Definition:
Genetically Modified Foods (GMFs) come from Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which are crop plants that have had specific changes made to their DNA (insertion or deletion of genes) in order to do things such as increase their nutritional content and resistance to herbicides.
Pros: - Eliminate the need for use of chemical pesticides to prevent pest invasions of crops
- Less crops go to waste from pest invasion; farmers can then sell more crop and make more profit
- More food production could help solve hunger issues worldwide
- Increased nutrient content
- Disease (viruses, fungi, etc), cold weather, herbicide (weed-killers), drought, and salinity tolerance. Crops will be able to live in conditions that were previously unsuitable for them to grow in.
- Crops may have medicinal benefits and can act as edible vaccines
- Can produce inexpensive crops
Cons:
- Potential intolerances to GMFs and antibiotic resistance
- Herbicide tolerant weeds
- Pesticide resistant insects
- May negatively effect biodiversity
- Cross-contamination
- Monopolization of the world food market by GMF companies
- Ethical, philosophical, and religious problems may arise from using animal genes in crop foods
- If GMO’s are patented, ‘life’ could then become commercial property
- Not enough information on how all of these GMFs effect human health
- The needed research and technology for GMFs to become a big part of the US market can be costly
Although one can come up with an extensive list of the cons of introducing GMFs into the food market, I believe the benefits outweigh the risks. There is not yet enough reliable evidence to suggest that GMFs are likely to be harmful to health. If GMFs were to become a large part of our food market, those living in starvation may have access to inexpensive yet nutritious food. Also, the possibility of producing ‘edible vaccines/medicines’ means that production, storage, and administration of vaccines could be made much easier and more affordable.
What we learned
ReplyDeleteGenetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. We know there were some cons to utilizing genetically modified foods but we didn’t realize there were unknown long-term effects of using them. It’s kind of scary to think that we could be eating these GMOs and believe they are good for us. But since the long-term effects are unknown, who knows how good they really are for us. However, without GMOs farmers would not be able to keep up with the world population's massive demands for crops. Additionally, GMOs are more cost effective and they reduce starvation in developing countries by genetically altering the staple crops they do have.
We learned that GMO (genetically modified organisms) is affecting the DNA of foods in order to enable larger and faster growth. Modifying the foods have several outcomes positive and negative. There can be benefits that allow many to be provided with food, who may be lacking, and nutrients are increased, which is something we need today in our world. However, there are also consequences that can be damaging. Resistance can be built up overtime and harm people over the course of their lifetime of consuming GMF (genetically modified foods). We can help hunger across the world but there are affects that can be detrimental, not to mention that it has increased the cost. This can disprove the ability of helping decrease world hunger altogether. There are many different opinions about GMOs and both have positive and negative sides.
What We Found Interesting
We thought that the pros for Genetically Modified Foods were very interesting. We never thought that they could make them to have medicinal benefits or act as vaccines. The impact Genetically Modified foods could have on world hunger by less crops going to waste was also very interesting. Something we also would have never thought of was putting animal genes into the crops. We didn’t even know this happened but that could be a really tricky problem for vegetarians and vegans. It also seems as if there is a big debate over whether these foods should exist or not, which we would expect from a topic of this caliber. We expected possible sickness to come from the chemicals, but we did not expect possible allergies from them. Both sides of this debate seem to have very solid points on why these foods should or should not exist.
We found the information on the pros verse the cons to be very interesting. Although there are compelling arguments in the affirmation and opposition of genetically modified foods from genetically modified organisms, we agree that the pros definitely outweigh the cons. The fact the GMFs could increase food availability and nutrition content allows for a greater spread of food across populations- especially those who need them. If small amounts of foods could pack a greater nutritional content then similar amounts can have greater breadth in feeding more people. Also, the possibility for foods to contain medicinal qualities then medicine through food can be an idea that is spread wider and hopefully is influential in modern medicine techniques.
Global Warming (NUTR 380)
Fact: Genetically-modified seed companies restrict independent research.
ReplyDeleteWhenever anyone buys genetically modified seeds, they must sign an end-user agreement that limits what can be done with the seeds. Saving seeds from the yield for replanting next season would be the number one “no-no,” as this would put seed companies out of business after the first season of sales. But another stipulation placed on the purchase is that no independent research can be done on the seeds whatsoever. The only studies that make it into peer-reviewed journals are those that companies such as Monsanto deem favorable after seeing the results. This makes it virtually impossible to study the environmental effects of these plants or to study the conditions that make it thrive or fail, because anyone who does so after signing the license agreement can be sued. So, while one may argue the fact that there is little concrete evidence to prove that GMO’s are harmful to our health and that of the environment, it’s pretty impossible to disagree that there seems to be an obvious reason why that evidence doesn’t exist. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research)
Fact: In 2006, countries that grew 97% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (53%), Argentina (17%), Brazil (11%), Canada (6%), India (4%), China (3%), Paraguay (2%) and South Africa (1%). Although growth is expected to plateau in industrialized nations, it is increasing in developing countries. The next decade will see exponential progress in GM product development as researchers gain increasing and unprecedented access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml)
Global Warming (NUTR 380)
Exploring different views about genetically modified foods, as expanded in this blog, is of great benefit when looking at developing countries. Since many of these countries lack agriculture security, introducing these methods will improve standard of living as well as put an end to starvation. With conditions such as bad weather and the use of chemical pesticides, developing countries can be educated about how to avoid seasons of drought to increase food production (through modified foods), which could solve hunger issues found in the world. Though there could be ideal benefits in third world countries, people in America for example, are not happy when they find out how inorganic their food is. What we found interesting were the benefits that come with genetically modified foods. They make themselves more available to more people, but are not necessarily the healthiest for the environment and the people consuming these types of food. Which creates the question of which is better, while less people will go hungry; they are making some sacrifices to do so.
ReplyDeleteWe decided to use a video link to illustrate our interesting fact (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTfuAbzAeB8). The entire video is a great educational tool but there were three very interesting points we wanted to emphasize. At minute 1:10 in the video people were interviewed asking if they have heard of and could explain what genetically modified foods were. Out of the nine people whom were interviewed, over have of them had heard of the term but had not a clue what it was. This shows how oblivious people are to what exactly they are consuming. At minute 2:30 the educational video discusses the issue of tomatoes freezing at night in the winter and, therefore, stops growth. They introduce how DNA from one organism can be put into another organism in order to change an outcome. The example in the video was how arctic flounder can withstand very cold temperatures so the DNA of this fish were put into the tomatoes which allows the tomato to withstand the cold temperatures that the flounder is able to withstand. The video also discusses something that disagreed with this blog. It stated that genetically modified food crops produce a smaller yield and, therefore, in countries where hunger is an issue, it poses the problem of whether there will be enough food to feed.