Recent orders
Genetic Modified Organisms (GMO)
Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Genetic Modified Organisms (GMO)
GMOs are entities who’s set of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has been altered by use of genetic engineering. The use of Genetically Modified products in the world today, has prompted a lot of debate globally. Their particular genetic composition has been altered in order to increase quality, productivity and resilience to drought and crop diseases. Although, the aim of producing genetically modified organisms in food production was directed at maintaining food security, humans can make use of this technology to change their lives (Carson 12).
Ideally the stop of proliferation of GMO is a path towards understanding the harm it brings to people`s lives, and how the world can prevent this damage from spreading. It is wise to understand that GMO is harmful to both human health, plants and animals. Secondly, companies that produce GMO intend to monopolize the market with foods that are dangerous. Thirdly, transgenic plants are known to contaminate organic plants with the same genetic disorders. (Caris 10) argues that understanding and knowledge on the dangers they bring is necessary to curb its spread.
The fact that GMOs are generated from the injection of other crops genes does give a guarantee that this will be an alternative source of food. However, it is hard to determine the reliability of the inserted gene. However, Food production through this method is prone to many challenges; one of them being extinction. (Jensen 1082) Argues that increase the injected gene reduces in supply, the GMO dies with it. Therefore, it is deduced that GMO is only a first-hand source of food, but cannot guarantee food security. Despite the efforts made around the world in stopping the spread of GMOs, these foods are still presented on the table without verification (Ramón 430).
One is guaranteed that despite the risks these foods possess, they will still find a way to our table without verification. Not a single person can guarantee that GMOs side effect will be a continuous and long-term problem, and it is beyond the capabilities of our current technology to prove safety of GMO to consumers. Many scholars and supporters of GMO products argue that the application of biotechnology is used to increase the nutritional content of several foods will help many individuals who suffer deficiency diseases. They also claim that GMO products can yield medical advantages by injecting a specific vaccine or genes. Nonetheless, it is considered that GMO food is a temporary measure, not the key solution for medical benefits and improvement of food (de Lorenzo 220).
From a recent study conducted by American Academy of Environmental, Medicine advocates precaution GMO foods have not been tested fully for human consumption, and there is a significant proof of likely harm (Arne 1081). GMO has caused a lot of arguments and debates whether GMO can cause non-traceable and indirect effects on cancer rate, malfunction immune system, unknown effects on human health. Numerous studies bear testimony to the seriousness of the effects. For instance, based on a study conducted at Rowett Research Institute in 1998 by Dr. Arpad Pusztai showed feeding GMO products such as potato to mice led them to failure of the immune system (Caris 8). There was another research published at Purdue University that showed that freeing a transgenic fish to the wild could significantly damage native population to the extent of extinction. As a result, it is evident that GMO products are harmful to our health as their disadvantages overshadow advantages.
In addition, articulate crops have significantly destroyed organic farming and has made food processing activities impossible due to polluted organic foods. Activist of GMO asserts that many transgenic crops possessed herbicide resistance, and harmful insect helps to reduce the environmental contamination (Carson 12). Moreover, the resistance genes introduced to the crop could easily extend to the ecological system. Therefore, the change has led to being caught up in a vicious circle due to the birth of supper insect and super weeds by spreading the genes to them. Furthermore, the emergence of a mutation by biotechnology companies has changed the ecology and gives rises to ruin natural restoration. Several environmental protection agencies have regulated pesticides (Caris 19). They state that GMO crops often have posed a severe risk to the ecology since the crops that contained plant-incorporated pesticides produced the toxin and killed insects as they grow. They also evaluated the risks of GMO to human health, environment, and non-target organism by pesticides.
It is impossible to do away with GMO products just the same as it is impossible to get rid of nuclear waste from a nuclear plant. Restoration ecology plays a vital role in organic farming. GMO products have a disastrous impact on organic farming, mainly because most parts of the organic crop is lacking pollution and keeping its cleanness. However, seeds of GMO plants are disposed of by wind, and it, therefore, contaminates the natural plants. According to a recent research conducted in Japan, Hokkaido region, it cannot prevent GMO Cross-contamination to establish up buffer zones between organic farming and GMO farming. GMO pollution instigated by pollen drift is spreading faster to GMO crops cultivation areas such as Canada and USA. Contamination may happen once GMO crops are cultivated.
As a result, the co-existence between conventional farming and GMO farming is very difficult. Another example is a study conducted in 1999 by the UK-based National Pollen Research showed that airborne GMO pollen can be carried miles away in just 24 hours. Later the pollen was later found 5 km from a field of GMO oilseed rape in Oxford shire (Carson 18). It is true that generic pollution will ruin organic farming industry which love and care pesticide-free, GMO-free vegetables for natives.
