Research paper on genetically modified food

And, only a minority of Americans perceive scientists as having a strong understanding of the health risks and benefits of GM foods. And people deeply concerned about this issue are particularly skeptical about the influence of industries behind research findings.

A minority of three-in-ten Americans say that research findings from scientists about GM foods are often influenced by the best available evidence. People who know more about science topics, generally, are more likely to trust information from scientists and see scientific research findings about GM foods in a more favorable light.

Foods with genetically modified ingredients have been available to Americans since about the mids when U. Genetically engineered ingredients are widely used in processed foods from breakfast cereals to cooking oils to corn chips.

The Pew Research Center survey explored this research paper genetically modified food by first asking about the safety of eating of GM foods with an explicit option for those not sure of their opinions to register that uncertainty. Those who are less familiar with GM foods are comparatively more inclined to say the effect of GM foods is neither better nor worse than non-GM foods.

Younger adults are more likely than their elders to consider GM foods health risks. There are modest differences in views by gender. A Pew Research Center survey also found women were more likely than men to say it is generally unsafe to eat GM foods. While a related Pew Research Center report found issues related to climate and energy issues are strongly divided along political lines, Democrats and Republicans hold similar views on the effects of eating GM foods.

Those who care a great deal about the GM foods issue are also more likely to follow news on this topic.

Genetically modified food pros and cons video

In contrast, only about one-quarter of other Americans follow news on GM foods somewhat or very closely. Those who care a great deal about this issue are more likely to report greater awareness about the topic. There are only modest differences in concern about this issue by other demographic and educational groups. Older adults, ages 65 and older, are a bit less likely than their younger counterparts to care deeply about the issue of GM foods.

Those with high school degrees or less are a bit less likely than other educational groups to care about the issue of GM foods. Americans have mixed expectations about the likely effects from genetically modified foods, with many expressing both optimism and pessimism about consequences of GM foods. Most of the public expects GM foods to increase the global food supply. At the same time, about half of Americans say environment and health problems will result from GM foods.

People who are more personally concerned about the issue of GM foods are especially worried that such foods will lead to health and environmental problems for society. In contrast, majorities of those who are less engaged with this issue say environmental and health problems stemming from GM foods are not too or not at all likely. These expectations of risks for society from GM foods are in keeping with the wide differences among these groups in their views of the health risks associated with eating GM foods.

Men and women have somewhat different expectations for GM foods. Men are more optimistic, while women research paper on genetically modified food more pessimistic about the likely impact of GM foods on research paper on genetically modified food. These modest differences in expectations by gender are in keeping with other studies.

So why not use them to develop the next generation of drought-resistant crops? We can tweak levels of a special vitamin that acts as an appetite control system. Burkina Faso, one of the largest GM cotton producers in the world, has begun a phase out of all Bt cotton production.

Scientists are developing GM crops that don't need pesticides and other chemicals to help them grow. Isn't that what organic farmers want too? New research suggests how we could prevent genetically modified organisms from surviving - and potentially spreading - in the wild.

Statewide survey in Vermont finds GM food labels don't scare consumers or indicate an inferior product. It confirmed that coat protein fragments dissolved quickly in gastric fluid and left no detectable traces in organs.

By this point the GE papaya had been investigated and eaten for 15 years. GMO skeptics had two choices. Or they could reject the evidence and cling to their faith in a GMO apocalypse. Loading Quiz It had been created by public-sector scientists, not by a corporation. It had saved a beloved crop. It had passed extensive scrutiny in Japan and the U. It also reduced pesticide usebecause farmers no longer had to exterminate the aphids that spread the virus.

One council member, Margaret Wille, yielded to the evidence. She had introduced the proposed GMO ban. But after listening to the arguments, she exempted the GE papaya from her bill, noting that it was embedded in local agriculture and had been vetted in safety and cross-pollination tests.

In effect, she acknowledged two things. And second, with the passage of time, novelties became conventional. Other antagonists held their ground.

In SeptemberSmith was given 45 minutes to testify before the council as an expert witness, though he had no formal scientific training. When he was asked whether he should be addressed as Dr. He also said the protein might cause cancer. To support his testimony, Smith cited a March paper about regulation of GE crops.

And the papaya was one example cited in that study. It simply listed them in a table of GE crops, alongside a theoretical critique of the technology. Neither man mentioned the Chinese papaya feeding study in rats-published two months before the theoretical paper Smith had cited-which had found none of the harms Smith alleged.

