The proposition team claimed that genetically modified food or for short GM Foods are safe for humans. This is not true since for example GM crops have not been proven to be safe for human consumption and scientists don’t know what the long-term effects of GMO consumption can be. They think that there is a possibility that GM foods can contribute to the development of cancer because cancer is caused by mutations in the DNA and then if you introduce new genes to the body from the GM Foods it can be dangerous. GM foods are tested on animals and no one has made sure that the human body will react in the same way and even if we test the food on monkeys that are alike humans, they are still 4% different from us and that is a 4% risk of us getting affected by the food. Why take a risk and maybe possibly die from eating genetically modified crops when we can regular crops? Especially when these facts prove that it’s not safe. Anyway, Genetically Modified Food, its pros and cons is presented in this essay. We will start with analysis of arguments against GMOs and then will think about it's possible benefits.
Genetically Modified Food: Argumentative Statements
The proposition team claimed that GMOs can be used to prevent allergies and that is wrong. GMO produces new proteins and these proteins can actually do the opposite and cause allergies instead of preventing them. Even though it’s unlikely that it happens, there is still a risk and scientists have for a long time suspected that at least GM crops do cause allergies. If there is a chance that you end up with more allergies than you started with, just because you chose to eat genetically modified food is it really worth it? Is it really necessary to put your health at risk and possibly ending up with more allergies or even unknown diseases? It’s not and therefore we should not consume GM foods.
The fact that GMOs is a procedure that is easy to control is false. No one knows a lot about GMOs and because of that the transgenic modification produces organism types that don't occur naturally, the organisms can cause negative side effects that later on disturb the natural cycles. Another side effect of GMOs is that they are hurting the animals a lot. For example rats in the United States have tend to increase the chance of developing liver and kidney problems. Even though these medical problems don't affect humans, it still reflects the side effects on a living organism and if it’s not even safe for a rat, how can it be safe for humans that are so unlike rats. Since we will never know for sure that it’s safe for humans by testing on animals, why do we still do it? We believe that we should not test the GMOs on animals as often that we do since it will never give us an accurate answer anyway because we are not the same as for example rats.
The proposition team claimed that GMOs can help for cold and disease tolerance for plants. This is true, but on the other hand we don’t know how it can affect humans in the long-term if they consume these plants. No one has made sure that we won’t get any unknown diseases from these plants and as I mentioned before, scientists do believe that genetically modified food can in the long - term contribute to developing cancer. There are too many possible negative side effects that it’s not necessary to create cold and disease tolerance for plants since it may hurt us.
There are multiple risks to genetically modified food due to GMOs. Due to its risk, it causes a health risk which may help us build a better picture of the prospective health impacts on humans based on the influences exerted on specific organs. Most investigations on GM foods show that they can produce common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive impacts, as well as alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. This assessment, however, will take many years of animal study and clinical trials. Because it has been established that recombinant GH or its expression in animals raises IGF-1, which may induce cancer, the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be reconsidered. In addition, food that has been genetically modified is naturally unstable. Each insertion of a new gene, as well as the 'cassette' of promoters, antibiotic marking systems, and vectors that go with it, is done at random. GE food manufacturers simply have no idea where their genetic 'cassette' is being inserted in the food, neither will they have enough knowledge of the geneticchemical makeup of foods to determine a 'safe' location for such insertions. As a result, inserting a gene into a product is comparable to playing 'food safety roulette' with companies hoping that the additional genetic insertion will increase the danger of previously harmless elements in the food becoming toxic.
However Genetically Modified Food has both advantages and disadvantages. One potential benefit of GM food is that it can be engineered to have higher yields and greater resistance to pests and diseases. This means that farmers can produce more food with less land and fewer resources, which can be particularly beneficial in areas where food production is limited. Additionally, GM crops can be engineered to be more drought-tolerant, which can be a significant advantage in areas prone to droughts. Another potential benefit of GM food is that it can be engineered to have greater nutritional value. For example, rice can be modified to contain higher levels of Vitamin A, which can help prevent blindness in children in developing countries. GM food can also be engineered to be more resistant to herbicides, which can reduce the need for harmful chemical pesticides. This can be beneficial for both the environment and human health.
To conclude the essay about Genetically Modified Food, although GM food as well as GMOs are not natural, not everything natural is good for us, and not everything unnatural is bad for us. Although some the people around the world agreed that it is harmful to us as people also for animals and plants, and among the harmful things, according to people 'it poses a health risk and produces less predictable consequences', say those who oppose GMOs. Another group has appeared to oppose these people's opinion and says that it helps in several things as we claim, including increased productivity; secondly it's less use of pesticides. In addition, 'GMOs may not be natural, but not everything natural is good for us, and not everything unnatural is bad for us'.
Cite this Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below