Research Project--Genetic Engineering Food
New Article--Ethical Dilemma
This assignment is fulfilled the course goal-ehtical
issues and social responsiblility. It let me to have a closer look
behind a new technology and its consequences to a society.
I remember before I did this research project I was intensely disagreed
altered food. At that time, I was like everyone else-- afraid altered
food will be harmful to our health and have other negatives consequences
to human health or the environment. When this project was assigned
in the course, I decided to search on GM food deeply and have a
better understanding of it. It was so unexpected that I changed
my position from disagree to approve through the research.
March 1, 2000
Genetically Modified Crops: Should We Approve to It or Not? The
growth of genetically modified crops has risen rapidly all over
the world in the past decade. It has had tremendous impact on agriculture.
Genetically modified crop is a biotechnology that makes it possible
to move a single gene from one species to another; it improves the
original gene of a plant and produces a "better" one. Genetically
modified crops serve many different functions, for example, they
can prevent themselves from rotting too fast. They also are resistant
to herbicides or to attacks from viruses, fungi, and insects. Since
the appearance of this method, it has reduced the use of pesticide
on agriculture in South Asia. In addition, it reduced the poisoning
caused by pesticide. The problems are that some environmental groups
and critics think its function as insects-resistant is full of potential
to create environmental and ecological problems. On the other hand,
as there still is no scientific evidence to say genetically modified
food is safe, it is still a concern to many consumers. The issue
is important because this new technology will play a very significant
role on the future agriculture. It will also indirectly influence
our lives. Genetically modified crops will have a beneficial affect
for agriculture.
What concerns most people is that genetically modified crops may
have potential threats to human health and environment. New crops
could produce unexpected allergens, or chemicals that can interfere
with enzymes or hormones in the body (Mother Jones, 2000, p. 52).
One of the most disturbing aspects is some altered-food has already
been put in supermarkets without a label to warn consumer. Consumers
have no ideas what they are getting and that has stirred the most
consumer protest from it. Another consumer concern is there has
been no scientific evidence yet to prove genetically modified food
is healthy to eat. Many consumers doubt about the long-term effects
of genetic modified food and its manipulations might have on human
health.
Genetic engineering has formed several environmental risks. The
most serious environmental risk is the possibility that implanted
genes--such as those for herbicide resistance-- will escape from
cultivated crops into wild relatives, resulting in the production
of super-weeds. Another risk is the potential for pests to evolve
resistance to Bt, which produces its own insecticide (Fortune, 2000,
p. 164). That might also causes adverse ecological effects or unintended
damage to ecosystems. According to a report by scientists from Cornell
University, they stated that pollen from Bt-laced corn could escape
from farm fields; settle on nearby milkweed plants; and kill the
larvae of beneficial insects, such as monarch butterflies, that
feed on milkweed (Mother Jones, 2000, p. 52). All these concerns
and potential risks genetic modified possesses has raised many environmental
groups to protest against it.
Greenpeace is one of the groups that has argued that we know too
little about the genetically altered crops. They also say that sufficient
testing has not been done to prove the genetically modified crops
are safe. In addition, they are very opposed of the devastating
effects that it has on monarch butterflies; they believe the implant
has damages the ecological balance. On the other side, some scientists
say genetically altered food is safe. In fact, there is no credible
evidence yet that says genetically modified foods present a health
risk to consumers. Other groups say that the government should make
labels mandatory for the altered-food that are put in markets. Yet,
the Food and Drug Administration ruled in 1992 that genetically
modified foods generally pose no more risk to human health than
ordinary foods. Hence, it does not necessary to label them. In actuality,
several studies suggest insecticide-producing genetic modified corn
is safer to eat than ordinary corn because carcinogenic fungus is
less likely to invade it (Time, 2000, p. 157).
Among all these disadvantages and advantages genetically modified
crops have on people, should we approve to it or not? It is acceptable
as long as the government provides information or labels on the
modified products that clearly tell us what we are getting. We do
not have to accept it but it just provides another alternative for
us between traditional and modified food. Why are some consumers
very concern about the food from genetically modified plants? Actually,
genetically modified foods have been entering the British supermarkets
over the past few years; the public has accepted some of them without
hesitation. For instance, "vegetarian cheese" and the paste made
from genetically modified tomatoes that were acceptable to vegetarians.
They think the tomato puree and sauce are even better tasting than
the ordinary ones. Besides, genetically modified food needs government
approval before they can be used in there. The government has to
consider the new product to be safe enough before they can put in
the market. So, what are the problems? I agree with Derek Burke's
view expressed in an editorial of the British Medical Journal (1845).
