First, some definitions: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), AKA Genetically Engineered Organisms (GEO) are organisms whose genetic material has been directly manipulated. The techniques used are generally known as recombinant DNA technology. The basic idea is to use DNA molecules from different sources, and combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes, which is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. A subset of GMOs, known as transgenic organisms is of particular interest to agriculture. Transgenic organisms are one which has inserted DNA that originated in a different species. Another type of GMO, termed cisgenic, contains no DNA from other species.
Technologies for genetically modifying foods offer the promise of meeting one of the 21st Century’s greatest challenges: severe food shortages for an ever increasing human and livestock population. GMO-based products (current or those in development) include medicines, vaccines, feeds, fibers, foods and food ingredients. Adding important traits to organisms that currently do not have it, such as insect resistance or desired nutrients for particular crops is certainly a desirable thing, isn’t it; or are we playing the role of the sorcerer’s apprentice? Like all new technologies, GMOs pose some risks, both known and unknown. Controversies surrounding genetically altered foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, even labeling and consumer choice, not to mention ethical issues, including food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.
The amount of farm land being used or converted to the use of transgenic crops in recent years is staggering. According to the Human Genome Project at genomics.energy.gov, in 2006, 252 million acres of transgenic crops were planted in 22 countries by 10.3 million farmers. The majority of these crops were herbicide- and insect-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and alfalfa. Not to mention a number of crops grown commercially or field-tested that was had increased nutritional value, was virus resistant and/or able to survive extreme weather conditions. These included rice with increased iron and vitamins that may alleviate chronic malnutrition in Asian countries, a sweet potato that was resistant to a virus that could decimate most of the African harvest, and a variety of plants able to survive weather extremes. The near future promises fish that mature more quickly; cows that are resistant to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease); fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier; even bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.
Although growth of global transgenic crops is expected to level-out in industrialized nations, it is increasing and will continue to increase dramatically in developing countries.
What about William E. Halal’s predictions in his book Technologies Promise? Well considering futurists tend toward optimism, at times, extreme optimism, I believe that Halal’s prediction that it will take 10 to 20 years to reach a 30% worldwide adoption level is actually a bit pessimistic. Why? Climatic changes, drought, energy shortages, and the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons among not only countries, but terrorists groups will causes numerous nations, particularly third-world nations to adopt genetically altered crops and livestock to feed and maintain order. I believe that we will see a dramatic increase in adoption within the next 10-years. There will of course develop a “back-to-nature” or “all-natural” movement in most of the industrialize countries that can afford it. These “unaltered” foods will be the exception, not the norm, and will be a relative luxary.
The following is from the Human Genome Project (HGP) Information website – it summarizes the currently perceived benefits and concerns over GMOs.
Technologies for genetically modifying foods offer the promise of meeting one of the 21st Century’s greatest challenges: severe food shortages for an ever increasing human and livestock population. GMO-based products (current or those in development) include medicines, vaccines, feeds, fibers, foods and food ingredients. Adding important traits to organisms that currently do not have it, such as insect resistance or desired nutrients for particular crops is certainly a desirable thing, isn’t it; or are we playing the role of the sorcerer’s apprentice? Like all new technologies, GMOs pose some risks, both known and unknown. Controversies surrounding genetically altered foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, even labeling and consumer choice, not to mention ethical issues, including food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.
The amount of farm land being used or converted to the use of transgenic crops in recent years is staggering. According to the Human Genome Project at genomics.energy.gov, in 2006, 252 million acres of transgenic crops were planted in 22 countries by 10.3 million farmers. The majority of these crops were herbicide- and insect-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and alfalfa. Not to mention a number of crops grown commercially or field-tested that was had increased nutritional value, was virus resistant and/or able to survive extreme weather conditions. These included rice with increased iron and vitamins that may alleviate chronic malnutrition in Asian countries, a sweet potato that was resistant to a virus that could decimate most of the African harvest, and a variety of plants able to survive weather extremes. The near future promises fish that mature more quickly; cows that are resistant to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease); fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier; even bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.