To explain why scientific organizations and regulatory agencies had declared GE foods safe, the anti-GMO witnesses offered conspiracy theories. They said the Food and Drug Administration had been captured by Monsanto. So had the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Research paper on genetically modified food

Smith mentioned the cablestoo. But the cables showed no conspiracy. Nearly 6, of the leaked cables had been sent from U. They covered the years toduring which Japanese regulators had debated and approved the GE papaya. No allegation was too far-fetched for the anti-GMO witnesses, including several who called themselves experts. They said GMOs were especially dangerous to dark-skinned people.

They suggested that vaccines were harmfultoo. They said GE flowers should be banned because children might eat them. In the end, the papaya survived. The new law makes an exception for papayas. Some people, to this day, believe GE papayas are dangerous. They want more studies. They call themselves skeptics. Scientists gave the bacteria a name: Bacillus thuringiensis. It turned out to be handy for protecting crops from insects. Farmers and environmentalists loved research paper on genetically modified food.

It was natural, effective, and harmless to vertebrates. In the mids, Belgian researchers found a better way to produce the insecticide. They put a gene from the bacteria into tobacco plants. When bugs tried to eat the plants, they died. Plants that had the new gene, known as Bt, could produce the insecticidal protein on their own. Environmentalists flipped. Thus began the strange backlash against Bt crops. A protein that everyone had previously agreed was innocuous suddenly became a menace.

To many critics of biotechnology, the long history of safe Bt use was irrelevant. What mattered was that Bt was now a GMO. And GMOs were evil.

In the EPA approved Bt potatoes, corn, and cotton. The coalition claimed to speak for environmental caution. But its caution was curiously selective. Thirty of the 34 farmers who were identified in the lawsuit as victims and plaintiffs affirmed that they sprayed Bt on their own crops.

Fourteen of the 16 farming organizations listed as plaintiffs said they had members who used Bt spray. Research paper on genetically modified food were protecting it. They were trying to convince the public that the Bt protein was dangerous when produced by plants but perfectly safe when produced by bacteria and sprayed by farmers. The anti-GMO lobby says Bt crops are worse than Bt sprays, in part because Bt crops have too much of the bacterial toxin.

Infor instance, Greenpeace promoted a court petition to stop field trials of Bt eggplant in India. An honest environmental organization, having discovered these low concentrations, might have reconsidered its opposition to Bt crops.

But Greenpeace simply changed its rationale. Having argued in its lawsuit that Bt crops produced too much toxin, Greenpeace now reversed itself. In its report on the German and Spanish corn, the organization complained that Bt crops produced too little toxin to be effective. It argued, in essence, that the Bt in transgenic crops was unsafe for humans but insufficient to kill bugs. And each Bt plant is different. A global database of GE cropsmaintained by the Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, shows that some Bt proteins are fully truncated while others are partially truncated.

In fact, the petition suggested that the low concentration of Bt in Indian cotton was allowing insects to flourish, leading to crop losses, and causing farmers to fall into debt and kill themselves. The suicide allegation was just another anti-GMO fiction. But it allowed Greenpeace to claim that the Bt in transgenic crops was killing people in two ways: by being more persistent and potent than the Bt in sprays, and by being less persistent and potent than the Bt in sprays.

The strangest part of the case against Bt crops is the putative evidence of harm. Still, if you run enough experiments on any pesticide, a few will produce correlations that look worrisome. Experts then debate whether the correlations are causal and whether the effects are important. They ask for better, controlled experiments to validate the pattern. They were done with DiPela commercial Bt spray compound. Greenpeace was asking New Zealand to protect Bt spray from Bt crops based on studies that, if anything, indicted Bt spray.

The petition against Bt eggplant in India repeated this fallacy. This paradox pervades the anti-GMO movement: alarmism about any possibility of harm from Bt crops, coupled with relentless flacking for the Bt spray industry. But this is a false assurance, because farmers compensate for the degradation by reapplying the spray. Bt sprays, unlike Bt crops, include live bacteria, which can multiply in food. Several years ago researchers examined vegetables for sale in Denmark.

They found 23 strains of Bt identical to the kind used in commercial sprays. Impossibility of Followup Once the GMOs have been introduced into the environment and some problems arise, it is impossible to eliminate them. Many of these risks are identical to those incurred with regards to the introduction of naturally or conventionally bred species.

But still this does not suggest that GMOs are safe or beneficial, nor that they should be less scrutinized. HGT is the acquisition of foreign genes via transformation, transduction, and conjugation by organisms in a variety of environmental situations.

