Biotechnology has offered us a wide range of applications in the modern society to deal with the various problems that face us as humans. The new ideas on this topic are still on trial and involve the simulation of how the effects will be in our lives. Currently, biotechnology applies to any living thing; that is animals, humans, and crops. As a result, one of the main areas where this technology is used is in agricultural production. Food is one aspect of life that we cannot live without. The production of genetically modified crops and animals comes handy in solving the issue of food insecurity (Glass & Fanzo, 2017).
However, this debate has become controversial and one of the most divisive topics in the world. Despite the fact that we require food for survival, one question on safety should be paramount at all times. The use of plants and livestock for food has been in existence since time immemorial in the history of humankind when we stopped hunting and gathering and began relying on agriculture for subsistence. The necessity of producing more and quality food has seen the birth of genetic engineering with the quest to modify the crop and animal characteristics. This manipulation has been the bone of contention in social, political, and economic circles (Ribeiro et al., 2016). This paper will discuss the effects of genetic engineering in sociological aspect.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Molecular biology deals with the knowledge of the genes organisms possess that make them have certain traits. This makes it possible for genetic engineers to modify the attributes to give out a desirable product. These modifications have therefore their advantages. The applications of genetic changes have been well accepted by the public in the last decade, at least for medical uses involving stem cell production and production of vaccines (McFadden, 2016). Some factions have agreed to the bit of food due to various reasons. First and foremost, genetic engineering helps in the manufacture of a crop that is resistant to a particular pest or pathogen. The fact that a single DNA from any organism can be used as the starter material, and that one trait can be transferred to the recipient makes it possible to make dominant the target pest trait and inject it into the prepared plant. In this case, there will be reduced usage of pesticides and fungicides in trying to fight a pest or disease. Thus, there is a cost reduction in the production chain. The technology makes it able also to produce food that is improved in other aspects.
The specific DNA for higher production can be initiated into the recipient to make it have the maximum yields. It is good news for the world that there can be increased production of food. As population growth is increasing, there is need to produce more. Currently, the production is insufficient to feed the whole world as people in some countries go hungry due to famine and drought. The increased food production can, therefore, improve the standard of living in the poor communities. In developing countries, the climate is such that there is the time of bumper harvest and the time of starvation. The GM foods can be of help during their time of disaster when what matters the most is to provide food for the masses (Glass & Fanzo, 2017). It is evident that these countries also have rules for GMO, but they do not matter in the stress time. Currently, the acreage under biotech-crops is almost on 148 million hectares throughout the world. The campaigners of the adoption of genetically modified products claim that the foods are safe and that the method is similar to any conventional one only that it involves a bit of science. In fact, the modification has solved the problems of the traditional methods practiced for thousands of years now.
While doing the cross-breeding of crops, it is possible to pass even the genes of the undesired traits. Thus the process of taking out the undesirable traits requires breeding plants for numerous generations as it is a slow process. Therefore, the advent of biotechnology has given us the power to conquer the reproductive barriers to higher yields by only picking the desired gene and injecting it into the recipient genome. This process is an evolutionary and holds the key to the solution of malnutrition across the globe (Glass & Fanzo, 2017). The advocates argue that the same results can be obtained using the conventional methods only that it requires a related species and the process is also lengthy, thus making genetic modification the solution. Another line of thought is that the technology can be used to fight diseases. By injecting genes that can act on pathogens in the body, GM foods will be a good avenue to administer drugs, especially antibiotics.
That is a fair share of the probable advantages of genetic modification. It also shares a big dose of controversy. The downside of this technology and it is sparking strong opposition from the farmer, consumers, environmentalists, and independent scientists who feel like the technology is a ticking time bomb which is set to bring more long-term harm to the human race. The idea that it is possible to inject a gene from an organism into a different one is the foundation of all the opposition. That means that it is feasible to take the genes of animals and transfer into crops just because it holds the desired traits.
Many public interest groups, NGOs and environmental organizations in Europe have brought the possible harms of GMFs to human life into the consciousness of the public. In Europe, the idea is not welcome for human or animal consumption based on health concerns. The move is preventive, and purely on ethical aspects of the society. The rejection has caused governments to create regulations which are country specific. The EU rules are considered the strictest of all as it is designed to create the best for human health, animal welfare, and environmental protection (Jiansheng et al., 2017). Humans have not tested the stability of a gene transfer from one organism to another, and thus the technology is still a Pandora’s Box (McFadden, 2016).