GMO products are continuously forced on the whole world by biotechnology MNC seeking to monopolies their GMO products. After Green Revolution, there was a change in agriculture since they depended greatly on the petrochemical industry (Arne 1079). It is also true that agricultural productivity has increased, but agriculture is subjugated to MNC rule forever. By having a lot of produce, farmers and consumers get huge profits, but companies such as Novartis, Monsanto, and Aventis gets a lot of profits. All this companies’ control of food has been far more severe.
In Novartis case, the company developed Roundup Ready Soybeans, an herbicide Roundup that only manufacture Roundup and have made them make unreasonable profits (Ramón 432). RRS use 3-6 times more herbicides than any non-GMO plants. This way, multi-naturals have influenced on the whole world food markets. What will happen when all food in the world becomes GMO food? From the point of view, there will be a significant food problem hence the need to advocate avoidance of GMO crops.
It may not be easy since many people see GMO foods as a guarantee to solve the food shortage because of improvement productivity. But the fact is false. There is no connection between the frequency of hunger in any given country and its population. The main reason for famine and hunger is the public poverty, limited and unequal division of foods in third world and developing countries. The food problem is related to the fair distribution of food but not how yields increase.
The following are some of the most pronounced negative effects of GMO:
The use of GMO has always caused unintended harm to other organisms. It is clear that last year a laboratory experiment was published as it showed pole grains from B.t corn lead to high mortality rates to monarch butterfly caterpillars. These caterpillars always feed on milkweed plants and not corn, but the issue is that if the pollen from a genetically modified corn is blown to the plants then it becomes contaminated. Hence, the caterpillars eat the pollen from the milkweed and perish (Arne 1080).
Despite the fact that the study was not undertaken on a fair or a natural condition, the results were outstanding and supported the viewpoint. Regrettably, this GMO corn is a killer to many other insect larvae; moreover, it is not possible to come up with B.t toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and be harmless to the others (Holst-Jensen 1082). The other negative side of the GM is there less effectiveness of the pesticides: Just as the number of mosquitos has become resistant to the banned pesticides. Many people are aware that in the near future, there will be a problem of insect resistance to B.t other organisms that have been altered or modified to generate their pesticides. There are various disadvantages that come with the use of GMO than the benefits of it. Therefore, it can be reached that this change in technology does not have significance to the world, and it should be removed from use. Countries should come up with laws that prohibit manufacturing of GMO products. This should also include banning of such products in the country. The death toll of people with cancer caused due to GMO products is also on the increase. The questions are why should this innovation be sustainable? What are the best approaches can we use to curb the spread of its production?
Most of the crops in Africa possess these modifications; at more than 9%. GMO products should be labeled in order to let the public select what kind of product they wish to buy. It is consistent with the right to enable consumers to make an informative decision to accept. This strategy will stop the proliferation of GMO crops and monopolism of major companies. The general public holds the right perception concerning companies and GMO crops.
In conclusion, to prevent GMO, people should be advised on the effects of GMO to their body. Awareness is the best approach to address the dangerousness of GMO foods to people’s health. They should know that GMO crops can damage the natural environment. For instance in Japan and Western Europe diffusion of GMOs has been less than 3% since environmental groups avoid this product. However, In Africa, GMO rate is in a grim condition.
Works Cited
Arne, Jensen. “Testing for genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Past, present and future perspectives.” Biotechnology Advances 19 February 2009: 1071-1082. Print.
Caris, Nelson. Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: economics and politics. London: Academic press, 2001. Print.
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002. Print.
de Lorenzo, Víctor. “Genetically modified organisms for the environment: stories of success and failure and what we have learned from them.” International Microbiology 12 December 2010: 213-222. Print.
Ramón, González. “Detection of genetically modified organisms in foods by DNA amplification techniques.” Critical reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2 March 2004: 425-436. Print.
Hormone Replacement Therapy
Hormone Replacement Therapy
Student’s Name
Institution
Date of Submission
Hormone Replacement Therapy
I do not support Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) since there are numerous uncertainties regarding the probable effects of the therapy. Some of these uncertainties include the possibility of the therapy decreasing or increasing a patient’s risk of cancer, thromboembolism, or cardiovascular attacks (Arcangelo & Peterson, 2013).). Nonetheless, it is certain that HRT can have adverse effects on an individual. Although this is so, it would be prudent to analyze the enormous benefits and limitations of HRT.
Strengths
While there are many speculations on the benefits of HRT, some of the known strengths of HRT include improving of sexual performance, vitality, Muscle strength, energy, and quality of life (Holloway, 2010).
Limitations
There are numerous limitations to the use of and prescription of supplemental hormones. Some of the limitations in women are abnormal uterine bleeding, breast discomforts, fibroid enlargement, and uterine cancer (Jernstrom 1999). All of which are connected to HRT.