It occurs especially in response to changing environments and provides organisms, especially prokaryotes, with access to genes other than those that can be inherited [ 1718 ]. HGT of an introduced gene from a GMO may confer a novel trait in another organism, which could be a source of potential harm to the health of people or the environment. For example, the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to a pathogen has the road safety essay to compromise human or animal therapy [ 19 ].

Research paper genetically modified food

HGT has been observed for many different bacteria, for many genes, and in many different environments. It would therefore be a mistake to suppose that recombinant genes would not spread to other bacteria, unless precautions are taken. Recent evidence from the HGT technology confirms that transgenic DNA in GM crops and products can spread by being taken up directly by viruses and bacteria as well as plant and animals cells.

Very recently, Yoshida et al. Adverse Effects on the Health of People or the Environment These include enhanced pathogenicity, emergence of a new disease, pest or weed, increased disease burden if the recipient organism is a pathogenic microorganism or virus, increased weed or pest burden if the recipient organism is a plant or invertebrate, and adverse effects on species, communities, or ecosystems.

Unpredictable and Unintended Effects HGT may transfer the introduced genes from a GMO to potential pests or pathogens and many yet to be identified organisms. This may alter the ecological niche or ecological potential of the recipient organism [ 9 ] and even bring about unexpected changes in structure or function [ 22 ]. Furthermore, the gene transferred may insert at variable sites of the recipient gene, not only introducing a novel gene but also disrupting an endogenous gene, causing unpredictable and unintended effects.

Loss of Management Control Measures Regulatory approvals for field trials of GMOs often require measures to limit and control the release in space and time. This new GMO may give rise to adverse effects which are not controlled by management measures imposed by the original license or permit.

Even under relatively strong selection pressure, it may take thousands of generations for a recipient organism to become the dominant form in the population [ 23 ]. In addition, other factors such as timing research paper genetically modified food appropriate biotic or abiotic environmental conditions and additional changes in the recipient organism could delay adverse effects.

Ethical Concerns Various ethical issues associated with HGT from GMOs have been raised including perceived threats to the integrity and intrinsic value of the organisms involved, to the concept of natural order and integrity of species, and to the integrity of the ecosystems in which the genetically modified research paper on genetically modified food occurs [ 24 ]. Several scientific evidence that has emerged on GMOs over the last couple of years shows that there are several clear risks to human health and the environment.

When genetic engineers create GMO or transgenic plants, they have no means of inserting the gene in a particular position. The gene ends up in a random location in the genetic material, and its position is not usually identified [ 2526 ]. There are already several examples of such undesired effects being identified in the US after approval e. Releasing genetically modified plants or crop into the environment may have direct effects, including gene transfer to wild relatives or conventional crops, weediness, trait effects on nontarget species, and other unintended effects [ 28 ].

It is widely accepted that the gene flow from GM crops is possible through pollen, from open-pollinated varieties crossing with local crops or wild relatives [ 29 ]. Because gene flow has happened for millennia between land races and conventionally bred crops, it is reasonable to expect that it could also happen with transgenic crops. Transgenic crops vary in their tendency to outcross, and the ability to outcross depends on the presence of sexually compatible wild relatives or crops, which varies according to location.

However, some lines of evidence suggested that whether or not gene flow between transgenic crops and wild relatives matters, in and of itself [ 15 ]. In addition, some indirect effects of GMO were also observed which potentially harm to the environment. For example, some transgenic traits such as the pesticidal toxins expressed by Bt genes may affect nontarget species as well as the crop pests.

It could happen but still uncertain how likely it is [ 3132 ]. The toxicological studies of Monarch butterfly provide excellent examples, which established the sensitivity of Monarch larvae to consuming Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis Bt expressed in transgenic maize [ 33 ], thereby triggering further to assess exposure and population level effects [ 31 ].

It was determined that larval exposure to pollen on a population-wide basis was low, given the proportion of larvae in maize fields during pollen shed, the proportion of fields planted in Bt maize, and the levels of pollen within and around maize fields that exceed the toxicity threshold [ 2930 ]. However, an acute dose, even if several times higher than would be expected in the field, is not equivalent to a low natural chronic dose experienced over a longer period; therefore, a two-year study was undertaken and subsequently demonstrated that the risk to Monarch butterfly populations is 0.

