Negative aspect of Genetic Modification of Foods Essay

The next part of this research assignment will be about negative aspect of Genetic Modification of Foods, because like any phenomenon GM has positive and negative aspects. It was found that the widespread introduction of genetically modified organisms, whose influence on the human body and other biological components of ecosystems have not been enough studied, but it brings the producers of bioproducts huge profits in recent years, causing not only the numerous scientific discussions, but mass protests of “green organizations”, population and government of many states. Due to the lack of objective information about the possible consequences of GMO use, due to the public pressure on the government to accept the restriction on the spread of GMOs various countries such as Austria, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, Australia partially or completely banned GMO. According to EU Commission report (2010), “de facto, it is conceded that the Member states can ban the cultivation of genetically modified plants regionally and also extensively on their own territory. Until now, such gene technology-free zones were only possible on the basis of voluntary agreements. Legally binding cultivation bans had been repeatedly declared by the European Court to be illegal.”
It should be noted that specific examples of serious environmental hazards of transgenic foods have not yet identified, but their potential danger is not called in question. Society primarily interested in the impact of genetically modified foods on human health and environment. More frequent discussed three issues will be presented in the next list:
 the possibility of allergic reactions;
 genes’ transferring – especially in regard to the genes that are resistant to antibiotics that are able to make a new kind of consumer products immune to antibiotics,
 and the so-called auto air-bridge, i.e. genes’ transferring from genetically modified plants into conventional crops, which threaten the decrease in range of other plants and even the loss of biodiversity.
Forecasts are based not on evidence, but on the basis of general biological laws deriving from the provisions of genetics.
In continuation of this topic and into the acknowledgement of previous words I would like to use Pires-O’Brien’s (2000) words. The next information will allow us to dwell on one aspect with more details. Pires-O’Brien (2000) said that “many British groups and organizations have expressed in the media their legitimate concerns regarding GMO including GM crops and foods. The existing concerns can be grouped into three kinds. The first concern, the one that has gained most coverage in the press, comes from the organic farming lobby, who fear that pollen from GM crops could contaminate organic crops. This view is supported by The Soil Association, an environmental NGO (non-government organization) founded in 1946, which gives the certification of organic farming to those who satisfy set criteria… The second concern is the fear that GM crops may have a negative impact on farmland biodiversity. This concern has been expressed by a large number of reputable scientific bodies and it was expected that the public would be reassured that the matter was under control, though it seems to have had the opposite effect.” And eventually the third concern according to Pires-O’Brien (2010), relates to “terminator technology”, a name given to designate the improved seeds sold by seed companies which result in sterile seedless plants, thus making it necessary for the farmer to buy the seeds every year. The defenders of this technology claim that the lack of seed is a guarantee that the GM plant will not interbreed with any other plant, for instance to create a herbicide resistant weed.”

Conclusion
So, based on our research we could come to the conclusion that Genetic Modification has dual nature. In my opinion any new branch of science consists of many questions that begin form the words “what we will do if…?” But history has proved many times that one of the main problems of agricultural science is to ensure food safety during widespread use in production. It is important to understand that it is impossible to guarantee absolute safety to any food, including traditional products, and the interpretation of the term “absolute” is understand as to be 100% safe for all people under all conditions of growing, harvesting, storage and consumption of crops. Scientific institutions should actively inform the public about the exciting aspects of biotechnology, should answer on various questions and dispel consumers’ doubts about food and environmental safety for the positive assessment of the genetic engineering achievements. I strongly believe in the power of modern science and in genetic engineering perspectives of development. But at the same time I think that the use of genetic technologies requires a more vigilant attention and responsible government attitude to this aspect. It is necessary to add that a broad consultation with independent scientists and experts in the field of ecology and biosafety, a broad public awareness, taking into account the views of the population is also necessary. I know about risks in genetic engineering, but I also consider that knowing the potential risks of genetically modified food sources would allow to exclude or reduce their negative effect. A theoretical risk remains only in the absence of control of genetic engineering, production and marketing of GMOs.

References
Bryant, J., Baggott La Velle, L. & Searle, J. (2002). Bioethics for Scientists. John Wiley & Sons.
Hu, W., Zhong, H. & Ding, Y. (2006). “Actual Media Reports on GM Foods and Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for GM Soybean Oil”. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 31.
McHughen, A. (2000). Pandora’s Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, Oxford University Press.
Pollack, M. & Shaffer, G. (2009). When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods. Oxford University Press.
Toke, D. (2004). The Politics of GM Food: A Comparative Study of the UK, USA, and EU. Routledge.
Transgenic Approaches to Combat Fusarium Head Blight in Wheat and Barley. (2001, June). Crop Science, Vol 41, No 3, pp 628-627.
Pick, D. & Henderson, D. (1998). Global Markets for Processed Foods: Theoretical and Practical Issues. Westview Press.
Pires-O’Brien, J. (2000, February). “GM Foods in Perspective: Part Two.” Contemporary Review, Vol. 276.