Advocacy paper

Advocacy paper

Introduction

Genetically modified foods, commonly known as genetically engineered foods (GE foods), are foods generated from organisms whose genetic composition is altered using genetic engineering techniques enabling the introduction of new traits. Since the inception of genetically modified foods commercial sales in 1994, different groups of people and organizations have debated on their safety to humans and animals following consumption, matters to deal with regulation, labeling, intellectual property rights, employed research methods and environmental impacts associated with these foods (Gizaw, 2019).  The introduction of new techniques of these new varieties makes the crops resilient to adverse environmental conditions, increasing yields, and more resistant to pathogens. Extensive research has been conducted about genetically modified foods. Following thorough scrutiny of literature, I am advocating for more stringent measures against the cultivation and consumption of foods produced using genetic engineering techniques.

By adopting stringent measures against production, distribution, and consumption of products containing genetically modified ingredients, different sectors will be protected. At the forefront is the health of the consumer. Genetically modified food has been associated with certain serious concerns. The safety of a consumer can only be assured when supplied foods are well checked to determine their safety profile (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013). Environmental protection is vital in facilitating human health. Through the deployment of stringent measures, our environment will be guarded against exploitation.

My oppositions position is that alteration of the genetic composition of a plant results to introduction of varieties that have been documented to be insect resistant reducing the amount of pesticide used in the field, facilitating increased production due to minimal infestation by pesticides and introduction of food varieties with more nutritional content such as golden rice, the drawbacks associated with these foods outweighs the benefits accrued while cultivating and consuming these foods. For instance, genetically modified foods are primary candidates for causing allergic reactions, significant environmental concerns, and decreased antibiotic efficacy, to mention a few. Associated drawbacks of genetically modified foods need to be addressed with severe concerns to ensure the safety of consumers is assured, and the environment is protected for better health.

Someone might argue against my position by stating that genetically engineered foods should not be tightly regulated but instead allowed into our markets and shelves due to several reasons. One of the most outstanding reasons that steer organizations supporting genetically modified foods is providing food varieties with increased nutritional value such as biofortified rice.  Biofortified rice is commonly known as golden rice due to its color as a result of increased levels of beta carotene, a precursor of Vitamin A (K. L. Hefferon, 2015). Generation of golden rice involves the incorporation of two genes isolated from other organisms, namely daffodil and the bacterium Erwina uredovia, which together reconstitutes the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway in the genome of the ordinary crop.

People that promote genetically modified foods present that the production of crops with additional carotenoid content will eradicate disease associated with deficiency of vitamin A, which will result in better health. The argument of improving health is an excellent concept, but scientific investigations reveal that health effects outweigh the benefits (K. Hefferon, 2019). An alternative to introducing new genes to foods for consumption is the use of biofortified fertilizers in conventional plants, which will absorb desired nutrients instead of altering the genetic makeup of these plants.

Most people have readily used genetically modified products, especially farmers, such as commercially selling Flavr Savr tomatoes due to their commercial advantage of having a longer shelf life than conventional plants. The utilization of these tomatoes, which are developed using Calgene methodology of incorporating a gene into plants, prevents the accumulation of an enzyme that would otherwise cause softening of plants hence reduced shelf life. Farmers used the genetic product to have a commercial edge in the market. These technologies were also readily accepted due to their first time efficiency without having a thorough understanding of glaring effects (Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). An example of this is the use of glyphosate that enabled farmers to eradicate a wide range of weeds with a single phase of the application without harming the generated glyphosate-resistant crops. This allows farmers to make enormous profits since planted crops are resistant to applied herbicides.

The opposing position is wrong since the introduction of biofortified foods in the market is associated with allergenicity. The introduction of new genes to conventional plant genomes has been documented to introduce an allergen into the host genome. A study conducted by Brown University demonstrates that induction of the external genes leads to the addition or mixing of protein molecules in the resultant plant, increasing the probability of causing toxicity or allergic reactions to humans once ingested. Transfer of genes to consumable foods leads to the movement of proteins that cause allergic responses to foods that were initially not causing allergic reactions (Maghari & Ardekani, 2011). The introduction of proteins into food varieties may promote allergic responses, such as hypersensitivity.