These results indicated negligible effects of Bt pollen to Monarch butterfly larvae from extended exposures in field settings. Extensive long-term use of herbicides glyphosate and gluphosinate in the Bt crops can promote the development of resistant insect pests and weeds. The Royal Society in the year has published the results of extensive farm-scale evaluations of the impacts of transgenic HT maize, spring oilseed rape canolaand sugar beet on biodiversity in the United Kingdom.

These studies found that the main effect of these crops compared with conventional cropping practices was on weed vegetation, with consequent effects on the herbivores, pollinators, and other populations that are feed on it. These groups were negatively affected in the case of transgenic HT writing scientific research papers beet, were, positive in case of HT Maiza and showed no effect in spring oilseed rape.

However, there is still insufficient evidence to predict what the long-term impacts of transgenic HT crops will be on weed populations and associated in-crop biodiversity. Most of the ecologists agree that gene flow is not an environmental problem unless it leads to undesirable consequences. However, these outcomes seem unlikely for most currently grown transgenic crops.

Many transgenic traits are likely to be innocuous from an environmental standpoint, and some could lead to more sustainable agricultural practices. Risk is ubiquitous and unavoidable. To a great extent, therefore, our modus operandi involves assessment and management of risk.

Directly observable risks are assessed and managed through heuristic processes. This direct observation may sometimes be insufficient to establish the nature and extent of risk. In such cases, we rely on other institutions, especially reputation and the rule of law [ 35 ].

Biosafety issues pertaining to the marketing of GMOs have received do prisons work essay attention by national and international agencies and regulatory bodies worldwide [ 2436 ]. These are based on a common set of principles built on the accumulation of experience and scientific knowledge over the past decades. Risk assessment intends to quantify risks and evaluate the probabilities of possible outcomes on the basis of scientific data.

It is a fundamental part of improving quality, being the quality of products or the quality of life, and plays a central role in the innovation required to maximize benefits. The Article 15 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety CBD implies risk assessment to be in compliance with criteria of science and transparency using already existing and recognized techniques. The characterization process should adopt a multidisciplinary approach that i analyses methodologies in statistics, ii considers the individual components employed to produce the GMOs such as characteristics of the donor organism, vector, and inserted DNAiii evaluates the final result in its totality characteristics of the organism with new traits, information related to intended use, and characteristics of the potential receiving environmentiv considers relevant information produced from both public and private research institutes and from international agencies.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in the year introduced an Annex III in the protocol of Article 15 for scientifically sound and transparent risk assessment taking into account risk assessment techniques. Such risk assessments shall be based at a minimum, on information provided in Article 8, and other available scientific evidence in order to identify and evaluate the possible adverse effects on human health and environment.

The principles and methodology described in Annex III of the protocol follows the proven, well-accepted risk assessment paradigm, including research paper genetically modified food of potential harmful characteristics of modified organisms that may have an adverse effect. Risk are then to be evaluated based on a combined analysis of the likelihood of the identified risks materializing and their consequences. The general principle of this protocol includes the following: i lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus should not necessarily be interpreted as indicating a particular level of risk, an absence of risk, or an acceptable risk; ii risks should be considered in the context of risks posed by the nonmodified recipients or parental organisms; iii risks should be assessed on a case-by-base basis.

In addition, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety evaluated the effectiveness of the protocol COP-MOP for risk assessment in the Article 35 in the year of for the safe transfer, handling, and use of living modified organisms LMO to protect the significant loss of biological diversity.

Several pieces of information would be necessary for successful risk assessment prior to release of the GMO 1 molecular characteristics of the GMO with detailed information on genetic changes in the size and sequence, 2 details of the technology used to effect the genetic changes, 3 details of the genes and their properties that have been introduced and the possible effects of any other genetic change brought about in the organism, 4 automated karyotyping and chromosomal analysis, 5 growth characteristics of the GMO in comparison with the host organism, 6 nutrient, soil, climatic, and other requirements, 7 nature of interaction with other organisms, 8 nutritional, allergenicity and toxicity studies in case of products intended for use as food and feed, 9 gene flows from the GMO under normal ecological conditions and its impact on ecology in controlled field trials, and 10 the viability of hybrids plants, its biomass productivity, and chemical composition [ 37 ].

In order to assess whether a GMO will be safe for environment, most GMOs can reproduce, multiply, and spread in the environment after they are released. The genetic modification could give GM plants, animals, or microorganisms an advantage that would allow them to increase in numbers and spread in the environment.

The environmental risks from GMOs will vary, depending research paper on genetically modified food the characteristics of, and the interactions among, the organism, the trait introduced through the gene, and the environment.

