Current and Past Perception of GMO Food Consumption

World population is growing day by day and for the decrease in the real estate of arable land, current attempts to battle starvation on a world scale are undermined. Scientists are constantly working to meet this food shortage happening for overpopulation to make people’s lives comfortable and that is why scientists are inventing new things and such an invention is a genetically modified organism that is introduced by genetic engineering. Moreover, a variety of vaccines are being developed through the GMO to improve medical health. Srinivas (1993) gave details that the process of Genetic engineering is the quality of a living being is embedded into other living beings through logical techniques to refashion. Nevertheless, many individuals are still not inviting this innovation even to this period because of their mindset. My aim here is to critique Srinivas’s article “Politics of Bio safety and Regulatory Mechanisms Japanese Vaccines trials in India” on 1993 about the perception of GMO compared with articles from around the same timeline 1991, 2000 as well as the current perspectives of GMO on 2011,2015.

Srinivas (1993) explains in his article that since the 70s there were suspicions about the effect of the arrival of genetically engineered items. There were many questions and confusion arise about the regulate release of GMO. In this regard, the “Politics of Bio safety and Regulatory Mechanisms Japanese Vaccines trials in India” article mentions the concern of many scientists, lawyers, activists, and the general public. For instance, Paul Berg, American Bio Chemist also expressed his concern that genetic engineering will create harmful effect on environment and proposed to prohibit experiment on recombinant DNA. Moreover many people wanted deferral on the rDNA experiment.

In favor of that, the Asimolar conference on recombinant DNA was held in 1975 which was followed by NHI (US National Health Institute). Several countries including France came together and evaluate field tests. For these field tests, the companies targeted specific countries. Srinivas (1993) gave an explanation that in 1980 biotech became the first US growing industry which was working on GMO researches and as well as third world nations became the testing ground. Perhaps it is because many countries have stronger regulations than the US and for that, the companies chose the US to conduct the testing. In contrast, the US public protested and opposition for this test but the US did not accept the majority viewpoint.

The public of the US and many European countries protested because of the industries releases unregulated GMO. Srinivas observed the problem about disapproval of Genetic engineering and raised questions as “Does the general public have any right to intervene in such debates, which demand a good understanding of science?” and “Who decides what is acceptable and what is the genuine risk or an acceptable risk?” and Srinivas mentioned there were activists who were belonging to many groups. These activists interrupted and protested the work on GMO. Actually, those people who didn’t have any knowledge of science started giving an opinion about GMO which created many conflicts among the people.

Henry I Miller (1991), Miller is the medical researcher and columnist formerly with the FDA. He pointed out some issues which are the wrong assumption of people and they were misunderstood about GMO. I think they took GMO as a bad object because they did not know appropriately and clearly about the trials of GMO. The people against GMO might not have gone against if they had got the opportunity to have any access to know about the trials of GMO. Therefore, Srinivas(1993) emphasized that “Government shouldn’t hide about trial and US information about the trials can be accessed with no cost” (p.1852). If the public does not have correct information about the trial, they will think of it negatively like they used to presume with such a misconception before. I believe the usage genetic engineering plays a major role in human life and it has many advantages. Srinivas (1993) clarifies the advantages of GMO in his article. For instance, people would get benefits from GMO because that it is possible to control of weeds and pests, bioremediation, leaching of mineral ores, and development of plants, herbicides tolerance, and insect resistance.

Conway (2000) expressed a lot of thought in his article about the field test. Indian researchers at the University of Delhi have added two genes to rice, which together appear to allow t he plant to tolerate delayed submergence; it is a typical problem in parts of Asia. These accomplishments hold genuine promise of impressive advantages for the people of the developing nations. At the same time, the utilization of this examination, especially by poor people is being undermined by the mounting controversies in Europe and, somewhat, in the United States. There is a real threat that the exploration might be interfered, especially if field trials are restricted. It is, obviously, just through field trials that we can genuinely survey both the advantages and the dangers.

Field trials are additionally fundamental to adjust the developments to local conditions. Conway (2000) said “Much of the strength of the Green parties in the recent European elections was attributed to the growing opposition to GM food. There is now a real danger that research will be delayed, field trials will be stopped, and irrational restrictions will be imposed on the use of foods produced by new technology”. Conway also explained how anyone can get profit from the genetic engineering. Walker and Lonsdale (2000) suggested that the uses of “GMO technology to environmental problems would be both timely and wise. It would be timely for three reasons”. First of all, society is opening significant chances to do business because the sustainability concern is rising which placing ecological issues.

