Revision of a Problem Exists
A majority of extant research on the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMO) indicate that they are safe for consumption, and that they have the capacity to feed the millions of people that currently go hungry globally. However, it should be noted that not each of the criticism raised on the issue is easily refuted, and pro-GMO scientists are frequently dismissive and at times unscientific in their refuting of the counterevidence. While the benefits of GMO products have led to widespread acceptance of the crop, solutions to the associated problems like health risks, malpractices of GMO companies, and provision of limited information are worth an exploration that may help boost acceptance of GM products.
GMOs are unhealthy, which is why the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has been at the forefront in recommending that doctors prescribe non-GMO diets to each patient (Institute for Responsible Technology, 2017). The organization cites animal studies that indicate considerable organ damage, disorders of the immune system and gastrointestinal problems, infertility and accelerated aging. Human studies indicate the manner in which Genetically Modified (GM) food could leave material inside the bodies of humans, which could result in long-term problems (Institute for Responsible Technology, 2017). For example, the genes that are inserted into GM soy could move onto the DNA of the bacteria found within the human body while the toxic insecticide that the GM corn produces has been found in the blood of fetuses and pregnant women (Freedman, 2013).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A series of health problems emerged after the introduction of GMOs in 1996 (Freedman, 2013). For example, the cited study indicates that the proportion of American nationals living with three or more chronic health problems escalated from 7 percent to 13 percent in only a period of 9 years. In addition, it is indicated that allergies related to foods have skyrocketed while problems such as digestive ones, reproductive ones, autism, and others have also increased significantly. As much as there is no research that connects the rise in the identified health problems and others, groups of teachers such as those at the AAEM warn the public not to delay the efforts to protect their health. They point that the children could be at the highest risk of contracting such chronic illnesses as the ones identified. Among the medical groups that condemn the use of bovine growth hormone in the US are the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health Association. These groups argue that milk from tested GM cows have a high percentage of hormone IGF-1, which is related to cancer (Freedman, 2013).
Apart from the identified health problems, research also reports that GMOs contaminate forever since the organisms cross-pollinate, which could lead to a transfer of their seeds to other parts of the globe (Institute for Responsible Technology, 2017). Self-enduring and propagating pollution resulting from GMOs is expected to outlast the effects of nuclear waste and global warming, studies say (Institute for Responsible Technology, 2017). The probable effect is huge, which poses a threat to the health of generations to come. It is also noted that GMO contamination has resulted in economic losses for non-GMO and organic farmers who have been struggling to keep their produce pure.
Companies that deal in the production and distribution of GM food have been at the forefront arguing that their products are safe for consumption and that specific laws requiring their easy identification by the public should not be passed. It means that firms dealing the GM trade have been involved in huge investments to develop their trade, which is why they would like to refute claims that their products could have potential effects on society (Freedman, 2013). Governments of the world have not taken an active step in dealing with the issues of GMOs, not even acting in the associated health problems in the nations that have allowed the production and consumption of such products. The reason is related to the political tragedy that the governments are likely to face when they ignore the contributions from such firms. For example, the Food and Drug Administration of the US does not demand any safety stud, has no mandatory GMO labelling requirements, and permits the companies that produce the GMOs to inject them into the market without any notification of the agency ( Jalonick, 2016 ). They claim that they have no info that pointed at the fact that GMOs were different from the rest of the products as a way of justifying their actions. however, this should be considered a white lie since memos from secret agency that a lawsuit made public indicated an overwhelming agreement among the scientists at the Food and Drug Administration that GMOs could result in unpredictable side effects that could be hard to detect (Freedman, 2013). The scientists even urged the development of long-term safety studies, which contradicted the directive of the White House to promote biotechnology. At that time, Michael Taylor, a former attorney for Monsanto (a biotechnology firm) was the vice president of the Food and Drug Administration and has since moved to become the food safety czar of the country ( Jalonick, 2016 ). The implication for this evidence is that biotechnology firms will continue to use tobacco safety in marketing their products. The concern about health problems related to the GMOs might not yield fruit in the near future.
It means that the US and the globe need to address the problem of the emergence of GMOs. While it is acknowledged that the world faces hunger and poverty, strategies that are more novel should be created instead of only relying on the GMOs since research indicates negative effects on the public. To say that GMOs are safe will be to ignore the risk that future generations face because of a continued use of the products.
Revision of Solution to Problem and Advantages
The problems of genetically modified organisms that have been identified in the preceding parts of this work imply that an immediate action ought to be taken to solve them. First, the efforts to complement the organic food production are commendable and plausible since they are a novel attempt to solve the problems of hunger, poverty, and malnutrition. However, the effects of genetic engineering on the health and well-being of consumers of the foods should be addressed through further research (Mufson, 2013). Specifically, more research should be done on the production methods of the organisms and the likely effects of the consumption both in the short and long-run. Such efforts already exist, only more investment should be done to eliminate harmful hormones and chemicals from the products of genetic engineering.
This solution is advantageous in many aspects. First, it will help end the debate on GMOs since there shall be little evidence to indicate that the products are harmful for humans. It will take significant time to prove such advantages to the people but the outcome is likely to cause lifelong effects that will change the perception of the public about the products. Secondly, further research in the production methods will increase the capacity of the biotechnological industry to produce safe products for human consumption. The solution will go long ways in helping to feed the millions of people globally that suffer from starvation and malnutrition. In the modern society, GM crops for consumption are grown not only in the United States and other developed countries but also in the developing nations. Recent estimations show that nearly 800 million people across the world suffer from lack of enough food. The majority of this population is in Asia and Africa accounting for nearly 739 million people. In this regard, GM crops are posited to be a possible solution for ensuring proper health among these communities that suffer from hunger (Mufson, 2013). It would be disheartening to raise the hope of the people suffering and plunge them into further problems by providing inappropriate food. Such a practice would cause major political issues between the affected nations and those where the products are developed.