The novelty of GMOs, the fact that like all plants they will continue to reproduce after release, the complexity research paper on genetically modified food natural environments and ecosystem processes, and the unknown evolutionary fate of inserted genes, all need to be considered in predicting environmental impacts. These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate.

This document recommended that environmental risk assessments can be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approaches of risk assessment for GMO have been widely accepted. However, the USA. Environmental risk assessment ERA considers the impact of introducing a GM plant into a given environment. The ERA is concerned with evaluating the potential for harm to ecosystem components given that there is exposure to the GM plant.

Importantly, the focus and degree of emphasis on elements of the ERA will change during the development process for the GM plant as the scope of environmental release ranges from confined field trials of limited extent through to larger-scale trials and seed increases in more environments, and to the final unconfined commercial release.

The risk of GMO toward the environment is conducted on a case-by-case basis, is comparative, and uses lines of evidence to arrive at a holistic understanding of the nature and degree of risk posed by the particular type of environmental release being analyzed [ 39 ].

In addition, a stepwise or tiered approach of data generation and analysis is used in order that the focus be directed to consequential concerns within essay my life in church as a child universe of possibilities.

Because the universe of possible concerns relevant to ERA is very large, the process of problem formulation is especially critical in order that the risk assessment be properly framed and conducted [ 234041 ]. The universe of concerns generally need to be addressed with a few very specific questions within context to release most of the GMOs in the environments with special references to genetically modified plants.

Does the genetic modification of the plant cause it to have attributes commonly associated with weeds in managed environments? Invasiveness in natural environments? Will the transgenic element in the GM plant move into native plant populations, and so what if it does? That is, will gene flow cause a native plant to become weedy or invasive or more so? Or will isolated populations become extinct through hybridization with the GM plant gene swamping? And will the GM plant adversely impact nontarget organisms that may be of special interest because they are beneficial, endangered, threatened, or charismatic?

Problem formulation is a formal process whereby the risk assessor determines relevant considerations for risk assessment from this wide host of possible concerns. The commercial development of a GM plant proceeds in a stepwise fashion, and environmental release in the first instance is in the form of field trials that are limited in number, size, and environments in which they occur.

Finally, with commercialization, the GM plant is widely deployed with little concern for its confinement. Obviously, the nature of environmental impacts that need to be addressed, and therefore the data intensity and degree of scrutiny given these impacts in the ERA, will vary with the stage of development and scale of deployment being considered [ 42 ].

In view of this, the environmental risk assessment proceeds in a tiered fashion where the problem formulation considers the specific questions to be addressed and arrives at relevant data, and data synthesis needed to undertake the appropriate ERA [ 43 ].

Therefore, the ERA is dynamic with respect to the questions addressed, the data synthesized, and the comprehensiveness of the analysis conducted. As the environmental risk assessment iterates through tiers, conservatism in conduct and interpretation of findings is balanced against uncertainties in the state of understanding.

Are GMOs safe? Yes. The case against them is full of fraud, lies, and errors.

Thus, lower-tier ERA will be research paper on genetically modified food conservative to balance uncertainty, and as higher tiers of assessment are needed, increased understanding allows for more realistic less conservative appraisals [ 44 ]. Risk assessment also focused on the change brought about by genetic engineering allows for detailed consideration of the potential consequences of the change relative to the way the GM plant is intended to be used and the environments in which it may be found.

In terms of potential genetically modified food safety, key considerations are how the change may result in toxicity or allergenicity. Once a risk is assessed, it must be managed.

The management of risk is an exclusively political action, resulting in a decision regarding whether to accept or not the risk previously estimated. It can take additional aspects e. Many frameworks of risk assessment methodology separate risk assessment from risk management. Some frameworks, however, consider only certain aspects of risk management e. The important aspect is, of course, the iterative and interlinked relationship between risk assessment and risk management [ 3 ].

Often decisions are made with incomplete information, and this leads to uncertainty. This uncertainty needs to be handled to assess the impact it might have on a decision.

Biosafety regulatory frameworks should serve as mechanisms for ensuring the safe use of biotechnology products without imposing unintended constraints to technology transfer. The protocol establishes and maintains appropriate mechanisms and measures strategies to regulate, manage, and control risks identified in the provision of risk assessment.

Developing further requirements or fine-tuning obligations at this stage only worsens the degree of noncompliance already in existence. In this regard, material exists to help national governments.GMOs are organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, or GE, according to the non-GMO project website. Those organisms may be able to live longer, speed up the growth process, or withstand. After presenting the arguments of proponents and opponents of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.