Independent researchers and those working for the biotech companies have done studies which gave different results from the data from the former showed abnormalities in various animals. Animals that were fed on GM foods showed signs of sickness or were dead. Rats fed modified potatoes or soya had an abnormal sperm size. The livestock; cows, goats, pigs, and buffalo which grazed on GM cottonseed, corn, and Bt-maize had complications such as infertility, abortions, early deliveries, and some died (Maghari & Ardekani, 2011). On the other hand, the research from the co mpanies showed that exposure to these foods has no health hazard on mice. This leads to much confusion. No one knows what is inside the foods and the intensity of the effects. The health effects are not well-covered in the current research thus leaving people exposed to chances. Some people argue that the introduction of traits into other crops can increase the occurrence of allergens. Some traces of unknown cancer-causing pathogens can be introduced. The unclear GMO rule in the USA makes it possible for these foods to penetrate into the plates of consumers without notice.
Another con is that by altering the natural biology of the crops or animals, we interfere with the rules and order of nature. Thus some religious groups argue that humans want to “play god.” We want to create our mixture of two or more organisms in one body. This is dangerous as it leads to loss of the original biodiversity. This has an impact on the environment. Transfer of genes can also leak into the ecosystem. When the resistance gene is injected into the crop, it is possible that the insect which it resistant to will carry the gene around. The result will lead to the birth of super insects and super weeds. On the other hand, the plant can contain some genes that kill the non-target organisms. This applies to the Bt-corn killing insects which feed on its pollen. Also, the crops destroy the beneficial soil microorganisms that ensure biochemical processes and soil fertility.
A big con of the social aspect of this whole issue there is more to a choice of food than that which meets the eye. A lot of factors come to play, and one of these is social. A community or society chooses its food distinctively and based on their attitudes and beliefs (Naik et al., 2015). There are foods that people from one place cannot touch, however good it looks on another person’s plate. This bias is held together with social ties (Ribeiro et al., 2016). So when the companies and businesses want to force people with GM foods which have strains of DNA from the plants they do not know, it becomes disturbing. Maybe that which you don’t value has found its way into your diet. The same goes for animals. For instance, it is hard to convince an Arab that the beef they enjoy has no traits from pork and the free bias that belief on something as communal as diet makes the mysteries of genetic modification difficult to explain. Thus, genetic modification can be an agent for cultural and social erosion (Ribeiro et al., 2016). It is keen on unifying the whole world and interferes with the diversity; thus, the public outbursts on the opposition (McFadden, 2016).
Some people explain that it is the will of the corporations to rule over the humans forever. The biotech companies are big businesses which tend to patent the technology to enjoy a monopoly (Jiansheng et al., 2017). Why should a universal art of production of food for survival be in the hands of fewer individuals who want to control the human race? The multinational companies force the idea of GM into everybody’s mind. When farmers develop the technology, firms like Monsanto, Aventis, and Novartis will be the benefactors. For instance, Monsanto developed the RoundUp herbicide. To make it sell, the made the Roundup Ready Soybean, a GMO. Now, this bean only works with the herbicide. So for a farmer to produce the crop, he or she has to but both products. Activists have argued that when these technologies come into being, the food production sector will be privatized and deny the humans the only natural property that they can own (Naik et al., 2015).
On my part, I am for the idea that genetic modification should be banned till there is enough evidence on its health and social implications. The discussions mentioned above only see the technology keen on increasing food production while ignoring some of the important factors that hold this world together. The idea of forcing people with the foods that they do not like while everyone has a right to choose whatever goes into their system is just not ethical. Also, the ugly sides of the technology have been speculated, which contradicts the statements of the findings of the companies carrying out the activities of production. As the food production increases under genetic modification, it is hard to compare the quality with the conventional produce due to non-uniform contents.
In conclusion, there is a lot of knowledge gap on the solution the genetic offers to the traditional methods of production. Science does not match with the public perception of the technology. Thus, more research should be carried out openly.
References
Glass, S., & Fanzo, J. (2017). Genetic modification technology for nutrition and improving diets: an ethical perspective. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 44(Food biotechnology Plant biotechnology), 46-51 doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2016.11.005
Jiansheng, Z., Yanan, C., & Yu, L. (2017). Analysis of genetically modified food induced international trade law issues. Journal Of Commercial Biotechnology, 23(1), 17-23. doi:10.5912/jcb774
Maghari, B. M., & Ardekani, A. M. (2011). Genetically modified foods and social concerns: Avicenna journal of medical biotechnology, 3(3), and 109.
McFadden, B. R. (2016). Examining the Gap between Science and Public Opinion about Genetically Modified Food and Global Warming: Plos One, 11(11), e0166140. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166140
Naik, A., Pandit, R. S., & Ajitam, K. (2015). Consumer Awareness, Attitude towards exercising their Rights: Genetically Modified Foods. Aweshkar Research Journal, 19(1), 109-116
Prakash, C. S. (2014). A look at the recent news from around the world on genetically modified food and crops. GM Crops & Food, 5(1), 1-3. doi:10.4161/gmcr.28278
Ribeiro, T. G., Barone, B., & Behrens, J. H. (2016). Genetically modified foods and their social representation Food Research International, 84120-127 doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2016.03.029
