Genetically Modified Organisms Genetically Modified Foods (Gmos)

Genetically Modified Organisms

Genetically modified foods (GMOs) are a broad group of plants, animals, and bacteria whose genetic material is artificially manipulated through genetic engineering. Although GMOs are endorsed as the best solution to malnutrition in developing countries, I posit that they should be banned due to the adverse effects they might have on both human health and the environment. According to Peel (2005), the health and environmental risks posed by GMOs include: their potential to be toxic to both animal and human consumers, including organisms that may not be targeted, such as butterflies; adverse effects from agricultural chemicals used to make GM crops herbicide resistant; the possibility that GM crops might transfer the altered generic to other conventional crops with implications for biodiversity; and the risk of all GMOs becoming an evasive species that cannot be controlled by their creators. Moreover, government oversight of their production, distribution and use is dangerously lax, which creates loopholes that might be exploited at the expense of consumers. For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to mandate the labeling of GMOs, does not encourage agency studies, and has also allowed companies to sell genetically modified foods without any notification (Peel, 2005). Banning the GMOs will be advantageous because the consumers and the environment will be saved from the risks associated with their use. However, eliminating GMOs does not lack its fair share of disadvantages. Jonsen (2005) explains that the world population is slowly outgrowing agricultural resources, and lack of GMOs will increase poverty, malnutrition and starvation in developing countries because they have the potential to increase nutrient values and crop yield. Banning them also amounts to rejecting technological and scientific advancements that have proven efficient in solving a variety of problems. Nevertheless, I maintain that the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits derived from GMOs, and hence they should not be endorsed.

From an ethical point-of-view, I believe the genetic engineering of plants and animals amounts to playing God. Despite the fact that humans have modified plants and animals to enhance their genetic make up for centuries, genetic engineering is quite different because it involves inserting the genes of one species into the gene of a completely different species, to create a new species that did not exist on the planet before. In agreement with Charles, Prince of Wales, creation belongs to God alone. Even the non-religious believe that the genetic code of every organism in the planet has evolved over the years, and tampering with it is bound to have repercussions. Although technological innovation was meant to improve human lives, it has also increased peoples dominance over nature and it continues to be used to increase power and assert this dominance. It will soon reach a point where the desire for power and profits overwhelm concerns for human safety (Jonsen, 2005). I also find it rather ironical that the same developed countries that insist GMOs are developed as a noble act to end world hunger will go to great lengths to protect their citizens from these same products. Organizations such as the American Nurses Association and the NON-GMO project continue to insist on the labeling of GMO products to increase awareness among American consumers and at the same time protect them from their adverse effects. Americans have resorted to boycotting products that are believed to be genetically engineered in an attempt to discourage their production. I opine that GMOs are being used to dominate and control farming, and that developing nations should also protect third world countries from their negative effects the same way they seek to protect their citizens.