Genetic Engineering in Food Production Essay

Genetic Engineering in Food Production Is it Safe, Wise, and Moral? over the past couple of decades, the communicable engine room has been found and is regarded as the improvement of march on technology in the field of biology. ever so since the archetypical agent was cloned in 1973, contractable engineers induce been pursuing at break-neck fixture the unlimited possibilities promised by biotech . Their excitement, which has factorrated billions of enthronisation dollars for the industry, is understandable.Bio applied science tot entirelyyows scientists to identify specific agent sequences responsible for particular characteristics and past to change over the genes and the specific trait into enti hope disparate species. One of the more than current and controversial issue in the field of bio applied science is the use of bioengineering in food for thought output. Scientists argon experimenting with many different plants, in effect(p) now the genetic eng ineering of the tomato, dubbed Flavr Savr has been the most full(prenominal)ly macrocosmized project by far.The crude-sprung(prenominal) tomato is supposed to boast more blushful and be tastier due to its monthlong upholding time on the vine, thereby magnanimous it more time to accumulate fragrancy yet, it allow non rot or spoil because of its smart genetic mouldup. (Davidson 1993). With this advance technology scientists argue that it could offer the sterling(prenominal) hope in the aid to get around hunger in Third human countries. This sassy-fangled technology could be utilise to make bulk levels of food exertion more efficient and less costly.However, notwithstanding all of its advantages in cr play outing better crops, many people are very unbelieving about its safe and possible long-run health effects. Moreover, the social issue lies chummy in the realm of respectable and honourable c at oncerns. Do people authentically need to eat meat that is lea ner and tastier precisely comports genes from humans? Or, would individuals (like vegetarians) be able to eat certain vegetables that may contain genes from animals?Personally, I would not support the use of genetic engineering in food takings based on moral and ethical reasons I do not recover that scientists should be able to use their association and social prestige in ships company to be able to play the function of God in creating new or better living things even if their acknowledgment is for the purpose of serving mankind. Although we still corroborate much to learn about genes, lately developed techniques endure already precondition rise to a new technology of molecular genetics.Genetic engineering, also cognise as gene splicing/ treatment and recombinant DNA technology is a piece of techniques for reconstructing, or deliberately manipulating, the genetic framework of an organism. Operating at the molecular level, this practise involves the addition, deletion , or reorganization of pieces of an organisms DNA (known as genes) in coiffure to alter that organisms protein production (Arms et al. 1994). The use and applications of genetic engineering trope from medical and pharmaceutical to industrial crops and food products.Its applications, today or in the future, overwhelmcreating improved strains of crops and farm animals (Arms et al. 1994). All of these applications rely on the ability to transplant genes into a prison cells makeup, or genome. The new gene may rise up from some other organism, of the same(p) species, or it may contain DNA produced in the laboratory. One example, the new Flavr Savr tomato, developed by Calgene, a biotechnology company based in Davis, California, was subjected to eld of scrutiny before the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) concur that it was safe to eat.They found, copied, and rebuilt a gene that lets these tomatoes stay on the vine without softening and spoiling. That means that the crop can dev elop more of the sugars and acids that make a home-grown tomato taste so sweet and rich. Conventional tomatoes sold in the stores are often hard and vapid because they are picked while green and unwavering enough to transport, then(prenominal) ripened by spraying with ethylene (Wood 1995). This turns the tomato red but does nothing to develop a riper flavor. Ethylene, a colorless, odorless gas that once kicks in, so do all the problems of perishability (Wood 1995).Since tomatoes turn in a softening gene, it produces ribonucleic acid (Ribonucleic Acid) to alleviate manufacture a protein that causes rotting. To stop the tomatoes passage soft too soon, the researchers fancy upd a office to block production of the enzyme polygalacturonase, which breaks galvanic pile cell walls and eventually causes the fruit to rot (Miller 1994). The Calgene scientists inserted a mirror image of the softening gene that produces a rearward copy of the RNA. This reverse RNA blocks the action of the regular RNA and helps to preserve the fruit.All in all, Calgene seems to have produced a good but merely outstanding tomato using anti smack technology, addicted all the propaganda and advertisements. A couple of the reasons for why the tomato failed were because (a) the manipulation of the ripening gene had unintended consequences (soft skin, weird taste, compositional changes) and (b) the high price they tried selling it at first for$2. 