Environmental Issues
Some people believe that, genetically modified foods are risky and unsuitable for both human health and the environment. For instance, Rischer and Oksman (2006) argue that continued use of GM food is due to limited understanding of genetics and the scientists’ failure to understand the long-term effects of releasing GM foods into people’s diet and the environment.
GM crops and herbicides used for the production of GM crops are harmful to insects, birds, marine ecosystems, amphibians, and soil organisms. In other words, GM crops and herbicides used for the production of GM pollute water resources and reduce biodiversity. For instance, GM crops are continuously eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies. This is justified by Uzogara (2000) whose research found the monarch butterfly population had reduced by 50% in the United States as a result of farming practices associated with production of GM. Similarly, herbicides which results from GM crops cause organ damage in animals, birth defects in amphibians even at low doses, embryonic deaths, and endocrine disruptions. Uzogara (2000) further cites that, MG canola is growing wild in California and North Dakota; as such, it is probable that such weeds might be passed from one generation to another. Therefore, farmers should stop using such herbicides to prevent spreading their harmful effects.
GM foods should also not be relied on because in most cases they do not increase the production and are also not intended to meet the increasing food requirements for the growing world population. In other words, whereas non-GMO agricultural methods which are used in most developing countries have often increased the yield to about 80%, GM methods of production do not increase yields (Rischer & Oksman, 2006). This is in-line with the International Assessment of Agriculture Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development’s (IAASTD) assessment report that found the yield from the GM crops to be variable and often declined.
Evidence have further cited that the insignificant possibility that the use of GM can reduce poverty and hunger, increase health and livelihood, improve malnutrition, and facilitate environmental and social sustainability (Rischer & Oksman, 2006). Ironically, MG foods have known to divert resources and money that would otherwise be spent on reliable, safe, and appropriate technologies for food production. Therefore, farmers should not use GM foods while consumer should be discouraged from using GMO foods. Moreover, since GM foods do not benefit the consumers, it is most probable that GM foods will be eliminated from the market if a small percentage of consumers reject such foods in the long-run.
In my opinion, despite the argument that GM foods should be eliminated from the market because of the negative and harm they pose to humanity and the environment; there is need for GM foods to be produced. This is particularly owed to the massive hunger in third world countries and the increasing global population and deaths resulting from starvation (Gaskell, et al, 2004). For instance, some environmental factors such as soil salinity and drought have sometimes caused crops to fail despite applying relevant production methods. However, GM foods are mostly resistant to drought and soil salinity thereby making such type of crops suited for such lands which would otherwise remain unproductive at the expense of creating a sustainable way for feed production. Moreover, genetically engineering plants can provide edible plant vaccines which are useful for immunizing people against infectious diseases such as cholera (Gaskell, et al, 2004). For instance, the transgenic potato plants have successfully been produced and tested by using genetically engineered food in order to bring a bring a pharmaceutical immunization against diarrhea.
Given the economical, historical, and historical context of biotechnology, one can question the completeness of current risks assessment practices which show the human health and environmental risks associated GM foods. This is because GM crops are relevant to farmers and agribusiness profits (Gaskell, et al, 2004). However, benefits associated with GM foods have not been well understood due to failure of regulatory agencies to use ecologically comprehensive criteria to assess the risks associated with GM foods.
In conclusion, there is an increasing controversy regarding the GM risks and benefits. However, such controversy is attributed to lack of comprehensive risk assessment practices. Overall, GM foods are important for complementing food production to meet the increasing global food requirement.
References
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., & Bardes, J. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 185-194.
Rischer, H., & Oksman-Caldentey, K. M. (2006). Unintended effects in genetically modified crops: revealed by metabolomics? Trends in Biotechnology, 24(3), 102-104.
Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D., & Lee, E. (2001). Trends: Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(2), 267-281.
Uzogara, S. G. (2000). The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: A review. Biotechnology Advances, 18(3), 179-206.