One argument that proponents make about genetically modified food is that they are no different than natural foods. Hedge Com May 12, Luberta M. In a lawsuit against the BIOTECH community released 44, secret internal memos into the public domain showing that not only where GMOs dangerous, they were less nutritious than non-GMO food, they had been linked to …show more content…. While using a single acronym was considered, it was determined important to continue to remind individuals that these things are one and the same.

Perhaps it is because genetically modified foods come under so many names, and initials, that people have a difficult time determining what they are, and what they are not. People argue that food crops have been altered significantly and consistently since the beginning of time and long before and since Mendel studied short and tall beans.

But genetically modified foods are not simple cross-pollinated foods. While many hybrids have been produced to maximize certain characteristics research paper genetically modified food plants, they are arranged by crossiinsecticideng similar plants, manipulating the environment so that two plants will procreate a new and better strain. Genetic modification and engineering is something more, something relatively new. This means that a scientist must go into the DNA sequence, the genome of a plant and in some way alter the natural make-up of the DNA.

It can be manipulation to change a gene or add a gene. Nowadays, plants can be genetically modified to be better able to survive abiotic extremes, such as frosty temperatures, heat waves, droughts, and poor soil chemistries.

Provides an increased production of eggs, milk and meat. More economical research paper genetically modified food the farmer in terms of production of food. Provides improved health of the population and thereby reduces the economic burden. GE Saves the wild animals. Environmental hazards: According to the World Health Organization WHOthere is a very real risk of out-crossing, which refers to the transfer of engineered genes transgenes from genetically modified crops to conventional, cultivated plants or to related crop species in the wild.

This may happen by means of wind, insect pollination, or other transfer. The foreign genes can cross with and contaminate these other species, resulting in a hybridization of the genetically modified crop plant with a non-GMO plant. This could radically alter entire ecosystems if the hybrid plants thrived. Out-crossing can also have an indirect effect on food safety and security, as the contaminated species make their way into the food chain. Allergic reactions typically are brought on by proteins.

This was because they analyzed it in simple terms whereby they perceived that this process required the use of simple chemicals in order to determine genetic information of any given substance. Besides, they categorized Proteins in the genetic basis of which it was inappropriate and lack of knowledge according to scientific study…. StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things.

We hope to share these experiences with you. Stuck on Your Essay? Search For Search. Jukes 61 defines the term as the food derived essay rubric genetically modified organism, GMO. This scenario, combined with haphazard and negligent regulation in the biotechnology industries has accelerated the presence of genetically modified food production and consumption in the US market.

Despite being the leading producer and consumer of GMFs products across the world, the US practice of embracing GMFs has elicited a major dilemma in the country ranging from human health to environmental challenges.

Besides, labeling of GMFs products has not been easy in the country. This fact has made millions of unsuspecting consumers to purchase and consume GMFs products unknowingly.

Looking for a paper on Sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Across the world, GMFs have received mixed reactions. Countries such as Argentina, Canada, India and China have been actively involved with the technology. In Africa, Kerr 73 cites that South Africa has been using GM technology to support agricultural activities such as maize cultivation. Kerr 74 draws that if the world does not rise to the occasion and address the concerns connected to GMFs, the impact created as a result will be more severe to both human health and the eco-system.

Feight and Nashat support Kerr sentiments by showing that all stakeholders in the society should work in unison to avert the challenge created by GMF.

Genetically modified crops affect weeds that grow in the same area with crops. As the practice continues for a longer time, the weeds readily access the genes of engineered seeds which makes them resistant.

When weeds become resistant, farmers are compelled to use more resources in order to control them. He shows that little research has been conducted and less information made available to consumers. Besides, some governments have gone ahead and approved the use of GM foods in their respective food chain without being equipped with enough information. Most governments believe the risks associated with GMF are similar to those produced using conventional methods or practices of farming Jukes Thus, Jukes 66 cautions against this assumption.

Despite strong advocacy from different quarters of the society, various stories around the globe have elicited different opinions about the GMF. However, they were surprised to learn that they had spent more than they would have using traditional methods of farming. The farmers were optimistic that the seeds, provided by Monsato, a company supplying GM seeds, would make a cotton crop resistant to bollworm which was a big headache to them.

This was not to become true, later, Monsato admitted their seed had failed Feight and Nashat Similarly, Feight and Nashat shows that most African countries have objected to the GMFs by applying individual measures.

.

Top Desktop version