He notes, "risks are assessed differently in medicine and food,
we accept quite high risks when we are seriously ill but will not
tolerate much risk at all with food."
A producer of the modified Soya claims that a smaller amount of
a safer herbicide is used and that the yield is higher. Herbicide
resistant Soya has real advantage for the farmer, and this new crop
keeps risen from 1996 until the present day (Derek Burke). Marshall
Martin, the president for Agricultural Policy and Technology Assessment
also shows a statistic to support this. He reported that the number
of acres allotted for genetically modified corn has risen from less
than a half million in 1996 to 24 million in 1999 (The Futurist,
1999, p. 7). For some agronomists, they believe the genetically
modified products may expand yields and lower costs. To take an
example, Mr. Baumgardner says his genetic modified corn yielded
30 more bushels per acre last year than the non-genetic modified
corn he planted (The Futurist, 1999, p. 7). Moreover, there are
millions of acres that have been planted with Bt-cotton in China.
According to some report, Bt-cotton is doing outstandingly well
in China. Yields have gone up and the numbers of pesticide sprayings
have reduced from about 12 to three per season. The pesticide poisoning
is falling (Fortune, 2000, p. 164).
Some activists approve of genetically modified crops as a solution
to the world's food shortage. For example, the banana crop in Uganda
and East Africa is virtually collapsing because of viruses, nematodes,
and other pests. Bananas are a staple food in those countries and
a shortage creates a desperate problem. The activists think biotechnology
could help solve it by inserting pest-resistance genes in bananas.
About hundred-million children in the developing world suffer from
vitamin A deficiency, and each year some two million die as a result.
Lately, a Swiss researcher with Rockefeller funding introduced genes
that produce beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A in the rice
grain. It contains sufficient beta-carotene to meet human vitamin
A requirements from rice alone. Conventional plant breeding had
been unable to do that. They claim that if they are careful, biotech
can help get rid of malnutrition and a great deal of illness in
a way that is environmentally friendly (Fortune, 2000, p. 164).
Often some consumers do not agree with genetically modified food
is because they unsure about the safety of it. If scientists could
do more research on this aspect and come out with concrete and trustable
evidence for the public, it might be the most persuasive method
to solve the problem. The non-label genetically modified products
on supermarkets also bother the consumers. The best way to solve
this is government should provide information on the label to tell
consumers what they are getting. That is the matter of accepting
it or not accepting it, and it is all up to the consumers. For the
environmental issue, what makes it so hard probably is the insect-resistance
of the genetically modified crops. The scientists need to think
of another method to approach the same problem, showing that the
insect-resistant crops have no chance of promoting other viruses
that threaten human health.
In conclusion, I agree of genetically modified crops. Indeed, there
is also no evidence yet to say genetically modified food is harmful
to human health. If the genetically modified food really is harmful
to human health, then why are there still many farmers growing it
and governments supporting it? When every new technology is introduced
there always contains both positive and negative impacts. New Technology
is an inevitability. The importance is how we evaluate its advantages
against its disadvantages. I love the idea of inserting genes in
the rice grain that produce beta-carotene to meet human vitamin
A requirements. I am confident that genetically modified crops can
solve the food shortage problem in the world and they will play
a positive role in future, too.
 Back to
Top
January 15, 2000
The news article is described a deportation of illegal immigrants
that illustrate an ethical dilemma situation. It is a conflict between
both federal government and illegal immigrants. It is about nine
illegal immigrants from Mexico, who worked at a Minnesota hotel,
where they were subjected to low wages, discriminatory working conditions
and exploitation, so they began organizing. They helped investigators
from the National Labor Relations Board and employment commission
builds a case against the hotel. However, that also brought them
into a difficult position or dilemma where they have to face a deportation.
They might send back to Mexico because their statues had expose
that they're illegal immigrants.
The argument is whether they should sent back or not. If government
decided to send them back, that reflects the government seems a
little bit irresponsible because the nine Mexicans stand up couragely
and point out how the hotel exploits the employees' benefits. Besides,
like Saavedra F. says in the article, now that the federal government
is done using them as their key witnesses, they are calling in a
third federal agency in the form of the INS to show the door. To
make a deportation on these folks, that seems a little bit too ruthless,
but if let them stay, it is some kind of matter that against to
the law. It is very contradicted because no matter what decision
is make, it would offend one another.
Back to
Top
Home
Page | Communication | Inquiry
and Critical Thinking | Variety of
Human Experience
| Ethical
Issues and Social Responsibility | Others
| Links
|