Although growth of global transgenic crops is expected to level-out in industrialized nations, it is increasing and will continue to increase dramatically in developing countries.
What about William E. Halal’s predictions in his book Technologies Promise? Well considering futurists tend toward optimism, at times, extreme optimism, I believe that Halal’s prediction that it will take 10 to 20 years to reach a 30% worldwide adoption level is actually a bit pessimistic. Why? Climatic changes, drought, energy shortages, and the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons among not only countries, but terrorists groups will causes numerous nations, particularly third-world nations to adopt genetically altered crops and livestock to feed and maintain order. I believe that we will see a dramatic increase in adoption within the next 10-years. There will of course develop a “back-to-nature” or “all-natural” movement in most of the industrialize countries that can afford it. These “unaltered” foods will be the exception, not the norm, and will be a relative luxary.
The following is from the Human Genome Project (HGP) Information website – it summarizes the currently perceived benefits and concerns over GMOs.
GM Products: Benefits and Controversies
Benefits
-----• Crops
----------o Enhanced taste and quality
----------o Reduced maturation time
----------o Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
----------o Improved resistance to disease, pests, and
------------herbicides
----------o New products and growing techniques
-----• Animals
----------o Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and
----------o New products and growing techniques
-----• Animals
----------o Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and
------------feed efficiency
----------o Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
----------o Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
-----• Environment
----------o "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
----------o Conservation of soil, water, and energy
----------o Bioprocessing for forestry products
----------o Better natural waste management
----------o More efficient processing
-----• Society
----------o Increased food security for growing populations
----------o Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
----------o Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
-----• Environment
----------o "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
----------o Conservation of soil, water, and energy
----------o Bioprocessing for forestry products
----------o Better natural waste management
----------o More efficient processing
-----• Society
----------o Increased food security for growing populations
Controversies
-----• Safety
----------o Potential human health impacts, including allergens,
-----• Safety
----------o Potential human health impacts, including allergens,
------------transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown
------------effects
----------o Potential environmental impacts, including:
----------o Potential environmental impacts, including:
------------unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-
------------pollination, unknown effects on other organisms
------------(e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna
------------biodiversity
-----• Access and Intellectual Property
----------o Domination of world food production by a few
-----• Access and Intellectual Property
----------o Domination of world food production by a few
------------companies
----------o Increasing dependence on industrialized nations
----------o Increasing dependence on industrialized nations
------------by developing countries
----------o Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural
----------o Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural
------------resources
-----• Ethics
----------o Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
----------o Tampering with nature by mixing genes among
-----• Ethics
----------o Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
----------o Tampering with nature by mixing genes among
------------species
----------o Objections to consuming animal genes in plants
----------o Objections to consuming animal genes in plants
------------and vice versa
----------o Stress for animal
-----• Labeling
----------o Not mandatory in some countries
----------o Stress for animal
-----• Labeling
----------o Not mandatory in some countries
------------(e.g., United States)
----------o Mixing GM crops with non-GM products
----------o Mixing GM crops with non-GM products
------------confounds
------------labeling attempts
-----• Society
----------o New advances may be skewed to interests of rich
-----• Society
----------o New advances may be skewed to interests of rich
------------countries
Regarding the passage: Climatic changes, drought, energy shortages, and the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons among not only countries, but terrorists groups will causes numerous nations, particularly third-world nations to adopt genetically altered crops and livestock to feed and maintain order.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it presumed there will be a proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons? The contrary might be equally valid. Given there were a proliferation of such weapons, is does follow that the use of genetically altered crops and livestock would be necessary. Why would “third-world” nations be more apt to adopt due to weapons proliferation than others?
It is equally possible that climatic changes will foster the growth of crops making genetically altered crops unnecessary.