Genetically modified food ranks among the top debatable themes in the contemporary times globally. Reality is the fact that no single species would survive in a single locality on its own for a long time something that translates to the fact that biodiversity brings multiplicity. It is that multiplicity that enables the ecosystem to continue to remain productive as well as healthy as it was meant to be from creation times. That explains why it was held that biodiversity brings about the balance that is required to support life and anything that destroys biodiversity would be said to be destroying life (Conway, 2000). Top in the list in that regard is genetically modified foods as it would be revealed underneath. The failings of the genetically adjusted foods in relation to biodiversity will be highlighted. Thereafter, sound resolutions would be made according to the discussion as well as the examples expounded.
Negative consequences of genetically modified foods on biodiversity
Since genetically modified foods requires the application of numerous pesticides as well as herbicides with the notion of making the plants disease resistant and increase productivity, they end up destroying the very nature that they ought to be protecting. They do so because they end up killing the natural habitants that are found within such environments, and in the long run, the biodiversity will have been affected in a negative way. Additional manner that the biodiversity would be affected as a result of genetically modified foods would be through the out-crossing processes. By definition, out-crossing denotes the process through which the genetically modified foods pass of some traits to the original plants around them. In the long run, such plants might start playing certain roles within the environment that might turn out to be consequential (Markussen, & SpringerLink, 2005). Worse still, such species might be destroyed in totality from the ecosystem something that would be destroying the biodiversity of the universe.
Equally negative to the biodiversity would be the intents of genetic modified foods that necessitate the use of same agricultural land since pesticides would be available to ensure the foods produce highly. Although the preservation of the non-agricultural lands are positive, the continues use of the same land for agriculture with the application of pesticides turns out to be harmful to not only biodiversity, but also to human beings as it will be expounded within the paper. Such a process also results to the mono-production of foods stuffs also on record to have negative consequences to biodiversity (Markussen, & SpringerLink, 2005).
Closely related to that is the fact that was the realization that the biodiversity would be affected negatively since the genetically modified foods would result to highly vulnerable plants that would not survive alone without the application of pesticides. Such large quantities of chemical in the plants end up consumed by human beings. Without a doubt, human beings might in a position to develop certain illnesses not experienced before.
As much as it would be imperative to eliminate all the unwanted nature from the agricultural lands, it would be imperative for the individuals concerned that they need the species they are destroying to bring about balance in nature. For instance, some such plants might be attractive to certain animals. In the process, the attracted animals would be in a position to play an imperative role in destroying pests that might have infested the agricultural fields. Hence, it would be suicidal for the biodiversity to be destroyed in the name of agriculture yet it will hit back negatively in the long run (Markussen, & SpringerLink, 2005). To retain and maintain a balanced biodiversity, it is imperative to adopt a more accommodative technique in the farming methods that are put to use. As a result, wild plants will have been given space that enables them to exist while at the same time, they will not have interfered with the growth and production of the farm produce. Worth mentioning herein is the fact that the genetic modified foods are on record to have negative consequences to human beings as it has to biodiversity as it has been clearly been expounded exceeding. Currently, the genetic food is found in all food outlets. Natural foods are seen to be expensive because of the cheap price factor in genetically modified foods. Therefore, most people end up buying genetically modified foods and leave the natural choice to people they consider wealthy. As a result, most of the population has been brought up eating genetically modified foods. The result is a population that was fuelled with health never ending health issues.
Considering the fact that human beings are part of the biodiversity, it would as well hold water by expounding on how genetically modified foods have affected human beings. That is more so through the foods that they consume that are generated from such a method. In Brazil for example, soybeans were created after Brazil nut genes were spliced. That was done with the aim of increasing the protein in the nut. However, most populaces in Brazil were allergic to that nut. Attributable to that, people would go into anaphylactic shock that was capable of resulting to many deaths. Through genetic causing, the allergens would be moved from one crop to another (Kreipe, 2010). That proved that genetically modified foods were in a position of causing death-related problems as well as allergic disorders proving beyond doubt that genetically foods were not substantiated as safe for human consumption (Pimentel, 2000).
Apart from the fact that it results to the production of harmful products that put a human being’s life in danger, genetically modified food results to the plantation of a single type of food. Such a scenario might result to the production of a single type of food be it either rice or corn for human consumption. Hence, there would be lack of balanced diet for humans something that would result to not only malnutrition, but also increased chances of ailments (Carter, Moschini, & Sheldon, 2011).
Counterargument
At the start of the discussion, it was stated that whether to use genetically modified foods or not has remained a public debate over several years now. That would be attributed to the fact that each and everyone had his/her own opinion concerning its use as well as its application. The proponents of the theme are in the forefront pushing for its adaptation for various reasons. Eradication and terminating hunger is one of them. Since foods produced genetically are able to withstand both pesticides and drought, they are of the view that food would be produced throughout the year ensuring plenty food supply. That they are delicious and highly notorious denotes another fact that the proponents tend to table. Nonetheless, the proponents disregard the fact that the humanity whom they purpose to protect would not survive alone in this universe without other species (Carter, Moschini, & Sheldon, 2011). Thus, it beats logic that they adopt measures that would in the long run destroy the perfect biodiversity that human beings requires to have a better life.
Moreover, the notion that the genetically produced foods are more delicious remains a perception yet to be proved scientifically. Hence, until it is tested and verified scientifically, the good taste of the genetically modified products would be termed as harmful rather than tasteful to human beings (Pimentel, 2000). The chemical and pesticides that were used in productions have a capability of causing various illnesses dispelling the exceeding benefits of genetically food. Rather than the biologically produced foods they tend to push for, they ought to understand that human beings require diversity more than they need biologically produced foods in the name of fighting hunger.
In closing, the elucidation given exceeding concludes without a fact that genetically modified food ranks among the top controversial themes in the contemporary times globally. Its effects are countless more especially on the biodiversity that hold that no single species might be in a position to survive in a certain locality without the others. It is from that rationale, therefore, that the adaptation of genetically modified food products ought to be eliminated at whatever cost (Freedman, 2009). Such a stand was reached at after deliberation of the above expounded facts all proving that the negative consequences are far much more than the positives as the proponents might attempt to put forward.
Besides, why claim to save humanity through the productions of genetic foods yet they end up killing them in the long run through various ways as revealed exceeding? It is from that it was viewed that the biodiversity remained at risk as long as the genetically produced food continues to see light of day. The genetically produced foods also limit the productivity of other naturally produced foods. They limit their use because they have taken the place of naturally produced foods, which are no longer produced in large quantities.
References
Carter, C. A., Moschini, G., & Sheldon, I. M. (2011). Genetically modified food and global welfare. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Conway, G. (2000). Genetically modified crops: risks and promise. Conservation Ecology 4(1): 2. Retrieved on 20th October 2014; from http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art2
Ferry, N., & Gatehouse, A. M. R. (2009). Environmental impact of genetically modified crops. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Freedman, J. (2009). Genetically modified food: How biotechnology is changing what we eat. New York, NY: Rosen Pub. Group.
Kreipe, M. (2010). Genetically modified food: trade regulation in view of environmental policy objectives. Hamburg: Diplomica-Verl.
Markussen, M., &SpringerLink (Online service). (2005). Valuation and conservation of biodiversity: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the convention on biological diversity. Berlin: Springer.
