Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified products differ depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean.
Support varies for different types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are mentioned. Furthermore, even if the technologies are shared fairly, there are people who would still resist consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons.
Some people believe that tampering with nature is intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals, or vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make informed selections when choosing which items to purchase.
Respect for consumer choice and assumed risk is as important as having safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-genetically modified foods. In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, there must be a definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be labeled. These issues are increasingly important to consider as the number of GMOs continues to increase due to improved laboratory techniques and tools for sequencing whole genomes, better processes for cloning and transferring genes, and improved understanding of gene expression systems.
Thus, legislative practices that regulate this research have to keep pace. Prior to permitting commercial use of GMOs, governments perform risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use, but difficulties in estimating the impact of commercial GMO use makes regulation of these organisms a challenge.
In , the first debate over the risks to humans of exposure to GMOs began when a common intestinal microorganism, E. Initially, safety issues were a concern to individuals working in laboratories with GMOs, as well as nearby residents. However, later debate arose over concerns that recombinant organisms might be used as weapons. The growing debate, initially restricted to scientists, eventually spread to the public, and in , the National Institutes of Health NIH established the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to begin to address some of these issues.
In the s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U. Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for industry. Also during the s, the use of transgenic plants was becoming a valuable endeavor for production of new pharmaceuticals, and individual companies, institutions, and whole countries were beginning to view biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money Devos et al.
Worldwide commercialization of biotech products sparked new debate over the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science, and other issues.
In the U. This document recommended that risk assessments be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment for genetically modified products has been widely accepted; however, the U.
Although in the past, thorough regulation was lacking in many countries, governments worldwide are now meeting the demands of the public and implementing stricter testing and labeling requirements for genetically modified crops.
Proponents of the use of GMOs believe that, with adequate research, these organisms can be safely commercialized. There are many experimental variations for expression and control of engineered genes that can be applied to minimize potential risks.
Some of these practices are already necessary as a result of new legislation, such as avoiding superfluous DNA transfer vector sequences and replacing selectable marker genes commonly used in the lab antibiotic resistance with innocuous plant-derived markers Ma et al. Issues such as the risk of vaccine-expressing plants being mixed in with normal foodstuffs might be overcome by having built-in identification factors, such as pigmentation, that facilitate monitoring and separation of genetically modified products from non-GMOs.
Other built-in control techniques include having inducible promoters e. GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide.
However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis. Barta, A. The expression of a nopaline synthase-human growth hormone chimaeric gene in transformed tobacco and sunflower callus tissue.
Plant Molecular Biology 6 , — Beyer, P. Journal of Nutrition , S—S Demont, M. GM crops in Europe: How much value and for whom? EuroChoices 6 , 46—53 Devlin, R. Extraordinary salmon growth. Nature , — link to article. Devos, Y. Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A re quest for sense and sensibility.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 , 29—61 doi Guerrero-Andrade, O. Expression of the Newcastle disease virus fusion protein in transgenic maize and immunological studies. Transgenic Research 15 , — doi What is a GMO? Genetically modified organisms GMOs are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering.
This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.
However, new technologies are now being used to artificially develop other traits in plants, such as a resistance to browning in apples, and to create new organisms using synthetic biology. Despite biotech industry promises, there is no evidence that any of the GMOs currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.
Visit the What is GMO page for more information and a list of high-risk crops. Are GMOs safe? In fact, Arcadia has not yet received regulatory approval for the product, so has not been able to sell drought-tolerant soybeans in Argentina.
As such, the commercial impact of the product is still uncertain. Always on the lookout for a promising new technology, I have asked to speak to Arcadia representatives about the project and about the rest of the company's product line-up. Please follow me on Forbes to be updated with what I have learned. I have apologized to the company for my hasty mischaracterization of the commercial impact of Arcadia's drought-resistant soybean product.
CIMMYT has built a seed bank and has done the painstaking work started by their long-distant ancestors of observing plants and cross-breeding them to create drought-resistant maize varietals. Figure 4. You can see test crops in the background. According to the researchers:. Drought tolerance is a complex trait that involves multiple genes.
Transgenic techniques [ N. There is a place for the genetic modification of crops; for instance, altering the times of the day during which plant respiration occurs may be an important field of research and development in the future. SE: GMOs have a positive impact on the health of the environment. Recently, a meta-analysis of 20 years of data found that growing genetically modified insect-resistant corn in the United States has dramatically reduced insecticide use.
These crops will directly benefit environmental health by cutting the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and water. Other researchers are working to accelerate the rate of photosynthesis, which means crops can reach maturity quicker, thus improving yields, reducing the need to farm new land, and sparing that land for conservation or other purposes.
Genetic engineering can also be used to reduce food waste and its associated environmental impact. Examples include non-browning mushrooms , apples, and potatoes, but could also be expanded to include more perishable fruits.
In summary, GMO crops can have remarkable environmental benefits. They allow farmers to produce more food with fewer inputs. They help us spare land, reduce deforestation, and promote and reduce chemical use.
DP: No doubt. Our ecosystems have evolved to work in balance. Whenever harmful chemicals like glyphosate are introduced into an ecosystem, this disrupts the natural processes that keep our environment healthy. Other studies that have looked at the pesticide levels in groundwaters reported that 53 percent of their sampling sites contained one or more pesticides. So the fact that GM seeds now account for more than 50 percent of global glyphosate usage is certainly concerning.
Perhaps even more importantly, though, is that these chemicals are harming the soil microbiome. We are just now beginning to recognize that the various organisms living in the soil act to protect plants and make them more disease resistant. We now recognize that plants, like animals, are not autonomous, but rather exist in a symbiotic relationship with diverse microorganisms. Plants are vitally dependent upon soil microbes for their health and disease resistance.
Meanwhile, we need to reduce the carbon emissions, water pollution, erosion, and other environmental impacts associated with agriculture, and avoid expanding food production into wild areas that other species need for habitat. It also helps us work with important food crops like bananas, which are very difficult to improve through conventional breeding methods.
0コメント