GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS WILL NEVER BE SAFE FOR CONSUMPTIONChange is inevitable some may say change is essential for growth to be possible. For this reason mankind has taken upon itself to facilitate change wether positive or negative.
However theres been a great controversy surrounding the kind of change that is deemed acceptable and unacceptable.one that has had tongue wagging since its commencement is genetically modifeied organisms also known as GMO’s.Genetically modified organisms are plants, micro-organisms or animals whose genetic material has been intentionally altered through genetic engineering to make transgenic organisms. Genetic engineering refers to a highly sophisticated set of techniques done in a lab for direct manipulation of the genetic information within every cell that allows living things to function, grow, and reproduce that is the DNA of the organism.
Segments of DNA that are known to produce a certain trait or function are commonly called genes. Genetic engineering techniques enable scientists to move genes from one species to another. This creates genetic combinations that would never have occurred in nature, giving the recipient organism characteristics associated with the newly introduced gene. The aim of producing transgenic organisms is to advance society by harvesting desirable characteristics that can prove to be potentially useful to life and remove those characteristics that are considered undesirable to increase yields which I fully support as it’s a stepping stone or a great leap towards the full potential of man kind and betterment of peoples lives as it allows us to pick and choose which traits are the best and would be passed down.
people either share the same setiments or not for mulitiple reasons such as substantial equivalence, allergenicity, discussed below.A concept known as substantial equivalence maintains that novel organisms should only be considered safe if they have the same composition and traits as the convectional organisms which suggests that if genetically modified organisms are “substantially equivalent” to their natural relatives then genetically modified organisms are as safe or harmful to consumption as the conventional organisms. However not everyone is satisfied with the concept as the anti-biotechnology argue that the concept of measuring substantial equivalence is itself controversial: Is measuring key nutrients only sufficient to conclude if genetically modified food is safe or of the same composition as its convectional food? Do animal-feeding studies count? Must every transgenic “event” be tested, or just types of genetically modified organisms?Still on the subject of the contents of the genetically modified organisms, the allergenicity of According to sweet deposition genetically modified food has raised concern amongst consumers. This is because most human allergies occur in response to proteins, and genetically modified organisms introduce novel proteins to the human diet (new sequences of DNA and new gene products in the form of proteins), which people believe may cause novel human allergies. There is no long-term testing to be sure that GMO products are safe for feeding which raises a question of why genetically modified are being fed to billions if we are not certain about their long term effects in the first place. One study verified that GM soybeans contain a unique, unexpected protein, not found in non-GM soy controls. According to scientists, this protein reacts with an antibody called IgE.
“This antibody in human blood plays a key role in a large proportion of allergic reactions, including those that involve life-threatening anaphylactic shock. The fact that the unique protein created by GM soy interacted with IgE suggests that it might also trigger allergies.” (Jeffrey M. Smith, 2007, p. 10).On the other hand, some research has sought to genetically modify foods in order to remove proteins that cause widespread allergies e.
g., In 1996, researchers found that the main allergen from Brazil nuts retains its allergenicity after being transferred into a GMO soybean; the Brazil nut GMO soybean has never been approved for the market, and this case helped establish the policy that any protein that has been shown or even suspected to cause an allergic reaction should never be introduced into a GMO crops which is another way of ensuring safety of genetically modified organism consumption. Specific tests are done before genetically modified food is allowed to enter the market. The in vitro test, done in test tubes (in vitro translates literally to “in glass”), involves dropping the new protein (i.e.
the product of the DNA you’re adding) into serum from people with, say, soy allergies (if you were moving soy DNA into another plant). If the antibodies in the serum freak out, you have got a problem. The in silico test, done on computers (i.e.
in silicon), compares the composition of the new protein to known human allergens. If there is a similarity, there might be a problem. With the in silico and in vitro tests, however, there’s one big catch: You are looking for something that resembles known allergens. If something causes a problem in a new way, these tests won’t pick it up..Another factor that has people worrying about genetically modified organism is the possibility of horizontal gene transfer. This means the swapping of genetic material between convectional novel organisms.
As microorganisms and bacteria often swap genetic material, the potential exists for bacteria in the human gut to acquire transgenic elements — DNA sequences that they would otherwise never encounter because of their non-food origin. Another example is that genetically modified plants may pollinate plants that have a natural DNA composition and produce a hybrid plant whose composition and consequences is not yet known. Debate centres on the significance of such events and whether genetic material remains sufficiently intact in the digestive tract to cause problems.
The digestion tests proves that the genes introduced into the body by genetically modified food are broken down and rendered inert during digestion and with the issue of chances of pollination of the genetically modified species and the natural occurring species the chances are quite narrow as laws have been put in place that require there should be a buffer zone between plants that have natural DNA composition and those whose DNA has been altered but not then again not every pollination agent can be stopped by buffer zones ,for example wind has no limit it can blow the pollen as far as possible and people don’t always follow the law.Antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic-resistant genes are often included in the genetic material that is added to a target organism.
These DNA sequences serve as “markers,” aiding in the selection of organisms that have actually taken up the novel genetic material (when an antibiotic is applied, only those cells that have been successfully genetically modified will survive). Some fear that the widespread production of organisms with antibiotic resistance and the potential for transfer of such traits to gut bacteria will foster resistance to antibiotics that are important to human or veterinary medicine thereby endangering people and animal lives. However not all is gloomy doomy when it comes to the relationship between genetically modified organisms and mammalian health.
Genetic engineering has produced a number of successful medication for different medical conditions that has saved lives by either treating, curing or providing immunity to those conditions. Common examples include antibiotics and penicillin which help fight bacterial infections and viral infections and insulin drugs which are produced from a strand of virus by encoding the human insulin producing gene into the plasmid of the virus. This gives people whose body cannot produce enough insulin a chance of survival. Another internationally recognised success of genetic engineering is the Anti-Retro Viral (ARV) drug which supresses the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) which would otherwise lead to a condition known as Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), a condition in which progressive failure of the immune system allows life threatening opportunistic infections and cancers to thrive leading to the patient losing their life from these opportunisti0c infections but ARVs give people a chance to lead a normal life and also prolong their expected life span. Unpredictable results. Because the insertion of genetic material is not precise, genetic engineering may change the targeted DNA in unanticipated ways. Existing genes may be amplified or silenced, or novel functioning genes could be created.
A controversial study by Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai in 1999 suggested alarming and inexplicable health effects on rats fed GM potatoes, despite the fact that the transgenic trait was chosen for its nontoxic properties. Unfortunately, most data on the health safety of GMOs remains proprietary (privately owned by corporations) and unavailable to the public for review.Second-order effects. Even when GMOs are not ingested, they may have health consequences when used to produce food.
For example, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) was approved for use in increasing the milk production of dairy cows. No transgenic material passes into the milk, but rBGH fosters udder inflammation and mastitis in cows. As a result, milk from cows treated with rBGH includes higher-than-average levels of pus and traces of antibiotics, both of which may have human health impacts.