Reference no: EM132330626 , Length: word count : 400

You need to write peer reviews for all the 4 discussions.

Discussion 1

I think that GMOs can be both helpful and harmful. I don't see any true harm from them because they haven't been around enough to conclude if they are dangerous to people. It's the same thing as cell phones; we don't know the effects of them because they haven't been around long enough for a true conclusion to be made. From the source I read, there seems to be no information saying that GMOs are bad for humans.

However, that isn't to say there will be a threat someday because of genetically modified organisms. The advancement of technology could bring along even better possibilities for GMOs to be improved and also deteriorated. Insulin has given people with Type 1 diabetes a way of living as close to homeostasis as possible. What if there is an organism that is modified and turns out to shut down a major organ? The theoretical possibilities are endless and holding science back from advancing into the future.

The regulation of GMOs is pretty tight along the board. The government should regulate them because GMOs are food and thus, are called for regulation. There are three separate companies that oversee the foods we eat, and they cover all the essentials. There doesn't need to be anymore administrations overlooking our food as it will cause more confusion. To go along with that, the companies who do genetic modification of organisms should be allowed to patent new genes and processes. Not only is it their intellectual property, but it will spark competition in the GMO business. Competition will ensure that the companies are making the best possible organisms and modifications possible.

Discussion 2

I believe it could be helpful with in moderation cause sometimes too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I do believe though GMO shouldn't be something I would prefer to take on a regular basis because it not something thats natural ,there for it may cause some risk over time. I wouldn't take it cause mixed chemicals that can later harm us down the road. I think the Government should ban it and just stick with natural fruits and plants. Or if they going to insist on having these formulas , it needs to be in with small moderation and only for certain reasons such as people with nutrients deficiencies. Evan then I think it should only be our last resort and not something we rely on. I personally would stay away from it if possible.

Discussion 3

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) refer to organisms that have had genes altered in ways that cannot occur through natural processes. A very common type of GMO today are plants or crops that have been altered to add resistance to certain pests or particular pesticides, thereby increasing crop yield. I remember the controversy when GMOs first entered public consciousness, and like many people at the time, thought they were innately harmful. Since learning more, I now believe that it's more complicated than I first assumed.

The GMO I researched was the new American chestnut tree. Due to the fungus Cryphonectria parasitica (introduced after the import of Asian species of chestnuts) much of the American chestnut population was wiped out. A team at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, found a wheat gene that produces an enzyme which detoxifies and interferes with the fungus' ability to form the cankers which form on the tree and kill it. The enzyme is already found naturally in "all grain crops as well as bananas, strawberries, peanuts and other familiar foods consumed daily by billions of humans and animals, and it's unrelated to gluten proteins" (2). Making this tree blight resistant is particularly important because of the American chestnut's ability to sequester carbon - the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it. Studies have shown that the American chestnut is effective at this when compared to other species, meaning that its resurgence due to genetic modification could assist in the efforts against climate change (3).

In my opinion, I do not think that GMOs are, on their own, harmful. In an overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research, it illustrated that scientific research has not detected any notable hazards connected with eating or ingesting GMOs as compared to other foods (4). While some issues in the studies conducted have been found, long term data on livestock and data looking into rates for cancer have shown no negative impacts (5). Since genetic modification has been happening for as long as agriculture, with cross breeding or mating, it makes sense to me that GM on its own does not cause human health issues. In addition, as the examples in the post prompt demonstrate, there are positive impacts for GMO foods, like adding necessary vitamins into crops.

I do, however, think that some of the ways that GMOs are used, and they way they interact with our current agricultural system can have negative consequences. For example, as most of the crops grown in the US are resistant to the Glyphosphate, this particular pesticide is used in excess, as well as increasing chemical use in agriculture in general. Other environmental issues could be a loss of biodiversity because of the ability to grow one crop while eliminating competing ones, and other organisms acquiring the modified genes that were not supposed to (1). Because of this, I do think that the government should regulate GMOs. There are different evaluations and regulation depending on the country, and to use GMOs as tools in a positive way, I think we need to have the government evaluating what is safe using nonbaised evidence, instead of companies or corporations being able to use whatever might suit their individual needs.

Overall, I think GMOs could be used for immense good. I think the American chestnut is a great example of the potential to restore and develop plants that can help assist in fighting climate change. However, GMOs should not be used as a stop gap (for example, making more plants that sequester carbon, without putting pressure on governments to also cut carbon), and I think they need to be regulated and open to all, instead of only for certain companies profit. I'm excited to learn more about the creative ways people have used GMOs for good.

Discussion 4

Genetically modified organisms (GMO's) are a controversial issue to many people. To some, it is the end of vitamin deficiencies and starvation in underdeveloped countries; while to others, it is causing more harm than good to our health and environment. The act of genetically altering an organism's DNA sounds like a scary topic, but I believe, when used in the right way, GMO's can be a vital tool in the success of our species.

The goal for any farmer is to increase their harvest. We have been naturally modifying our food for thousands of years with selective breeding. We take plants that have a higher yield than normal, and breed them with each other to pass down more of their genetic traits. Over many generations, the entire crop produces more food, with those traits being more pronounced. Genetic modification is virtually the same concept, only we get to choose the trait that gets passed down.

A major concern with GMO usage is the effect on the environment. Farmers need to control weed and insect infestation to insure a good harvest. Traditionally, they would use pesticides and weed killers to achieve this, but they could also damage their own crops in the process. One way to combat this is the use of genetically modified (Bt) seeds. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a bacteria that has natural insecticidal traits.

They activate inside the stomachs of insects and kills them without the use of pesticides. Some people become concerned of the idea that they are putting poison directly into our food, but it is completely safe to eat. Bt is only toxic to insects, the same way that chocolate is harmless to us, but deadly to dogs. Another use of GMO products are seeds that are resistant to weed killers. Monsanto developed a seed that is resistant to glyphosate, that allows farmers to spray their entire field without worrying about their crop dying. While farmers still need to spray an herbicide, it is much safer than using other, more harmful weed killers. This is because it leaves little to no trace in the soil. These examples of GMO use have the potential to eliminate the use of pesticides, and prevent their chemicals from contaminating the soil.

I believe that companies should be able to patent new GMO's. Its no different than cellphone manufacturers patenting their new ideas for technology. I do, however, think that these products should be heavily regulated and tested before they are used. While there is currently no federal legislation that is specifically targeted on GMOs, they are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, The US Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. They study the effects of the products instead of how they are created. As long as these products are deemed safe, I believe that they should be available for use.

Many people are concerned about the safety of eating GMO products, but they are no more dangerous than their non GMO counterparts. All of the GMO products go through the same FDA regulation and testing as any other food. The use of GMOs gives us the ability to add lacking nutrients into our diet and reduce our impact on the environment.