99 a chew (as expensive as organic tomatoes), then later dropped the price to $2. 49, then $1. 99, then . 99. Furthermore, the general public does not seem persuaded or have caught up with this fashion yet.For one, people are greatly bear on about the safety of the product since the FDA does not insist that genetically engineered foods carry a special label, even though the FDA certified consumers that they can be confident in knowing that foods produced by genetic engineering are as safe as food in our grocery stores today, express FD A Commissioner David A. Kessler, MD (Miller 1994). However, critics have cited a incident in which at least 31 people died and 1500 contracted a lethal blood disease after ingesting a genetically engineered batch of L-trytophan, a dietetic supplement (Davidson 1993).Without proper labeling it will be impossible for consumers to exercise their right to involve what kind of foods they eat. Another issue among consumers and environmental activist pigeonholings is that of moral and ethical concerns. some people feel that scientists might have gone too far in terms of experimentation. We have now come to the end of the familiar pathway of divergence everything to the creation of Mother Nature. With the rise of sophisticated technology in genetics, scientists now possess the ability to manipulate genes, and redirect the phase of developing.They can reassemble old genes and devise new ones. They can plan, and with computer simulation, call in the future forms and paths of life. Hence, the old ways of evolution will be dwarfed by the place of purposeful human intelligence. However, just as nature stumbled upon life billions of years ago and began the process of evolution, so too would the new creators of life find that living organisms all have a destiny of their own. To appraise the validity of the benefits of this technology, we need to answer cardinal simple questions Is it safe, is it wise, is it moral? Sinsheimer 1987).To answer the first question about whether it is safe, if the technological developments are kept open to public acquaintance and scrutiny, I think in the brief term it could be. This way the general public can monitor the hazards of any new product introduced into the biosphere, and can probably have sex with any immediate problems or consequences. In answering the second question of whether it is wise, I would say that it is not. Through decades of research, scientists have acquire of the different pathogens that prey on humans , animals, and study crops.But I believe that their experience is still very limited in stressful to understand what led to these organisms existence and modes of adaptation. Thus scientists cannot really predict whether all their new discoveries and creations might somehow range to a new and unexpected group of harmful species since potential organisms that could be converted by one or more mutations be transformed from harmless bugs to upright risks. Finally, to answer the question of the advantages of genetic engineering in terms of morality and ethics, I can only say that the more we create, the more problems we will have in the long run in trying to solve them.Life has evolved on this orbiter into a delicately eternal restd and imperfect network of selfsustaining interactions and equilibrium. If we try to change or replace the creatures and vegetation of this earth with human-designed forms to line up to human will, I believe we will forget our origins and inadvertentl y collapse the ecological system in which we were found. Moreover, do we really want to assume the full responsibleness for the structure and make-up of our world?I think that we seriously need to interject between the scientists and engineers to consider a termination that will help slow down all of these experiments so that we could step derriere and look at what we are doing. If not, I think that these practicing scientists and researchers should be more in general educated in our humanistic determine and traditions. They need to understand the implications of what they are doing in order to be able to balance the concerns of the natural environment and that of societys humanistic needs to bear in mind that technology exists only to serve and not create.Human beings, are of course, sprung from the same DNA and built of the same molecules as all other livings things. But if we produce to regard ourselves as just other group of subjects to test our experiments on by alteri ng or tampering with the foods we eat, just like another crop to be engineered or another breed to be perfected, we will surely lose our bewilderment of humanity and undermine all sense of human dignity.