Traditional methodologies are demonstrating difficult because GMO innovation has risen the period where it can make a real commitment to the ecological area. GMO crops are good for farming but if natural concerns are not took in hand, different agro eco systems won't have the option to benefit by GMO crops. The writers highlighted the issues that by GMO crops people can get profit. Besides by comparing the articles of Walker and Lonsdale comments on Conway’s research with Srinivas’s article, we came to know in both article writers were generally talks about the field test of genetic engineering.

The usage of biotechnology has been helpful to farmers and creates new fields for farming. Willnegger (2008) said that “American experience from almost a decade-long use of biotechnology-derived crops indicates that these crops have revolutionized crop production and provided vast hope to growers by helping to meet one of the key goals of production agriculture: improving yields with the use of minimal inputs.” (P.95). It is a broadly held conviction that the use of these advancements might add to the efficiency of manageable farming. Another field of plant biotechnology in the food sector is genetically modified crops with enhanced feed quality characteristics. These genetically modified plants have incorporated substances such as amino acids or essential unsaturated fats with a higher feed content. Crops can synthesize in a complex way. Carotenoid astaxanthin is an important substance added to feed for salmon reproduction. It is responsible for the salmon's characteristic ruddy shade. Wild salmon from scavengers are furnished with astaxanthin. Homesteads in salmon must include astaxanthin as a material added to feed.

Astaxanthin's compound synthesis requires 13 stages. Genetically modified plants expressing high levels of astaxanthin could be bolstered to salmon, making astaxanthin expansion useless to maintain. Another object of plant biotechnology in the food industry is improved nutritional quality. Sweet potato has been created with a higher quality of protein. Plants of soya and maize have been changed to improve their content of oil, protein, and sugar. A rice strain has been inherited to express extra nutrient A, the alleged lack of Golden Rice. 298 Vitamin A causes visual impairment and affects up to 250 million children worldwide. Along these lines, GoldenRice has been recognized as a “meaningful step forward in global nutrition”. By using GMO, working with food is done in many ways so that the nutrition and protein content of the food is high. From Willnegger and Srinivas article we can see that there has been much change in the GMO food during these years 1993 to 2008.

If you want to market a new product, you need to verify how safe it is. In administration, precautionary measures and duty are the key concern. Science is important to ensure that genetically modified foods are healthy, safe and biologically stable. Therefore, there are groups to facilitate the instruction of GM crops to observe the crops or foods are safe or not. In one case study on US regulation of genetically engineered crops (2011) explained “Regulation of GM crops in the United States is divided among three regulatory agencies: the Environmental Projection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Each of these agencies regulates transgenic crops from a different perspective”.

For example- Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the EPA directs biopesticides, including Bt toxins. If a yield is genetically engineered to carry a gene for a Bt toxin, EPA requires the developer to confirm that the toxin is safe for nature and conduct a sanitation test to ensure that the external protein is not allergic. Another Food safety organization FDA, is responsible for managing the well-being of GM crops eaten by most of the people. The FDA finds most GM crops to be 'significantly proportionate' to non-GM crops, as shown by a policy adopted in 1992. In such cases, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) recognize GM crops as “mostly recognized as healthy” and does not require pre-advertising approval. The inclusion of a transgene in a food crop results in the outflow of remote proteins that basically contrast with the structure, ability, or value of characteristic plant proteins and are likely to be unsafe for human health. FDA avoids the option of implementing ever more restrictive FFDCA regulations requiring compulsory pre-advertising approval of food added products, regardless of whether they are biotechnology outcomes. In Srinivas article, he was worried about food safety. At that time on 1993 there was not enough food security Organisation but now there are many organizations to see if the quality of food is right in the market. And these organizations are doing their job properly.

Wunderlich and Gatto (2015) elucidate that in 1996 GMO crops represented extremely little rates of farmland in the US at first but have extended quickly as farmers consistently receive them, preferring to their capacity to build yields as the essential explanation. The farmland extended because there were three most broadly developed US GMO crops corn, soybeans and cotton in which they were getting a lot of profit. A study on media discussion of GMOs noted that the topics of popularity in the press did not always mirror the actual significance of the information. Wunderlich and Gatto (2015) assumed that “During the 1990s, there were often more scientific articles than news articles published about GMOs, but in 1999, yearly GMO news articles more than tripled.