The Credibility of the Materials
The documents are obtained from the US National Library of Medicine (NLM) under the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The two are in close association with the Department of Health and Human Services, and the USA government. The platform is subjected to scrutiny through the national agency because it is a credible platform for research development in health. NLM started in 1836 as a shelf of a few books at the Surgeon General’s Office. Senators Lister Hill and John F. Kennedy advocated for the transfer of the library under the public domain through the act of congress bill in 1956. The plan was developed and put into action so that in 1962, the library was entirely under the public health service (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, n.d).
NLM has a high focus on health subjects, which makes it relevant for the research on Genetically Modified Organism (GMOs). The platform is hosted online and has information sources on Biomedical Literature, Health Information, Experimental Multimedia Search Engine, Search Database on Hazardous Chemicals, Database on Clinical Trials, and Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST). The BLAST tool is critical in developing GMOs as a biotechnology tool. Besides uploaded documents, the NLM works in collaboration with researchers such as Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, NCBI intramural Research Group, and Computational Biology at the National Center for Biotechnology Information ( The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, n.d ). It is against the backdrop of these credentials that the sources hosted on the NLM platform are treated as credible sources. The library’s credibility is at stake; therefore, it must be engaged in ensuring that reliable sources are uploaded on its website unlike other internet platforms that incorporate documents with outrageous inaccuracies and factual errors ( Gladwell, 2005 ).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Case scenario
As the leader of presidential advisory committee, the president has requested me to prepare a written recommendation whether the campus should sell or serve food that has been genetically modified ( Gladwell, 2005) . The request has been made due to the rising concern about food served in campus.
Arguments for GMO for food
The rapidly increasing world population requires a reliable source of food. GMO for food provides a simple, fast, and reliable approach to food production ( Kamle, Kumar, Patra & Bajpai, 2017 ). GMO performs better than natural variants in adverse conditions. Research has unveiled variants that resist adverse climatic conditions, pest resistance, and present benefit.
The adoption of genetically engineering technology is global. GMO are produced in all the continents with the USA being the leading investor in the technology followed by countries such as Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia and others respectively ( Kamle, Kumar, Patra & Bajpai, 2017 ). The technology incorporates the production of soybeans, maize, eggplants, potato, sugar beet, and others — the benefits of the technology in feeding large economies such as the USA evidence its effectiveness and acceptance. If the technology were entirely dangerous, then its adoption would have been met with catastrophic results more than the benefits it is causing. It is illogical to resist its advantages over a few selected accidental cases.
Strict containment rules regulate GMO technology. Containment rules refer to guidelines governing the handling of GMO products to prevent contamination. The containment rules have been standardized at the international level ( Kamle, Kumar, Patra & Bajpai, 2017 ). That implies that GMOs from countries outside the USA are equally safe as those produced in the US. The Universal Containment Standard harmonizes the industry creating assurance of the GMO products. While other governments are moving to establish mandatory labeling of GMO foods, some have allowed the free introduction of the products into the markets without necessarily labeling. Countries such as Russia, Brazil, Chile, Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and New Zealand require compulsory labeling. On the contrary, The USA, South Africa, Hong Kong, Argentina, and Canada do not require mandatory labeling yet the products are used without considerable harm to the consumers. Therefore, the products do not pose much of the exaggerated risks although the danger of accidental sickness or other negative outcomes exists.
Arguments against GMOs are not based on facts. The development and use of GMOs have grown considerably since their first introduction in the 1990s, yet consumer knowledge has been stagnant. Arguments against GMOs are based on misconceptions, misinformation, and misunderstandings ( Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015 ). Arguments must be universal in demonstrating how GMOs have caused harm to a significant percentage of the human population since their introduction.