Limitations on men include risk of developing acne, increased hemoglobin, sleep apnea, a decrease in sperm count, and prostate enlargement to obstructive BPH.
Reflection
It is evident that human bodies respond rapidly to changes in molecular structures within organ systems (Yuen, 1993). On this account, I still do not support HRT due to the immense risks associated with it. However, I would recommend the use of bio-identical hormones, which are identical to the ones, which the body would otherwise produce (“Drugs.com” 2012.)
From the above analysis, while it may perhaps be conventional for therapists to recommend supplemental hormones for the patient, on my side I would recommend this as the last resort. Rather I would go for improved and balance diet and increased physical activity for the patient (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2012).
ReferencesArcangelo, V. P., & Peterson, A. M. (Eds.). (2013). Pharmacotherapeutics for advanced practice: A practical approach (3rd ed.). Ambler, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Holloway, D. (2010). Clinical update on hormone replacement therapy. British Journal of Nursing, 19(8), 496–504. Drugs.com. (2012).
Retrieved from http://www.drugs.com/
Jernstrom H, (1999). Hormone replacement therapy before breast cancer diagnosis significantly reduces the overall death rate compared with never-use among 984 breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer :1453-8U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2012). Recommendations for adults. Retrieved from http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/adultrec.htm
Yuen J, (1993). Hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer mortality in Swedish women: results after adjustment for ‘healthy drug-user’ effect. Cancer Causes Control:369-74.
Genetic modified foods
Author
Tutor
Course
Date
Genetic modified foods
Introduction
Every nation strives to attain self-sufficiency as far as food is concerned. Unfortunately, this has become a tall order for many nations, thanks to the ever-growing population which has increased demand for food supply. In essence, many nations have called upon technology in an effort to meet this challenge leading to the advent of genetically modified foods. The making of genetically modified foods involves cloning and DNA sequencing of certain genes, the reassembly of certain DNA fragments, as well as the transfer of these genes to make plant cells, from which plants are regenerated through the cell and tissue culture. These plants have their DNA altered to as to enhance the desired characteristics such as the nutritional content, or resistance to diseases. It is worth noting that the enhancement of desirable traits is not new. Traditionally, it has been undertaken via breading. However, conventional methods of plant breeding have been seen as time consuming, as well as inaccurate. On the other hand, genetic engineering has the capacity of creating plants that incorporate the exact, desired traits, in a rapid and accurate manner. Research shows that approximately 70 percent of processed foods in most grocery shops, in the United States, incorporate genetically modified ingredients. These mainly include maize, soybeans, rapeseed oil and cotton. In essence, most foods that are processed in the United States incorporating high-fructose corn syrup or field corn, such as snack foods, breakfast cereals, and soda have a likelihood of incorporating genetically modified ingredients. It is worth noting that the ingredients are also incorporated in animal feed, as well. It is evident that the genetically modified foods have played a key role in enhancing food sustainability in the United States. However, there have been concerns as to the appropriateness of substituting natural foods with the genetically modified foods. Questions have been raised as to whether the incorporation of genetically modified foods does more harm than good. It goes without saying that genetically modified foods have both pros and cons. In this case, the question is whether the disadvantages of GMOs outweigh the advantages.
Thesis statement: The production and incorporation of Genetically Modified Foods should be discouraged at all costs.
As much as Genetically Modified foods may have their advantages, their production and incorporation in the market should be discouraged. This is especially due to the magnitude and the weight of the negative effects with which the foods come.
First, it is noteworthy that the foods come with adverse ecological and environmental problems (Jaffe, 8). As stated, the foods involve the alteration of the plant’s DNA so as to enhance their resistance to diseases and pests, which would consequently enhance their yield. However, this introduces another problem of the evolution of resistant weeds and pests. Resistance may evolve in cases where there is no sufficient selective pressure. In essence, the introduction of these foods, especially on a commercial scale, introduces a strong, selective pressure in the habitat, which causes the evolution of resistant insects within a certain duration of time (Jaffe, 8). This would, therefore, nullify the transgenes’ effects. In cases where the herbicides are sprayed regularly, the surrounding weeds are bound to develop resistance to the herbicide. GMOs are also likely to damage other organisms in the ecosystem thereby leading to loss of biodiversity. A study established that the pollen from B.t corn resulted in high mortality rates among monarch butterfly caterpillars. The caterpillars eat milkweed plants rather than corn. However, there are fears that when pollen from the corn is blown to the milkweed plants in nearby fields, caterpillars would eat the pollen and die. The study’s results proved this theory and showed that the toxins incorporated in the genetically modified crops would eliminate numerous insect larvae species indiscriminately. It is unfortunate that there is no way in which the plants can be raised to eliminate the crop-damaging pests without harming other unintended targets.
