Precautionary Measures for Genetically Modified Foods Essay

genetically circumscribed (GM) regimens, a fairly recent organic evolution that came about from research in contagious engineering, pose a voltage threat to piece and purlieual health. The basis of genetically modifying provenders is the transferal of desirable genetic traits of coiffures to an agricultural act upon. Genetic modification creates act upons that ar resistant to herbicides or foot repel insects. Genetic modification also makes growing dress ups easier and bears for higher performance rates.Anytime genetically altered crops atomic number 18 consumed by valet de chambres, the GM crops should be subjected to sloshed examination to assure that it is serious for valet de chambre use of goods and services and golosh for the milieu. When it comes to the environment and human condom, one can non be too cautious. Some say that throw out risk-freety testing of GM pabulums is non necessary because there is no evidence of GM foods being unsafe (Cockbur n 2002). The truth is that the habitual does non yet trust that genetically modify foods are completely safe (Harlander 2002).The precisely way to convince the domain that GM foods are safe and to create a market for GM foods is to perform further safety tests, such as a human study or controlled experiments. I propose that you fund this necessary and fundamental testing to hold that GM foods are safe for the environment and for human consumption in order to help create a market for this emotional state-improving product. Genetically limited crops were premier commercially introduced in the United States in 1996 and by 2001 24% of the corn, 63% of the soybeans, and 64% of the cotton being grown in the U.S. were genetically circumscribed varieties (Harlander 2002). Through genetic engineering, scientists put one over created varieties of crops that are insect-resistant, virus resistant, and herbicide tolerant. These qualities allow for improved yield and reduced use of po tentially dangerous pesticides, as well as improved weed control reduced crop injury, decline in foreign matter, reduced fuel use, and significant reduction in soil erosion. All of these consequences look to be beneficial for the human race and the environment.It is important to prove to the public that GM foods are safe so that such a beneficial engineering forget not be under-utilized. In the United States, three government agencies are compound in the approval of genetically circumscribed crops. These three agencies are the solid food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U. S. Department of featureory farm (USDA) (Harlander 2002). These agencies are responsible for ensuring that the GM crops are safe for the environment and for human consumption.More specifically, the USDA ensures that the GM crops are safe to grow, the EPA makes sure that the GM crops are safe for the environment, and the FDA ensures that the products are safe to eat (Harlander 2002). The three agencies ordinate the genetically limited crops through rigorous environmental and food safety assessments before they can be commercialized. However, Susan Harlander reminds the scientific community an effective food safety evaluation system minimizes risk, but it is important to remember that food is not inherently safe (2002).Tampering with the genetics of a crop increases the possibility of that crop being dangerous to the environment or to human health. Bettie Sue Masters, PhD, states, All evidence to date indicates that any breeding technique that alters a plant or animal, whether by genetic engineering or former(a) methods, has the potential to create unintended heightens in the quality or amounts of food components that could harm health (qtd. in Panasevich 2004). It is highly worryly that this need of inherent safety is a reason why the public is so cautious about the acceptance of GM foods.The key to diminishing the publics fear of G M foods is to extend the safety evaluation process. Consumers have two main concerns about genetically modified foods first, that GM foods are unsafe to eat and fleck, that their cultivation will harm the environment (Gasson 2001). shortly the most widely used safety evaluation process is called potent equivalence. Michael Gasson and Derek Burke discuss demonstrable equivalence Substantial equivalence recognizes the fact that conventional foods have been eaten by many community over a long period of time and have an established and accepted aim of safety.Genetic modification involves the introduction of a limited amount of change and substantial equivalence uses a comparative approach to reveal some(prenominal) intended and unintended differences between a genetically modified (GM) food and its conventional counterpart. (Gasson 2002) If the genetically modified food is substantially equivalent to, or similar to, its conventional counterpart, then it is generally regarded as sa fe. therefore far substantial equivalence has been effective, but as genetically modified foods become more and more complex there is no stop up that this method will continue its success.More in-depth testing is required to ensure the safety of future GM foods. Genetically modified crops should be tried and true on living subjects in addition to applying the substantial equivalence method. Animals or human volunteers are substantial in proving the safety of the genetically modified crops already approved by the FDA, EPA, and USDA, in addition to the GM crops to be introduced in the future. The risk of harm to a living being