Part one
Biodiversity is essential in the sustainability of the environment. In fact, lack thereof compromises the nature’s ability to adapt to environmental changes, therefore, enhancing its vulnerability. The development of science and technology paved the way for the incorporation of genetic engineering to living organisms. Precisely, since its introduction in 1996, many nations have embraced the conveniences offered by the genetic modification of crops to enhance their resistance and overall sustainability (Rifkin 15). This method is influential as it enables scientists to combat the development of a crop disease by altering the genetic composition of an organism. However, this initiative limits the maintenance of biodiversity. These impacts have led to the development of multiple controversies on the production of crops. Specifically, should the development of genetically modified organisms continue? Should indigenous farmers be granted intellectual property over their crops? Is there any justification behind the current response to GMO’s? This paper seeks to answer the questions above through the utilization of different author’s opinions. For a fact, the development of genetic engineering in the modern society has had both constructive and detrimental impacts.
Jeremy Rifkin and Dan Koeppel present quite a similar argument in their enlightenment of the progress of genetic engineering. Both authors give an overview of the utilization of genetic engineering since the last decade of the twentieth century. In the first unit, Rifkin mentions that the extent of genetic modification is alarming in the United States. He mentions, “Adoption of all biotech corn was 80 percent in 2008” (Rifkin 16). With this claim, he outlines the inevitable impact on the environmental sustainability that would be encountered if continuous utilization of genetic engineering is maintained. For instance, it limits the level of biodiversity through the adoption of similar genetic composition properties on plant and animal species. On the other hand, Koeppel argues that the current calamity experienced on the Cavendish breed of bananas is largely accredited to the similarity in genetic structure caused by biotechnology. As such, both authors outline the negative impacts posed by the utilization of this food production method.
However, the people’s fears associated with the inconveniences of genetic engineering are not rationally placed. According to Koeppel (63), genetic engineering enhances the crops resistivity to adverse climatic conditions and diseases. As such, these changes make it easier for the crops to be grown in different environments despite the nature of the climate. Additionally, the nutritional content can be altered to enhance its value to the human body. These changes are rather constructive as they enhance the food productivity to the human body. Therefore, the public’s fears towards the inadequacies of this method of food production are rather misplaced due to the bias created on its disadvantages. The risks posed by the utilization of this method can be regulated through the establishment of proper production guidelines that would enable bodies like the Foundation for Agricultural Investigation to monitor the progress of genetic engineering. Through the utilization of this provision, the evaluation process would be lesser challenging and more influential. The public would benefit greatly from this initiative through the influential food production.
Biotechnology has both constructive and detrimental impacts on food sovereignty. Therefore, it does not entirely support food sovereignty. It enhances the level of food production through the creation of more environmental resistant breeds. The chances of a genetically modified crop surviving frost conditions are augmented as opposed to a naturally bred plant. This change is largely accredited to the fact that genetic engineering gives the provision for the introduction of more resistive characteristics to a crop. Therefore, the sovereignty of the plant is enhanced due to the development of better survival chances. However, the fact that it limits biodiversity compromises the effectiveness of this food production approach making its impact on sovereignty negative. Companies should be issued patents over food production to enhance research in the food production industry. Through this initiative, the development of influential food components would be lesser challenging making thereby enhancing large-scale food production.
However, indigenous farmers should not define how their crops should be handled. Governments should implement policies that grant all parties equal abilities in the development of food as long as proper production methodologies are upheld. According to DePillis (n.p) the production of Quinoa would have been more influential if modern research was utilized to enhance the efficiency of the indigenous crop. Arguably, the communities engaged in the direct production of this crop have greatly benefited from this corp. However, the global returns from Quinoa would be more influential if production autonomy is granted to other nations and research is fostered through the integration of the production methodologies with the modern food development methods.
Part two
Arguably, the development of genetically modified organisms should continue since the continuous growth of the global population cannot be sustained through conventional hybridization. The development of resistive crops is crucial and this result can be best achieved through the utilization of this approach. As such, government should seek rational measures to enhance he effectiveness of genetic engineering since this research platform is the solution to food shortage and environmental changes that affect the survival of crops.
Indigenous farmers should not be granted complete patent over the production of their crops. This is largely accredited to the fact that they are lesser innovative and they utilize similar production methodologies (Richardson n.p). Their lack of innovation compromises the welfare of the foods they produce since they cannot provide solutions to environmental changes. The inconveniences created by this situation can lead to the extinction of the crops they cultivate, therefore, affecting the entire globe. The current global response to the approaches used in the mass production of food are justifiable since the genetic engineering has both constructive and detrimental impacts to the production of food.
Conclusion
In conclusion, genetic engineering has both constructive and detrimental impacts on the sustainability of the current population. As such, proper initiatives should be taken in securing the welfare of crop production in the modern society. Companies should be given patents over crop production to enhance innovation in food processing. Contrastingly, indigenous farmers should not be allowed to define how their crops should be produced. Instead governments should make the food production process open to all parties and device policies to monitor the procedures. The arguments presented in the resources discussed above are a solid evidence of the need to device appropriate measures to monitor the food production process.
Works Cited
DePhillis, Lydia. "Quinoa Should Be Taking Over The World. This Is Why It Isn’T.". Washington Post. N.p., 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Koeppel, Dan. "Can This Fruit Be Saved? As blight threatens the humble banana, scientists are racing to build a better, more resistant fruit." Popular Science 267.2 (2005): 60.
Richardson, Jill. "What Your Organic Market Doesn’T Want You To Know: The Dark Truth About Quinoa". Salon. N.p., 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Rifkin, Jeremy. The biotech century. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 1998. Print.
