Gm foods and Gene therapy

Authors Avatar



ALL CRITERIAS (Mixed) P18.4, M18.4 and D18.4

Gene technology permits the biologist to obtain a gene as of one cell and place it into a different cell which could be animals, plants or microbial, to create new mixtures of genes. The two examples I will be using for this assignment are GM foods and Gene therapy.


GM stands for genetically modified foods. They are foods formed from genetically modified organisms (GMO), which have had their DNA changed during genetic engineering. GM foods are usually operated to relate to crop plants produced for animal or human consumption using the most recent molecular biology techniques. These plants have been adapted in the lab to improve required traits like bigger resistance to herbicides or enhanced nutritional content. The development of required traits has by tradition been took on during breeding, but conservative plant breeding techniques can be very slow and are regularly not very precise.

Alternatively, genetic engineering is able to make plants with the precise required trait very fast and with precision. For instance, plant genetics is able to segregate a gene in charge for drought tolerance and insert that gene into another plant; the latest fresh genetically modified plant will get drought tolerance too. Genes from non-plant living things are also able to be used. A well recognised example for this is using B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t. stands for Bacillus thuringiensis. It is a natural bacterium, which takes place and forms crystal proteins which are deadly to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes are transported into corn, allowing the corn to form its own pesticides rejecting insects like the European corn borer.


Population of the world has increased by 6 billion people and is considered to be double in the 50 years coming next. Making sure an enough amount of supply of food for this boosting population is about to be a challenge in the upcoming years; but GM foods put across an oath to meet this requirement in many ways:

  • Herbicide tolerance
  • Cold tolerance
  • Pest resistance
  • Disease resistance
  • Nutrition
  • Phytoremediation
  • Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance
  • Pharmaceuticals



There are above 40 plant varieties, which have finished all of the federal needs for Commercialization, according to the FDA and the US Department of Agriculture. A couple examples of these plants include cantalopes and tomatoes, which have improved ripening features, sugarbeats and soybeans, which are resistant to herbicides, and cotton and corn plants with increased resistance to insect pests. Even though the prevalence of GM foods in US grocery stores is much wide spread than is often considered, not all these products are available in supermarkets yet. During the time in which there are much less genetically-modified whole vegetables and fruits available on produce stands, highly processed foods, like breakfast cereals or vegetable oils, most probably consist of a small percentage of genetically-modified ingredients due to then raw ingredients which have been pooled into a processing stream from a lot of various sources. The ubiquity of soybean derivatives as food additives in the modern American diet virtually makes sure that every US consumers have been revealed to GM food products.

In 2000, thirteen countries developed genetically-engineered crops commercially; the US produced most of these. Sixty eight percent of every GM crops were grown through US farmers, in 2000. China, Argentine and Canada in comparison produced just 1%, 23% and 7%. In 2000, Uruguay; South Africa; Bulgaria; Germany; Australia; Mexico; France Spain and Romania were other countries which grew commercial GM crops. With potatoes, cotton and rapeseed trailing at the back, corn and soybeans are the two top main widely grown crops. 19% of these GM crops were improved for insect pest resistance, 74% of herbicide tolerance and 7% for both pest tolerance and herbicide tolerance. Averages of GM crops have rose 25-fold in only 5 years globally from about 4.3 million acres in 1996 – 109 acres in 2000.This is just about double the location of the UK.


Government officials, religious organisations, professional associations, public interest groups, environmental activists and other scientists all have put up issues about GM foods and criticized agribusiness for wanting advantage without concern for potential hazardous, and the government for loosing in exercising enough regulatory oversight. The majority of the concerns concerning GM foods divide into 3 groups, human health risks, economic concerns and environmental hazards.


GM foods have the ability to resolve loads of the world’s hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help defend and preserve the surroundings by rising yield and decreasing reliance on chemical herbicides and pesticides. There are still many adventures for the government, particularly in the locations of regulation, safety festing, food labelling and international policy. A lot of people consider genetic engineering to be the inevitable wave of the future and that individuals are not able to afford to ignore such a technology, which has many useful advantages. Nevertheless, caution to prevent causing unintended harm to human health has to be preceded and the surroundings as a consequence of enthusiasm for this forceful technology.


For the responsible and ethical use of genetic technology, the SRT project is very concerned. In the early 1990’s, the first aim of the UK and other European government was to press for fast commercialisation of GM technology. This was to allow European nations to capitalise on their high calibre investigation bass in biotechnology, and therefore to gain competitive stake in the expanding market, which was forecast. This directed to pressure to calm the precautionary control regime in the EU; only at a moment once the public were starting to be much aware of the potential risk of specific technologies. Scientific models of risk assessment were thought to be essential and voice expressing cautions were dismissed. At best, the precautionary principle was seen as not necessary in the light of scientific studied. At the worst the precautionary principle is as an irrational or emotional response. Therefore, Commercial Considerations have been permitted to mask essential social values and attitudes.


Of a ‘substantial equivalence’ the doctrine was considered to be sufficient on the thought that if foodstuff formed by GM was revealed to be scientifically indistinguishable from a normal food. This would keep the public satisfied on safety. It was also thought that GM food labelling by testable content was everything that was required, similarly. A number of occasions have established both assumptions to be mistaken seriously. No survey was taken of the public equation agreement, which in both cases takes a wider range of criteria into account than a scientific risk or safety assessment. For instance, insufficient info was taken of basic ethical objections to swapping genes between species which do not often mate, or which saw it as ‘tinkering with nature’ to a not acceptable degree. Likewise, labelling by content and substantial equivalence take no notice of those loads of individuals who are thinking about the environmental risks whilst the corn crop is developed. For a big segment of the UK population, the two main concepts on which safety of GM foods were tested and proved largely is relevant. It was this loss to gain any proper decision over GM foods which was the highest part in the UK public switching against GM foods, according to the consumer organisations.


Join now!

Based on some value considerations, the context in the UK at present is one featured through a high risk aversion to novel technologies. Between these is a deep philosophical and theological questioning of what may be considered as ‘unnatural’, that an inappropriate human intervention in nature. During the time at which it is at ease to critique this if it were said to be a complete concept, since embedded perception of a culture it has really big importance, which has to be taken with all seriousness. A recognisable paradigm shift is taking place. No longer is biotechnology able to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay