One of the most documented benefits of GM crops is the ability to create a plant that has a gene that produces an insecticide; many scientists argue that modifying a crop to produce this resistance is a huge positive as it reduces the amount of insecticide sprayed in the environment, in contradiction to this, tests carried out have actually shown that there is very little reduction in chemicals used. I argue however that any reduction is better in the use of damaging chemicals is better than none at all.
In contrast to this the BMA stated in a recent report that the impact on genetic modification on agriculture, food and health that too much emphasis was being made on making crops resistant to the actual pest or weed leaving plants with increased amounts of insecticide and pesticide rather than making them resistant to the actual pest or weed leaving plants with increased amounts of insecticide and pesticide residue. There are concerns that pest-resistant crops will remove important food sources for wildlife, and the ecological impact of such crops certainly must be evaluated.
One of the major benefits would be to be able to grow crops that were herbicide tolerant. This would allow farmers to use broad-spectrum herbicides that they would not normally be able to use, as they would harm their crop. An example is Soya that has been Genetically altered to make it tolerant to one kind of broad-spectrum herbicide that would kill non-GM Soya. This means that if farmers grew the GM Soya they would only need to use one kind of herbicide which would bring costs to the farmer down which in turn would bring costs for the consumers of the products made from GM farmers down.
Biologically there is one main benefit that is GM crops could reduce soil erosion. When non-GM crops are grown weeds are cleared before the seeds are planted, this reduces the moisture and natural nutrients found in the soil as well as increasing the effects of wind erosion. GM technology offers the chance to recover the situation. They argue GM crops will require fewer chemicals that have low toxicity that rapidly degrade and stay in the soil rather than being washed away into rivers and ponds. On the other hand by reducing one existing problem another new problem may arise, anti GM protestors argue that genes engineered into crops could “escape” and be transferred to other species where they might have adverse effects, and cause abnormal mutations.
There are many ethical reasons for the Genetic Engineering of crops, the main argument being if we have the technology to improve the quality of life of people in the third world by changing the genetics of a plant to make it possible to grow crops in arid areas and to increase the nutritional value of the plant. By making these modifications it would make it easier for third world countries to grow and sustain their countries basic dietary needs.
After carrying out my research, I am still not completely for Genetic modification nor am I against. One main issue I have is that genetic modification has not been round long enough for us to investigate they full effects on our environment and ecosystems. As for the ethical issues I believe all GM foods should be labelled so that consumers have the choice to eat what foods they wish. I do not believe that Genetic Modification will cause to many biological problems, I believe the greatest problem of all is they way in which humans use Genetic Modification. Over all I think GM crops are a good thing.
References
www.newscientist.com/gm/gm.jsp?
www.biotechinfo-info.net
Mchugen, A (2000) A Consumer's Guide To Gm Food From Green Genes To Red Herrings, Oxford University Press, New Yorkcoge ger segegew
