Surname 1

Name

Professor

Course

Date

Introduction

Over the past few years, arguments on the effects of genetically modified organisms have

increasingly taken sides with both supports and opponents justifying their opinions over DNA.

Since GMO has both positive and negative sides, such side-taking is expected where some will

argue for, and others will argue against. GMOs are those organisms that have their structures of

their DNA altered (Bock, Ralph 18). A facile explanation of how organisms are genetically

modified may better be understood with the realization that a rare steak may have hundreds of

trillions of the gene; each containing a code that determines the appearance and characteristics of

a living thing/ Genetic modification changes the genes; hence, the characteristics of the subject

as well. Large corporations such as Coca-Cola has been on the front advocating for the

legalization of the GMO and remove the labeling policy that was internationally passed to make

buyers aware of the GMO content. Since larger corporations keep growing regarding their

manufacturing and production, quite a larger number of consumers and health groups have stood

up fighting against foods that are genetically altered. In this case, the battle raised against

GMO foods has become the center of debate with evidence that negative side outweighs the

positive sides.

The effects of genetic modification in any form are cause for controversy around the

world; although some countries are more accepting than others. The tomato was the first of the
 Surname 2

commercially grown GM foods. The food item was named the FlavrSavr and was deemed by

the FDA (The US Foods as well as Drug Administration) to be safe for consumption after testing

in 1992. Surprisingly, though, the FDA did not require the tomato to carry a label stating it had

been genetically modified. In fact, there was little fanfare at all regarding its release to the public;

although many will say that is because the public did not understand the concept of GM and that

their silence was a tacit approval.

In quick succession, some other genetically modified food items began to appear on

grocery store shelves including a potato that had an EPA classified organic pesticide in its

package. It had DNA called Bt that was still not required to carry labeling; virus-resistant'

squash; and several strains of corn, soybeans, cotton and canola that had been engineered with an

immunity to the well-known herbicide "Round-Up". Much controversy about genetic

modification might be traced to the company Menino; deal with a rich history of United States.

Having been founded late in 1900, it grew into an economic juggernaut that, in the eyes of many,

has made some painful missteps in the public's eyes including the manufacture and sale of DDT

and Agent Orange; both chemicals found to have detrimental effects on human beings.

A series of acquisitions and mergers left Monsanto, the undisputed winner in the field of

genetic modification. By 2007 they owned Cargill and Seminis - former seed companies;

Agracetus, the biotechnology company credited with generating multiple transgenic variations;

and some other transactions; the relevance and value of which are too complicated for a

comprehensive explanation of the parameters of this assignment. However, they may well be

remembered for their attempt to launch a technology called terminator that would create sterile

seeds; thereby protecting what they believed were their intellectual property rights because they
 Surname 3

were licensing the technology to farmers. A public outcry finally caused Monsanto to back down

from this proposed monopoly over what would be the key to the worlds food supply.

Meanwhile, there was a growing awareness across the United States, and the world,

throughout the last decade of the 20th century and now into the 21st; that the use of genetic

modification in the production of everyday food found in groceries everywhere was

mushrooming. It thus translated to a growing backlash against the concept and its increasing

applications (Bock, Ralph 15). Those who were against genetic modification had many issues

with artificially engineering food. Their chief concern was that foods were unlabeled, untested

and unsafe. So, on the one hand, organizations that believed genetically modified organisms

were a panacea to solve the problem of world hunger. Conversely, the very nature of these foods

was being called into question about whether or not the essence of their constitution was

authentically safe for consumption (by animals in the form of feed or humans).

The Rockefeller Foundation and golden rice is a perfect example of the conflict.

Scientists employed by the foundation to research solutions to hunger were extremely excited

when they developed a strain of rice they had enriched with vitamin A. There is a decided

Vitamin A deficiency in many third world countries which often results in early blindness, so

scientists were cautiously optimistic they had a breakthrough to their credit. However, despite

the endorsement of multiple organizations (right, some were biotech companies); the food was

ultimately condemned for the reason it had been genetically modified, and people were fearful

they were being conned into accepting GMO.

In our modern world, it seems not a day goes by that genetically modified organisms, and

plants are not front page news. Monsanto is bearing the brunt of the much negative press that

makes it appear the acceptance of genetically engineered foods across the world is akin to a
 Surname 4

soccer match. If the people' speak out and prevent its acceptance into their country, it is much

like a win' for the underdog. Meanwhile, the wealthy and powerful American company is sent

packing time and again. At the very least, that is a fact worth noting; more importantly, though is

this point may bring cooler minds to bear in light of the constant presence of starvation.

At other times, these modifications are creatures altered to a genetic level to contain

genetic materials from random elements. These materials originate from animal categories that

might not be discovered blended with the creature in nature or seen at customary rearing. A case

of this is embedding qualities from a creature into an organic product or vegetable (Katz). To

create these GMOs, researchers use quality weapons (gear for infusing cells with genetic data),

((Bock, Ralph 20). Products are for the most part adjusted so they pick up imperviousness to

conditions that would some way or another murder the harvests or back off the development

procedure. The exploration of hereditarily modifying creatures started in the 1981s; however, the

innovation was not consolidated into the agrarian business to 1983s. Presently GMOs could

usually be found in soybeans, cottonseed, corn, canola, sugar, beets, horse, papaya, feed, and

zucchini (Poulter 191). In spite of the fact that GMOs addressed after adding to the agrarian

market, as of late, a developing number of individuals have been staying away from them or

supporting for their boycott.