An example is the introduction of Cry9c protein isolated from soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis into star Link corn, an animal feed that is not approved for animal consumption. Due to the inability of the protein to be digested quickly, the accumulation of this protein in the digestive system of humans may elicit allergic responses (Grover, Ashhar, & Patni, 2014). Owing to these effects, genetically modified foods produced using recombinant DNA technologies need to undergo a thorough scientific investigation to prevent the introduction of allergenicity into diets, resulting in a reduced range of food that is allergic to free.

Similarly, the opposing position is wrong since genetically modified foods/crops are closely associated with horizontal gene transfer to non-target organisms. Plantation of genetically modified crops results in the transfer of inserted genes into bacteria nearby. Antibiotic-resistant genes are used as markers during the synthesis of these crops, posing a threat of these genes being transferred into the gastrointestinal tract of humans and ruminants. The transfer will disrupt the healthy microbial population in the gastrointestinal tract resulting in people who have resistance to antibiotics (Netherwood et al., 2004). Studies have demonstrated that horizontal gene transfer is a risk to human health since being resistant to antibiotics meant to eliminate disease-causing microorganisms could lead to preventable deaths.

The introduction and supply of genetically modified foods are only meant to benefit high tech biotechnology companies. The concept of suicide genes as used by companies such as Monsanto is not intended to help the farmer since the produced seeds are only used in a single phase of planting. Suicide seeds are designed to make farmers to entirely rely on these companies to provide other seeds for the next planting season (Thomas & De Tavernier, 2017). Control over seed is the first link in the food chain since the seed is the source of life. The control of seed by these companies or corporations is equivalent to controlling the life of people, especially the farmers, due to patents that promote monopoly of seeds.

One of the main ideas that should be developed to curb the effects of genetically modified crops is mandatory labeling. Mandatory labeling will require that all products containing any element of genetically modified ingredients be specified. Specific components used in the process of producing these crops, as well as respective contents, should be identified. The provision of such critical information will enable consumers to have first-hand knowledge and choice regarding the consumption of genetically modified products. Through revealing specific ingredients used in the process, awareness will be created as people will have an opportunity to find out more about possible effects associated with the product.

Extensive research without bias should be conducted to understand the pros and cons of producing and consuming products that are genetically modified. Joint research comprising of representatives of either side of opinion to have a thorough understanding of the underlying principles. The study should be conducted to protect the lives of humans, animals, and protect the environment.

Finally, the government should strive to separate politics with matters concerning genetically modified foods by providing an environment where purely scientifically based research is used to drive change. Separation of politics from GM food controversy will enable identification of the most appropriate measures to undertake.

Conclusion

In conclusion, organizations tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that whatever the American people and everyone else in the world consumes is safe, devoid of significant health hazards. These organizations should act firmly in providing that safe and healthy products are

References

Bawa, A. S., & Anilakumar, K. R. (2013). Genetically modified foods: safety, risks, and public concerns-a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 50(6), 1035–1046.

Gizaw, Zemichael. (2019). Public health risks related to food safety issues in the food market: A systematic literature review. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 24(1), 1–21.

Grover, Alka, Ashhar, Nida, & Patni, Pranav. (2014). Why genetically modified food need reconsideration before consumption? Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 3(3), 188–190. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25374850

Hefferon, Kathleen. (2019). Biotechnological approaches for generating zinc-enriched crops to combat malnutrition. Nutrients, 11(2).

Hefferon, Kathleen L. (2015). Nutritionally enhanced food crops, progress, and perspectives. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 16(2), 3895–3914.

Maghari, Behrokh Mohajer, & Ardekani, Ali M. (2011). Genetically modified foods and social concerns. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, 3(3), 109–117.

Netherwood, Trudy, Martín-Orúe, Susana M., O’Donnell, Anthony G., Gockling, Sally, Graham, Julia, Mathers, John C., & Gilbert, Harry J. (2004). Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nature Biotechnology, 22(2), 204–209.

Thomas, Gigesh, & De Tavernier, Johan. (2017). Farmer-suicide in India: debating the role of biotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1).

Wunderlich, Shahla, & Gatto, Kelsey A. (2015). Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified. American Society for Nutrition, 1(February), 1–10.