Arguments against GMO for food
The arguments against GMOs are majorly on ethical and health grounds. The ethics of the argument questions human authority to manipulate nature ( Grover, Ashhar & Patni, 2014 ). Arguing the point of ethics from a religious perspective would cause more controversies as some faith does not believe in the God of the Bible. The health counterarguments are the most established. First, opponents cite the product's health threat to the fetus ( Grover, Ashhar & Patni, 2014 ). Expectant women should avoid taking GMO products. There are alternatives offered by natural products, and they should take them to prevent possible threats to the fetus. The mother should take the responsibility of protecting a fetus that cannot make choices for or against life and not the society.
Concerns are raised on toxin productions that have an impact on human health. For instance, Bt ( Bacillus thuringiensis ) gene inserted to produce pest-resistant proteins produces toxins poisonous to human health ( Grover, Ashhar & Patni, 2014). The Bt gene is a single gene, while there are numerous other genes involved in GMOs for food. Not all cases result in the production of poisonous toxins. In addition, science is progressive, and future developments will reveal safer alternatives or solutions to the toxic elements.
The superiority of GMOs to deliver the next generation of crops has been challenged by worthy opponents. The school of thought argues that conventional agricultural methods are superior to GMO production and that the latter is unnecessary (National Academies of Sciences 2016). Point of argument should not be about their superiority but the benefits they offer in solving the food crisis. GMO crops are better suited to grow in adverse climatic conditions where conventional foods are becoming extinct or cannot withstand. Additionally, GMO foods are integrated with additional desirable features such as vaccine components, which present a cheaper and safer way of administering vaccines (Grover, Ashhar & Patni, 2014).
Finally, genetic engineering of organisms can result in the development of new strains of organisms, allergic response, and antibiotic resistance. The microorganisms of the tract are exposed to horizontal gene transfers, which exposes them to new genes resulting in the development of new strains of organisms ( Grover, Ashhar & Patni, 2014 ). The health cases are isolated. The benefits of GMOs address the needs of millions of the human population, which can be overlooked because of the few when alternative food exists. Further, if the claims were of considerable magnitude, there could be significant environmental impact and health cases since the first development of GMOs in 1983. It is the case with drug reactions. Allergic reactions or an unexpected outcome drugs do not eliminate their production for those that can use them to heal. Discrediting the use of GMOs due to the isolated incidences is a violation of human reasoning and a retrogressive development in security.
The campus should sell GMO foods. The benefits of GMO foods in solving food insecurity are evident in its global adoption in the face of exploding human population. The health concerns are isolated, and the subject of ethics on Biblical conflict cannot be argued due to its one-sided orientation. Alternative food should be provided for those who do not take GMO food.
References
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking . New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
Grover, A., Ashhar, N., & Patni, P. (2014). Why genetically modified foods need reconsideration before consumption? Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 3 (3), 188.
Kamle, M., Kumar, P., Patra, J. K., & Bajpai, V. K. (2017). Current perspectives on genetically modified crops and detection methods. Biotech, 7 (3), 219.
National Academies of Sciences (2016). Regulation of Current and Future Genetically Engineered Crops. In Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. National Academies Press (US).
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (n.d). Accelerating Biomedical Discovery and Data-Powered Health. Retrieved from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (n.d). A brief history of NLM. Retrieved from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/about/briefhistory.html
Wunderlich, S., & Gatto, K. A. (2015). Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition, 6 (6), 842-851.
Appendix
D
Reliable source of food for the growing global population
GMO technology available to major economies such as USA
Standardized rules to ensure safety in production and handling of GMO
GMO technology available to major economies such as USA efense of GMOs for food
Safer and cheaper method of delivering vaccines
A
Conventional food production superior to GMO- GMO has capacity to survive harsher environments, pests, weather and so on hence more reliable with the changing climate
rguments against GMOs for food and counterarguments
Health threat to fetus- mother to abstain from GMOs’ isolated cases.
GMO food is good
Biblically unethical- not all are Christians hence argument not convincing to people of other faiths
Bt toxins and new strains of organisms - many other safer genes are used in GMOs. Technology cannot be discredited because of one gene
Negative health effect- isolated cases