In addition, genetically modified foods are known to incorporate a high level of toxins and allergens. These are bound to have adverse or negative effects on the health and wellbeing of the individuals who consume them. This is especially in cases where the consumers have serious allergic reactions. It is worth noting that the transferred gene may not necessarily pose a health risk on the individual. It is the gene expression and its products’ effects that are considered in this case. The new proteins may be synthesized to produce unpredictable, allergic effects. As an example, bean plants that are genetically modified to enhance their methionine and cysteine content have been discovered to incorporate highly allergenic transgene proteins.
On the same note, genetically modified are known to cause antibiotic resistance in individuals. This is because the development of genetically modified foods involves the enhancement of their ability to fight certain herbicides and pesticides. It is worth noting that these herbicides and pesticides may have the same ingredients as the antibiotics, in which case the bodies of the consumers would resist the antibiotics. Unfortunately, this may affect the ability of individuals to use certain drugs.
The modification of the foods genetic composition also involves the introduction of other bacteria and virus. This comes with the possibility of triggering the development of new diseases in human beings. Studies have shown that quite a large number of diseases can be traced to the composition of the foods that are in available in America today. Unfortunately, these are the same health hazards that are transferred to other nations in the name of eliminating hunger. The essence of substituting hunger and starvation with health hazards is entirely illogical, especially having in mind that there are other ways in which the problems can be eliminated without endangering the lives of the consumers. The downside of these foods is compounded by questions as to the nutritional content of these foods. As stated earlier, the key issue in the modification of the foods’ genetic composition is to enhance their nutritional content, as well as resistance to diseases. However, it is worth noting that this is not always the case. It is not always the case that the genetically modified foods have their nutritional content increased. In some cases, the genetically modified foods may, in fact, lose their nutritional content in the course of modifying their genetic makeup.
However, my stand does not undermine the fact that these genetically modified foods have boosted the supply of food in many countries. This is especially having in mind that most countries have less than enough food supply thanks to low levels of rainfall, pests and diseases. In addition, there are instances where the genetically engineered crops conserve the environment by increasing the ease with which weeds are controlled and allowing for reduced plowing and consequently, reduced soil erosion ( HYPERLINK “http://www.monsanto.co.uk/monsantouk/biotech_slides/ad4.html” http://www.monsanto.co.uk/monsantouk/biotech_slides/ad4.html). Moreover, the genetically modified foods are crafted or engineered in such a way that they resist pests. In essence, the modification of the genetic makeup of the crops allows for less usage of pesticides, in which case the crops may even be safe (Coleman, 7). As much as this may be the case, it would be illogical to ignore the depletion of the nutritional content of these crops. These crops may not necessarily have improved nutritional content rather they may have their nutritional content depleted. In addition, it is worth noting that the process of modifying the genetic composition or makeup of these foods involves the introduction of bacteria and virus, some of which have been known to weaken the immunity of consumers to certain ailments. In fact, a study that sought to examine the effects of these foods found that GMOs weaken the intestines of consumers as compared to natural foods.
The question, therefore, is whether countries should allow genetically modified foods to substitute natural crops. In my opinion, the foods only enrich the large corporate farms at the expense of consumers and the small scale farmers. The argument that the technology is needed so as to feed the country is baseless. After all, studies have shown that the United States has the capacity to feed the entire world when considering its farms and land value. In addition, the problems that the foods introduce both to animals and plants cannot be ignored. This is especially having in mind that they endanger the health, wellbeing, as well as the lives of the consumers. Of course, anyone would prefer to have something that has some side effects and survive rather than starve to death. However, it is preferable to have foods that have the appropriate nutritional content and do not harm the environment or the consumer. This is especially having in mind that the available farms have the capacity to feed the current populations without the GMOs, in which case the excuse on supplementing food supply does not stand.
Works cited
Jaffe, Gregory A. Lessen the Fear of Genetically Engineered Crops. Christian Science Monitor. 2001, p. 8.
Coleman, Gerald D. Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Hunger? America Magazine Web 2005 retrieved 29th June 2012 from HYPERLINK “http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=4027” http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=4027
Biotech PowerPoint Slides. Retrieved 29th June 2012 from HYPERLINK “http://www.monsanto.co.uk/monsantouk/biotech_slides/ad4.html” http://www.monsanto.co.uk/monsantouk/biotech_slides/ad4.html
Snow, Allison and Pedro, Moran Palma. Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. BioScience. 1997. Pp. 86-96
Mitten, Donna, Rob MacDonald, and Dirk Klonus. Regulation of foods derived from genetically engineered crops. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 1999.
Ferber, Dan. New corn plant draws fire from GM food opponents. Science. 2000. p. 1390.
(Jaffe, 8) (Coleman, ) (Snow and Pedro) (Mitten et al, ) (Feber, )