The research will also benefit the biotechnological industry by transforming people into considering the need for more investment and avoiding to consider such investments as a waste of public funds. Lastly, this solution is advantageous since it is not a new idea; significant efforts have been made to fund research in the past. It means, therefore, that further investment is likely to succeed since there frameworks already in existence to facilitate a smooth management of such projects.
Adopting this solution will also be a way of communicating the stance of the government on the issue GMOs and their safety. There is a significant backlash in the public where members of the community are concerned that the government does not care about their health and the risk GM products may pose on them. The recent signing of the HR 933, Section 735 in March 2013 is branded as a law protecting corporations rather than the people who may suffer (Krimsky, 2015). The issue brought about significant numbers of individuals to protest against the government as the law limits the federal courts' ability to prevent the sale and propagation of crops that are found to pose health risks during safety checks. Through incorporating a mandatory re-assessment on the effects of the GM products, the government may be able to win back the trust of the public on the issue of food supply. Conducting further research on the issue would help develop valid evidence on the impact the modified food has on human health.
There is also a need for governments around the world to regulate the production, distribution, and consumption of GMOs, which is why the institution of proper regulatory measures should be taken. The governments should for example, step up its efforts to monitor how the products are produced, how they enter the market, and other issues related to the use of GMOs. The move will also eliminate the massive control of the industry by large farms that might be geared to the protection of their own interests. One of the major benefits of establishing meaningful legislation that prevents the GMO corporations from undertaking dubious plans in their practice is to bring back ethical practice in the agricultural sector (Krimsky, 2015). Following the announcement that an 80-acre farm in Oregon had grown unapproved wheat, the largest importer of white wheat from the US, Japan, suspended its business and canceled the most recent order that was to take place. The EU also remained closely attached to the progress of the issue ready to enforce its “zero-tolerance policy.” The strain was found to be a product of Monsanto that had previously tested the seed in more than 12 states over a decade ago. Such laws would prevent the country to experience significant economic downturn that may trickle down to the civilians involved in the agricultural sector. Estimates also show that nearly 70% of processed products in the US incorporate ingredients sourced from GM products. As a result, it is almost impossible to identify the extent of damage that may affect the communities served by such corporations (Mufson, 2013).
Through the enforcement of the laws, the stakeholders would be liable to cases where they are seen to conduct themselves inappropriately to the economic and social concerns of the issue. The GM corporations have demonstrated their immense power on the controversial issue that is a constant nightmare in modern society (Kumar, 2016). Monsanto, for instance, has generated $13.5 billion in sales of GM products. Such a case is a clear indicator of the vast wealth of the industry and the control it could have soon. Despite the unfolding events in Oregon, there have been little consequences earned by the organization for its participation in the sale of products that are yet to be approved by the related government agencies. The GMO market has grown from between 5% and 17% back in 1997 to between ⅔ and 90% (Jalonick, 2016). The restrictive laws would serve as an appropriate measure of providing practices in the biotechnology industry that are equitable to the corporations and the consumers served.
Possible Disadvantages of the Proposed Solutions
Funding more research and ensuring more governmental regulation of the process of production, distribution and consumption of GMOs could have negative effects even while the positive ones have been identified. For example, more governmental regulation of business is likely to cause a political rift in some nations. For example, there has already been protests by stakeholders in the biotechnology industry after the state of Vermont passed laws to demand business people to identify their products from the rest through unique labelling of their packaging material (Jalonick, 2016). A group of legislators moved to court to challenge the decision and heaped pressure on the Congress to give clarification on the issue. It means that the solution of more governmental regulation is likely to spark major debate in times to come. Secondly, funding more research, even though undoubtedly advantageous, might cause major scrutiny of the government by the public about expenditure. Specifically, those that oppose the technology could consider that government would be wasting public resources on unproductive projects as opposed to caring for the society through better investment plans.
In conclusion, While there are numerous benefits associated with GMOs, recent research has shown that there are various problems associated with its acceptance in the public and the above solutions could help calm the concerns. The action conducting comprehensive re-assessment of these products is an essential measure to curb the issues of health risks, company malpractice, and limited information. The recent events have shown that the corporations in the biotechnology sector may be conducting dubious practices that could negatively affect the general population. It is for this reason that the government should increase its involvement in the issue is necessary to bar the corporations from intentional harm on the human health, economy, and social requirements. The government may help uncover the truth of the matter while providing consumers with valuable information on the same. However, the solutions might attract more scrutiny from the public about public expenditure and spark political unrest in the nations that will adopt them.
References
Freedman, D. (2013). Are Engineered Foods Evil?. Scientific American , 309 (3), 80-85. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0913-80
Institute of Responsible Technology (2017). 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs - Institute for Responsible Technology . (2011). Institute for Responsible Technology . Retrieved 14 June 2017, from http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/
Jalonick, M. C. (2016, Feb 4) GMO Labeling Law Worries Food Groups . US News, Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-02-04/food-industry-looks-to-congress-as-gmo-labeling-law-nears
Krimsky, S. (2015). An illusory consensus behind GMO health assessment. Science, Technology, & Human Values , 40(6), 883-914. DOI: 10.1177/0162243915598381.
Kumar, A. (2016). The Future of Genetically Modified Crops: Reflections on the NAS Report. Asian Biotechnology & Development Review , 18(2): 59-67.
Mufson, S. (2013, May 30). Unapproved genetically modified wheat from Monasanto found in Oregon field . The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/unapproved-genetically-modified-wheat-from-monsanto-found-in-oregon-field/2013/05/30/93fe7abe-c95e-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_story.html?utm_term=.d822e652a8dd June 9 th 2017