would be low as the GM food would have already passed the substantial equivalence test before being consumed.Long term testing would be able to prove that there are no mal- effectuate resulting from the consumption of GM foods. While long term testing may seem unappealing, it is a small price to pay for improving the quality of life for a nation. The publics concern extends beyond the effects of GM crops after human consumption all the way to GM crops effects on the environment. Many environmentalists as well as non-affiliated persons think that genetically modified crops have a negatively charged effect on the environment.Traits meant only for agricultural crops can be transferred to other plants through pollination traits, like being herbicide tolerant or virus-resistant, which would diminish natural and hokey checks and balances on plants (Guebert 2004). The best way to ensure that the GM crops will not harm the environment is to perform experiments and further safety assessments. Convincing the public that genetically modified crops are safe for the environment is pivotal towards creating a market for GM foods and in turn improving quality of life.The testing and assessing of the safety of GM foods that I propose will be separate into two categories the safety of genetically modified crops for the environment and the safety of G M foods for human consumption. The testing of the safety of GM crops for the environment must be performed under controlled conditions. Our testing will take place in a greenhouse, where any negative effects will be contained and kept away(p) from the environment.All genetically modified crops would be tested for two factors whether or not the trait is likely to be passed on to other plants and what nutrients in the soil the GM crop depletes and how abstain it does so. These two factors are essential in proving the safety of genetically modified crops for the environment. If a GM crop passed traits, such as herbicide tolerance or virus-resistance, on to other plant species, it could potentially change the big businessman of that species to survive and thrive and get havoc on the delicate balance of the ecosystem.This risk of upsetting the ecosystem frightens manque GM food consumers from supporting the industry. In order to test the ability of the genetically modified crop to pa ss on its genes to another species of plant, it would be planted for two growing seasons in the presence of varying plant species found around the agricultural United States. The soil will be tested for nutrients before and after each growing season in order to keep track of the nutrient depletion rate. Any genetically modified crop that depleted the soil of essential nutrients at an abnormally fast rate would be rejected.A genetically modified crops failure to pass any of the tests or assessments would not be approved, thereby leaving no reason for the public to fear for the safety of the environment on account of the GM foods on the market. To test the safety of GM foods for human consumption, a comparative study must be performed. In order for the study to be effective and result in useful information, several hundred human volunteers will need to participate. The volunteers will be divided into two groups. The first group will be asked to constitute a specific genetically mod ified food into their everyday diet.The second group will be asked to incorporate the conventional counterpart of the equal GM food into their diet. The study will last for 2 months with the participants receiving weekly physicals to check for any changes in health. A change in negative change in health in a number participant from group one, the group consuming a GM food, would indicate that the genetically modified food is playing a role in the deterioration. The GM food in question would then either be taken off of the market or subjected to further testing, depending on the extent of the data acquired from the study.With this study in place, consumers would feel much more comfortable purchasing, and creating a market for, genetically modified foods. By proving that genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption and for the environment, we are proving to the public that there is no cause for fear. In the absence of fear, consumers will no longer purpose to buying GM foods resulting in a market for genetically modified foods. The increase in demand for GM foods will result in more research and development and bring advances in GM technology.Genetically modified foods have the potential to improve the quality of life of people all over the universe of discourse, and it would be a shame to let this technology go to waste. If you give us this grant, there will be legion(predicate) benefits that can come from our work. Please consider the well-being of the people that will be helped by our work while you are making your decision. thank you. Works Cited Cockburn A. Assuring the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods the importance of an holistic, unifying approach. J Biotechnol.2002 98 (1) 79-106. Harlander SK. Safety assessments and public concern for genetically modified food products the American view. Toxicol Pathol. 2002 30 (1) 132-134. Gasson M, Burke D. Scientific perspectives on regularization the safety of genetically modified food s. Nat Rev Genet. 2001 2 (3) 217-222. Guebert A, Cousins D. Welcome to the world of unintended consequences. Farmers Weekly 2004 141 (9) 64. Panasevich CL. Risk assessment urged for genetically modified foods. farmings Health. 2004 34 (7) 25.