Pantoja 1
Karla M. Pantoja Román
Dr. Ellen Pratt
English 3103
7 October 2014
G.M.O. Misconception
In the controversial discussion of the use of development of genetically modified
organisms, an important issue has been whether if they are safe to public consume and
what advances provide the science of biotechnology. Basically GMO 1 is a process in
which you take DNA material, the code of life, and transfer specific DNA section from
one not related organism to another different organism that would express the desire trait.
Actually this process add characteristics like pesticide resistance, faster growing, resist
pest, tolerate extreme weather conditions and produce more food, in most of the crops of
USA for example corn, soybeans, canola, papayas and more. “For 2007, 23 countries
have officially approved transgenic crops growing in fields (Herring 458). Henrring
contends that many countries have functionally adopted GMO crops technology. I agree
that GMO are safety to consume and that biotechnology could help to feed the increment
population, help to made crops resistant to virus and other disease, and it would made fast
changes in plants populations and add traits that will not be incorporated in the wild.
Eventually, one controversial issue has been that GMO food would affect people’s
health and well being by causing cancer, tumors and allergies. On the one hand, part of
the population argues that such foods are used mostly in junk food. On the other hand,
1
Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not
naturally theirs. In general, genes are taken (copied) from one organism that shows a desired trait
and transferred into the genetic code of another organism. Monsanto Glossary.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/glossary.aspx#g
Pantoja 2
scientific studies contend that there is no added risks in consume GMO foods. For
example, Nicolia et. al. in his article An Overview of the Last 10 Years of Genetically
Engineered Crop Safety Research contends that “The EU recognized that the GE crop
safety literature is still often ignored in the public debate even if a specific peer-reviewed
journal 2 and a publicly accessible database 3 were created with the aim of improving
visibility (European Commission, 2010)”. The essence of Nicolia et. al. work is a
collection and analyze of 1783 scientific records that demonstrate that GMO crops and
health problems was not directly connected.
On the contrary, one publicized article might show evidence of tumors on rats.
Séralini states, “This report describes the first long-term (2-year) rodent (rat) feeding
study investigating possible toxic effects arising from consumption of an R-tolerant GM
maize (NK603) and a complete commercial formulation of R herbicide (Séralini 26). In
others words Séralini indicates that rats that consume transgenic maize treated with an
insecticide called roundup suffers from tumors whereas the scientific community
contends that it has a few peer reviews and that it has been republished with almost the
same data two times. I agree with Séralini that under this circumstance the tumors could
be as a result of the roundup on rats but there is no proof that is the GMO plant the ones
that provoke the tumors development. I maintain that is necessary to invent easy
scientific methods to prove the quality of the products and do exhausting research until
the scientist can determine certainly if GMO food are dangerous. In my own view the
important point is in which food GMO crops are used, frequently they are used for junk
food for consequence it would affect the people’s health.
2
3
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ebs
http://bibliosafety.icgeb.org/
Pantoja 3
Another example, is whereas part of the population is convinced that GMO foods
itself are dangerous, scientifics maintain that GMO food has been used many years in
cattle’s food and it still produce a high quality of meat. Suppose that GMO foods are not
safe and cause tumors, for consequence the cattle would get sick and the farmers cannot
sale its meet. This is not the case according to Van and Young in they work, Prevalence
and Impacts of Genetically Engineered Feedstuffs on Livestock Populations, “Numerous
experimental studies have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GEfed animals are comparable with those fed isogenic non-GE crop lines.” Van and Young
is insisting that after the introduction of GMO crops in 1996 over 100 billions of cattle
has been consumed these crops and there is no evidence of health problems in the cattle
or residues of GMO in their products. At the same time I believe that there are other new
GMO technologies that needs more rigorous research about the safety concern, I also
believe that scientific research of more than 10 years is strong evidence of GMO safety in
commercial livestock populations.
Genetically engineered organisms are a topic has been one of the most controversial
issues of genetics of in our times. Biotechnology is one of the newest branches of science
that would be a helpful advance to humanity. On the one hand, part of the populations
argues that biotechnology actually is using for made the country fat and sick by eating
corn derivate or other crops. On the other hand, the biotechnologies companies contend
that GMO products could help to supply the necessity of a population in increment.
Others even maintain that biotechnology is relatively new that need more research to
obtain better modifications and that biotechnology is affecting the economy of the
farmers. My own view is that the technology of biotechnology is very useful in cases
Pantoja 4
when it helps crops to resist diseases in this way its could help the farmers crops and like
other technologies. GMO crops have others factors like insecticide and extreme
environment conditions when they growing that can affect the development of the plant
itself but is not the process of GMO that is harmful for the health.
Notably, Amy Harmon in her work, A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified
Crops, discuses GMO crops safety in Hawaii. More specifically, Harmon argues that
there are two different points of view in the issue but actually GMO has helped the
production of Rainbow papaya in Hawaii. Harmon writes, “after an outbreak of Papaya
ringspot virus in the mid-’90s, only the Rainbow, endowed with a gene from the virus
itself that effectively gave it immunity, had saved the crop” (Harmon 2014). In this
passage, Harmon is suggesting that the use of biotechnology in Rainbow papayas had
helped the economy of Hawaii.
When it comes to the topic of GMO, most of us will readily agree that
biotechnology had made good scientific contributions. Where this agreement usually
ends, however, is on the question of if it biotechnology advances are trustful and safe.
Whereas some are convinced that, biotechnology advances are not to help the increase
population but to make richer the companies, others maintain that is a matter of time and
experimentation with biotechnology to made it a better science.
Pantoja 5
Pantoja 6
Works Cited
Harmon, A. “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.” The New York
Times. n.p. Web. 4 Jan. 2014
Herring, Ronald J. “Opposition to Transgenic Technologies: Ideology, Interests and
Collective Action Frames.” Nature 9 (2008): 458-463. Web. June 2008.
Séralini, Gilles-Eric et. al. “Republished Study: Long-Term Toxicity of a Roundup
Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize.” Environmental
Sciences Europe 26.14 (2014): 1-17. Web. 24 June 2014.
Van Eenennaam, A. L. and Young, A. E. “Prevalence and Impacts of Genetically
Engineered Feedstuffs on Livestock Populations.” Journal of Animal Science 92.10
(2014): 4255-78. Web. 2 Sep. 2014.