To begin, many people would prefer not to eat sustenance that has been GMO and

misleadingly changed, and simply need to eat unadulterated and characteristic nourishment.

Furthermore, the seeds of hereditarily built yields can undoubtedly be conveyed the water

however and splash to territories of the non-GMO and natural products that transforms it into a

sympathy toward ecological security. Innumerable people likewise need to dodge the pesticides

that are pumped into the GMOs alongside their general craving to ensure their wellbeing. At last,
 Surname 5

many are similarly battling back against the massive agrochemical partnerships that have

dynamically gotten reaction increasingly, for exclusively developing and offering the GMOs for

substantial benefit.

As per the neighborhood bunch, GMO Jackson -Free County, local people in Oregon

Southern began supporting for legal moderates for the boycott of genetically modified organisms

in 2012. During this time, Jackson County inhabitants discovered that neighborhood landowners

had been shrunk by a Swiss biotech organization that needed to utilize their vacant parcels to

develop hereditarily built sugar beets. The residents expected that the dust, helped through the

twist from the GMO products would debase their natural or non-GMO crops (Poulter 193). In the

wake of endeavoring to contact government offices, the nearby Nationals composed a request of

that would boycott GMO farming in Jackson County. According to Ermine, more than 6700

marks were gathered which prompted the Advancement of Measures 117.

Various natural and non-GMO ranchers at Oregon's are worried for agribusiness of

GMOs sugar in the territory. A single blossom of sugar holds a huge number of dust granules

that numerous researchers discovered that via the wind, the grains might be diverted kilometers

in the first area it is developed (Evelyn). Whenever natural or non-GMO agriculturists have their

harvests tainted by the hereditarily designed dust, they can't offer their items. Honest Morton, a

native seed rancher who develops organisms for their seeds, partakes in Ann Airline's comments.

"Who's dependable if it isn't on a rope? I'm a confirmed natural seed producer, and if (his

harvests) were to get sullied with any distinguishable measure the item ends up plainly useless."

If neighborhood physical and non-GMO agriculturists can't offer their yields and seeds because

of cross-fertilization, it makes financial problems in the field of agriculture. The sugar beet
 Surname 6

industry needs to secure the seeds that it depends on; notwithstanding, they are not hesitant to

venture on the nearby non-GMO ranchers keeping in mind the end goal to do as such.

Science as a whole is a brave new world'; the application of new concepts and methods

are occurring at a much more rapid pace than it is possible to thoroughly monitor and manage for

possible present and future detrimental outcomes (Decker, Kaskey 334). Indeed, we expect that

ethical parameters will be utilized in the pursuit of scientific endeavors aimed to improve the

human experience. Realistically, we must acknowledge that it is impossible to plan for all

contingencies; particularly when there are instances that are beyond our ability to fathom.

Therefore, the best approach is to brainstorm and weigh out (to the nth degree) the

potential hazards and benefits of a particular scenario before proceeding with its actualization.

Regarding GMO or, in this instance, genetically modified plants and organisms, the benefit is

increased foodstuffs to feed a burgeoning world population. The consequences of GMO can be

its impact on human physiology and the ecology of the planet in future generations. Increasingly,

people are educating themselves on the topic of GMO and its future effects; and arguing against

this artificial engineering of the natural environment.

Conclusion

As this assignment calls for more than a mere reiteration of both sides of the issue; but a

personal assessment of the topic, I will proffer that the current suffering of individuals

(particularly children) calls for an immediate and decisive response. All indications are that

genetically modified organisms may hold the answer to world hunger, and under the current

circumstances, it is a clear response I wholly support. The conjecture of its negative impact in the

future aside; a life saved through GMO may one day be the life that provides new hope in the

face of tomorrow's devastating problems. Finally, and ever so quickly, another concern of
 Surname 7

GMOs for which there is no current definitive response is its impact on the environment long

term. In all, it is evident that the jury is still out' on the ultimate value or use of GMOs. In this

case, GMOs foods should be banned since their negative sides outweigh positive sides as

illustrated by the paper above. Below is a sample of GMO food:

 Surname 8

Works Cited

Bock, Ralph. "The give-and-take of DNA: horizontal gene transfer in plants." Trends in plant
science 15.1 (2010): 11-22.

Decker, S.; Kaskey, J. "Monsanto Sued by Organic Farmers Over Modified-Seed Patents"
Bloomberg (2011).

Poulter, S American 'Frankenstein food' company pulls plug on plans to put GM organisms on
British dinner tables because there is no appetite for the produce . (2013). Daily Mail;
retrieved at < http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335231/GM-giant-gives-
Frankenstein-Food-Europe.html>