The use or disuse of Genetically Modified Organisms has elicited a mixed reaction from proponents and opponents alike. The controversy has been on whether the GMO are out to save or destroy the world. The science behind GMOs was first introduced in the mid-nineties, involving a combination of genes of a species’ DNA into another plant or animals genes, to create a new breed that is resistant or tolerant to certain conditions. Scientific modifications were informed by the need to feed the growing world population which is overwhelming natural ways of producing food. In this paper, I will use GMO organizer to write an article that opposes the use of GMOs.
The GMOs process results in environmental contamination due to a series of chemicals employed in herbicides and pesticides. The active chemicals diffuse into the air and into water sources which cause harm to organisms and environment, (Moore, 2001). According to research by American Academy of Environmental Medicine, GMO foods have chemicals that penetrate into the blood system, interfering with the nervous system and causing cancer. Strong herbicides and pesticides also kill other weeds and insects thereby hampering the population of both plants and animals, which leads to an imbalance in the ecosystem.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Most weeds have developed resistance to herbicides and pesticides leading to a reduced quantity and quality of yield. A typical example is Amaranthus palemri, a resistant plant in the South East USA that spread across 76 countries in 20 years, (Boschen, 2001). The development of this glyphosate-resistant weed led to decreased yields for up to 50% of the certain quantity. For instance, in Pennsylvania State University, the study predicted that due to the development of herbicide-resistant superweeds, more herbicides would be used per hectare of land. By 2025, there will be an expected quantity of 3.5kg per hectare of land, from 1.5kg per hectare in 2013. Overconcentration of herbicides is harmful to the environment and various species of organisms, which face extinction due to powerful and toxic chemicals.
The constant claim by the pro-GMO scientists that it improves productivity does not stand the test of time. A group of scientists researched on various GMO academic materials for over twenty years and found no substantial relationship between scientifically engineered modes of production and the quantity of yield. In Uganda, for instance, the government has banned GMO foods even after the scientists developed a bacteria-resistant banana species, (Hindo & Schneyer, 2007). This species has been ineffective in yielding, with Ugandan farmers recording a 40 percent reduction in yields in the last decade. The use of biotechnology is therefore not an assurance of improved quality or quantity of returns as claimed by the proponents.
Absence of strict labeling of GMO foods in the US has created challenges because this is not a mandatory by the US Food and Drug Administration. Companies can voluntary indicate on the package whether the food substance is genetically modified or not, (Moore, 2001). The consumers, some of whom may be against the use of GMO, find themselves unknowingly consuming the unlabeled foodstuffs. Short-term effects on animals who consume on the GMOs include some complicated and fatal health hazards. There is the need to label the packets and brands with symbols that either indicates GMO content or not.
In conclusion, this article is against the use of GMO foods about the adverse effects that the chemicals have on the environment and the lives of people. People should get the free will to choose whether to use the GMOs based on the available expertise information. The article explores various case studies, which counter the basics of GMO, such as increase of crop yields, resistant to herbicides, pesticides, and diseases and drought. The uncertainty of safety is also an issue that should be addressed to underscore whether GMO is necessary for humanity and environment.
References
Böschen, S. (2009). Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate. Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 16 (5), 508-520.
Hindo, B., & Schneyer, J. (2007). Monsanto: Winning the ground war. Business Week , 17 , 35- 41.
Moore, J. A. (2001). 14 Frankenfood or Doubly Green Revolution: Europe vs. America on the GMO Debate. Albert H. Teich Stephen D. Nelson Celia McEnaney , 173.
