|
|
Transgenic crops have been the source of debate between scientists, farmers, intellectuals, environmentalists, and consumers since this technology became a worldwide possibility. In order to oppose genetic engineering, it is important to understand what there is to actually oppose. This “new” technology really isn’t so new and the large gap between the public and biotech companies doesn’t help to explain misunderstanding of the technology. Hugh Grant, Mansanto’s chief operating officer, described the company as needing “to do a better job with communicating the benefits of these end technologies.” Though not mainstream, information is out there and it is still beneficial. Such information reveals the following and proves that genetic engineering isn’t promoting world domination or manipulation of the public.
First, the term genetically modified food is not a term that best represents the products of biotechnology because as Joseph Hotchkiss, PhD, professor of food science and toxicology at Cornell, and Jim Maryanski, PhD, biotechnology coordinator at FDA believe, all crops have been subjected to some form of genetic modification. One of the most well known, besides natural selection, is cross-breeding. This is a natural process of crossing two plants to attain the traits desired, which can take a substantial amount of time considering all the genes within the two plants. It’s a process that is without the specific knowledge of the outcome. Martina McGloughlin, Ph.D, director of Biotechnology and Life Sciences Informatics Program at University of California, reveals that genetic engineering is not a new technology at all, by describing biotechnology as subsequent to many other technologies. She describes mutagenesis breeding and embryo rescue as “unnatural as biotechnology,” but “biotechnology is much more precise, much more predictable, and much more controlled.” Some opposition to genetic engineering suggests that it is unknown where the gene is being inserted, but she also described biotechnology as an “evolving” science and that “site selection” is starting to take form, which is the ability to “determine exactly where you’re going to be able to put the gene in,” which will “make it even more precise.” Thus, due to the differences between genetic modifications, genetically engineered food is a better term for describing products of biotechnology.
Another widely misunderstood term is “farmaceuticals”, which is jargon meant to describe plants producing pharmaceuticals. What a number people don’t realize, scientists and consumers alike, is the function of these products and the products themselves. Charles Arntzen, Ph.D, president emeritus of Boyce Thomson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell, describes a misconception of modern vaccines in respect to cost, proving the need for this new technology. The transfer of modern vaccines to developing countries is expensive initially, but refrigeration is usually a requirement, so the cost increases. With plant-based vaccines, he said that by simply being able to eat it “you don’t have to do any complex formulation; you don’t have to do purification; and you don’t have to deal with some of the other issues about toxicants or other materials that could get into the formulated vaccine,” which makes the process “less expensive and a more efficient and effective delivery system.” This is an advantage for the U.S. as well as an advantage for developing countries, which would be able to produce plant-based vaccines on their own. Opposing views suggest the idea that people will overdose on fruits and vegetables. Jane Rissler, Ph.D, senior staff scientist with Union of Concerned Scientists, used the examples of bananas and asked “how are you going to be sure that someone doesn’t overdose by eating too many bananas?” Mr. Arntzen emphasized the absurdity of this argument by saying, “We’re not trying to make the next V8 juice. We’re trying to make medicine.” He went on to describe how fruits and vegetables containing vaccines would be made into “dry powder” or “baby food puree” with correct dosage within containers. He also said, “I’ll tell you what I do not want to see: I don’t want to see a village banana tree with vaccines in it, where every one goes up and takes one when they want to.” This technology is about making vaccines affordable for developing countries and easy to reproduce on a local level, not killing two birds with one stone.
Pertaining to the issue of plant-based vaccines, the issue of poverty arises and the so-called intent of the United States to cure hunger worldwide. Jeremy Rifkin, President of Foundation on Economic Trends, brought up the issue by referring to how “one third of the food grown in this world is feed grain, which is consumed by animals,” so “if we would only find it in our hearts to move down the food chain” in order to “free up more land” we could have grain “grown for food grain” and “feed the world of today, tomorrow and many years in the future.” This argument was also brought forth by Charles Margulis, genetic engineering specialist with Greenpeace. The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t attack the intent of biotechnology. The true intent is to set up a cheaper, less complicated form of producing food and vaccines to “make developing countries less dependent upon philanthropy and big industry” as was said by Mr. Arntzen. Biotechnology is not planning to solve the problem of world hunger, but rather helping developing countries to become independent. This is important because a lot of food sources the U.S. has aren’t easily shipped. Grains, cereals, legumes may be shipped, but a balanced diet is the optimal goal. Thus, selling seeds that will fulfill the needs of a country’s desired crop far into the future is vital.
|
Etiquetas
Debes ingresar con tu usuario y cotraseña para agregar etiquetas.
|
Perfil de Escritor
Corinne
Este miembro no ha escrito nada en su perfil de Panorama aún.
|
Comentarios
Debes ser miembro de TakingITGloba para poder dejar
comentarios. Registrate gratis o entrar.
|
|
