Genetically Modified Technology primordially involved the changing or the altering of the of the genetic composition of the seeds, and then subjecting them to radiation. Presently, it involves the cutting of the DNA from the cell nucleus and inserting the DNA into the nucleus of another living organism. In this sense, genetically modified foods are those foods or food products which have been made from an organism which has been genetically modified. The food contains protein or genetic components arising from the process of modification.
The organisms can be both plant and animal organisms. Some plant organism can be taken raw (Ruse and Castle,pp. 23). Some of the dangers of the Genetically Modified Foods (GMF) is that there could be problems of health stemming from inserted genes. This can in turn help in the promotion of diseases or defects among human beings. More prospects of people suffering more allergies are bound to increase since there are very high chances of the inserted genes being coded by a protein that is poisonous to human health.
There are even more concerns that the Genetically Modified Technology (GMT) shifts the way plant and animal genes express themselves, and thereby, trigger the production of either or both the previously recessive genes or the existing toxins. In the same wavelength, the traits of the micro organism could be altered by the inserted gene, and thereby rendering the micro organism potentially dangerous to human life. Upon consumption by humans, the inserted gene remains susceptible to transferability from its carrier micro organism into the digestive or the respiratory tracts of either humans or animals.
This may lead to an imbalance of the already existing in the distribution of the micro organism in the human or animal digestive or respiratory system. Environmental benefits and dangers of th Genetically Modified Technology. Some of the benefits of genetically modified technology is that it has led to the manufacturing or the creation of crops that are pest and disease resistant. Some of these crops include the cotton and the virus resistant papaya, squash, a new breed of tomatoes- the flavr savr tomato, the BT potato, the BT corn, the HT sugar beet, and the male sterile chicory.
The fact that these crops are pest resistant, virus resistant and fungal resistant, has abated the need for pesticides. These crops have also been modified to trigger rapid growth under different conditions since this technology is geared towards the ensuring of stable food supply world wide, and at any given time. This has also lessened the production and use of fertilizers. Some of these fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides contain chemicals that deplete the humus part of the soil. By the ushering in of these genetically modified crops, there will be less use of these chemicals, and hence, more soil fertility.
Other genres of genetically modified technology crops such as the corn, cotton, soy beans and the canola- all which are drought resistant have also been made. The genetic manufacturing of the drought resistant ensure the continual covering of the earth at all seasons. This again is quite an accrual since it extirpates cases and chances of drought and soil erosion (Healey and Justin, pp. 56). However, it is not only the advantages that stem from the use of the genetically modified crops. On the contrary, some have not been so beneficent to the environment.
For instance, the glypphosate resistant type of soybeans has led to the plummeting of the herbicide acre treatment. The glyphosate is known to be of a higher dose herbicide when compared to the herbicide it sought to replace. The proposition that even the BT corn can help abate the use of pesticides is viewed by critics to be less lucid since even the conventional corn does not need pesticide. From 1991- 2001, only 33% of corn farmers used pesticides, for instance. Genetically Modified Technology, Patenting and Intellectual Property Rights.
Patents in life forms were proscribed in Asia and in the South following ethical standpoints touching on morality, colonialism and the dangers that were perceived to be posed by the statutory monopolies in the sector of food, health and human basic needs. It is only until recently that economies that have industrialized allowed the exclusion of the living organisms from the sphere of the intellectual Property. From the onset of the 1950s going onwards, the world has witnessed some of the industrialized countries begin to provide in a limited sense, various classes of plant variety protection, also known as the PVP.
Back then, there was the issuing of some commercial monopolies to breeders, while some farmers and their breeding counterparts were allowed some laissez faire. However, with the current enhancement and advancement of the genetically modified engineering, the loopholes have been tightened, with industries prevailing on the government to instill fully fledged patent rights that are comprehensive enough to cover any form of activity that touches on life forms (McHughen, pp. 102). More philosophical and legal arguments that touch on life forms, their research and cross breeding led to the abrogation of the law so that it be not so attenuative.
For instance, it was argued that life forms by themselves reproduced freely, and therefore, the law was to be bent to make the Intellectual Property Rights describe actually the characteristics of the life forms. Another consequence is that the coming in of hybrids led to the government giving exclusive rights to the biotechnologically driven life science industries, to the effect that their research findings on plant and animal breeding were protected, since the field had become more lucrative.