value, or decreasing their costproduction), as well as allowing other beneficial creations such aspetroleum-eating bacteria.
Opponents generally argue thatultimate resultsreleasing genetically modified organismsnot predictablemay have unexpectedirreversible effects onenvironment; however, no adverse effects have been noted50 yearsusing radiation-mutagenized wheat. Since genetically modified organisms, like conventional organisms,patentable under some laws (such asU.S. law), GMO crops can theoretically harm agriculture itself, by leaving independent farmers unablepurchase seed each year.
These concerns have varying impact, depending on particular national circumstances. Some argue thatpatent issuenot necessary validdeveloped nations as some hybrid crops seeds (already eligiblepatents)likelybe purchased anyway (e.g. [maize|corn).
Proponents typically dismiss published concerns as bad sciencealarmism. They state that genetic modification offers enormous benefitstermsimproved agricultural efficiency andresulting beneficial health effectsbetter nutrition.
Opponents typically point tomany unstudied issueswarn that mistaken assumptions about biosafety could resultdisaster. This controversymany years from being resolved.
The practicegenetic modification asscientific techniqueunrestricted inUnited States; individual GMO crops (such as soya)subjectintense study before being broughtmarket andcommon inUnited Statesestimatestheir market saturation vary widely. Many countriesEurope have takenopposite position: that genetic modification has not been proven safe,therefore thatwill not accept genetically modified food fromUnited States or any other country. This issue has already gone beforeWorld Trade Organization, which determined that not allowing GMO food intocountry created an unnecessary obstacleinternational trade. Consequently, genetic modification within agriculturean issuesome strong debate inUnited States,European Union,some other countries.
Italmost certainly true that not all genetic modifications havesame effects on health or onenvironment; those policies that classify all genetic modifications as good or badthus overgeneralized. However, indefinite postponementpolicy decisions may not be inpublic interest.
Besides, those arguingapplication ofprecautionary principle insist one ofrisksusing GMOthatnatural species being contaminated by GMOs (for example, natural canola acquiringnew GMO canola genes through cross-pollination). They fear natural non transformed species could be leddisappear (due togenetic selective advantage oftransformed species), resultinglossbiodiversity. Yet this has not happenedcommon wheat, massivelyrandomly modified genetically by radiation.
The standard agricultural practiceapplying certain (but not all) pesticidescrop plants has been allegedresultshort-long-term harmful effectshumans. Theretherefore some question aswhether genetically-modified crops that confer pest resistance might be harmfulhumans as well. Current pest-resistant strains userelatively innocuous organic toxin derived frombacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). However, harmfulnessan areagreat controversy not only amonggeneral public, but among scientists as well.
Opponents often falsely present research conducted by scientists atImperial College London andUniversidad Simon RodriguesCaracas, Venezuela as revealing thatdiamondback moth grew 56% faster when fed cabbage genetically modifiedcontain Bt thandid when fed cabbage withoutBt. Thisnot very honest, asmoths were fed on leaf discs treatedBt, not transgenic plants. Therefore,research has just as much potential relevanceorganic farming,which Bt iscommonly used pesticide, asdoestransgenic plants. The 56% figuredisingenuously picked becauseislargest number that can be derived fromdata;differencespupal weight, development time,pupal weight/developmental timemuch, much smaller.
Evidenceenvironmental impact
Therealready some strong evidence thatcultivation ofgenetically modified plant may leadenvironmental changes. However, whethergenetically modified plant can itself harmenvironment ismattercontroversy among scientists.
Increase resistanceinsecticides
For example,overproductioninsecticide intransgenic population inducesheavier selective pressure on insects, hence leadingfurther resistance toinsecticide ininsect populationreducingeffectthis pesticide when appliednon-GMO crops. In Australia,Agriculture department noticed thatparasite ofcotton plant, supposedbe killed byGMO cotton Ingard was proliferating.
Increase resistanceherbicides
Another impactnoticed uponuseGM plants resistantherbicides, such as Roundup.
Seventy-one percentgenetically engineered crops planted1998designedbe resistantherbicides such as glyphosate,active ingredientRoundup. Roundup, isworld's most widely used herbicide (112,000 tonnesglyphosate was used world-wide1998).
The United States DepartmentAgriculture (USDA) statistics from 1997 show thatuseRoundup Ready soybeans (GM-roundup-resistant) resulted in72% increase inuseglyphosate.
References
- BBC News article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/753586.stm by environment correspondent Alex Kirby. Discusses possible pollen escape inU.K.includes linksother articles onsame topic.
- Allison Snow, an Ohio State University professor who receivedfirst annual Research LeaderAgriculture award from Scientific American, has reported [1] on several studies showingstrengtheningweeds duegenetic escape ofBt variant.
- Comparenews article falsely claiming that diamondback moths grow faster on cabbage engineeredcontain Bt thando on cabbage without it, [1] withactual published scientific manuscript, [1] ,which itclearly stated thatmoths were fed cabbage treatedseveral dosesBt.
- [1] reviewsnumbertoxicologic studiesconcludes that there were design and/or model flawsmost.
- [1] describes more ofcontroversy, also citing studies.
External links
