Organisms, Modified, Genetically

Author(s):  
Douglas Allchin

GMOs. Genetically modified organisms. They conjure the specter of “Frankenfoods.” Monstrous creations reflecting human hubris. Violations of nature. And their very unnaturalness alone seems reason to reject the whole technology. But one may challenge this sacred bovine: the common image that GMOs cross some new threshold, dramatically changing how humans relate to nature. Or even that such a view can properly inform how we assess the value or risks of GMOs. Rather, biologically, GMOs are modest variants. As I will elaborate, “conventional” corn is probably more deeply shaped by human intervention than any addition of, say, a single Bt gene for a pesticide-resistant protein. Many crops promoted as “natural” alternatives are themselves dramatically modified genetically, like the cats and dogs we enjoy as pets. And this perspective—the context of GMOs—should inform views on policy. Without resolving the question of ultimate risks, we should at least recognize and dismiss as irrelevant the claim that GMOs are “unnatural.” While criticisms of GMOs vary, one recurrent theme is the assertion—or the implicit assumption—that they are inherently unnatural. For example, one high school student commented in a class discussion on genetically modified salmon, “Even though it definitely has many economic benefits, I think that shaping the way in which other organisms grow and live is not something that we as humans should be taking into our own hands.” As rendered recently for young readers, a cartoon princess of the Guardian Princess Alliance scolds a grower of GMOs: “These fruits and vegetables are not natural.” Many seem to believe that for humans to alter something living is to thereby taint it. Organisms should remain “pure.” Nature seems to exhibit its own self-justified purpose, not to be disrupted. What does this mean for all the other ways that humans modify organisms from their “natural” state? For example, we adorn our skin with tattoos and pierce various body parts. In certain cultures, at certain times, we have bound feet and elongated skulls.

Author(s):  
Diego Baxerias ◽  
Carol Banda

Peru has a 10-year ban on genetically modified (GM) crops and food that was approved by the Peruvian congress in 2011. Is it scientifically justified or is it a cause and effect fallacy that will make Peru fall behind in taking advantage of this technology and its potential benefits to everyone else in the economy? In order to answer this question, a literature review was carried out to examine the three most commonly used arguments against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by farmers and all those related to the agriculture industry, reaching the conclusion that they are not one hundred percent plausible. Further research showed the multiple, potential economic benefits that GM seeds could bring about to Peru, which are related to increased labor productivity, the development of human capital, and the expansion of renewable energy sources and its implications for trade and employment – the environmental and health benefits of GMO varieties are also discussed. This paper elaborates on such matters by applying different macro and microeconomic concepts, i.e., market structures and competition, the theory of the firm, and scarcity, among others; and provides insights about the different socio-economic realities present in Peru and possible ways to improve them.


Agronomy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans De Steur ◽  
Ellen J. Van Loo ◽  
Jasmien Maes ◽  
Godelieve Gheysen ◽  
Wim Verbeke

The commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops remains highly contested in the European Union (EU). While research has mainly focused on public and consumer opinions, few studies have investigated farmers’ reactions towards such crops. This study aims to determine farmers’ willingness to adopt a late blight-resistant (LBR) GM potato cultivar (Bintje) in Flanders, Belgium (n = 384). The findings demonstrate that more than half (54.7%) of the farmers have the intention to adopt this GM potato if it becomes available. Farmers’ willingness to adopt is mainly influenced by ethical concerns about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) (negative) and perceived economic benefits of LBR GM potatoes (positive). Knowledge about GM technology decreases the likelihood of being indifferent, as compared to being willing to adopt or being opposed. As such, efforts to improve knowledge alone would not be considered an effective strategy to improve adoption rates among farmers. Socio-economic concerns about GMOs, environmental benefit perceptions of LBR GM potatoes, and socio-demographic and farm variables were not significant as potential determinants of farmers’ likelihood to adopt this GM potato. Our findings lend support to a potentially favorable climate to introduce this GM potato in Flanders, Belgium, an EU region where opt-out measures to restrict cultivation of approved GM crops were not taken.


2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinying Li ◽  
Ying Wang

With the rapid development of transgenic biotechnology, social economic benefits generated from it becomes more and more; however, the doubt on its safety never fades away. Whether transgenic technology is safe or not is always disputed. Different countries have released and established relevant genetically modified organisms safety management schemes and biotechnology risk communication mechanisms to ensure the long-acting, stable and healthy development of transgenic biotechnology. This study analyzed and compared the genetically modified organisms safety management schemes of United States and European Union and the biotechnology risk communication mechanisms of counties such as United States and Japan and then proposed some suggestions to perfect genetically modified organisms management regulations and risk communication long-acting mechanisms such as establishing sound laws and regulations, strengthening transgenic technology support, establishing information open monitoring platform and perfecting the risk communication function of relevant institutions, with the intention of ensuring the health and continuous development of transgenic organism industry. 


Author(s):  
Anne Phillips

No one wants to be treated like an object, regarded as an item of property, or put up for sale. Yet many people frame personal autonomy in terms of self-ownership, representing themselves as property owners with the right to do as they wish with their bodies. Others do not use the language of property, but are similarly insistent on the rights of free individuals to decide for themselves whether to engage in commercial transactions for sex, reproduction, or organ sales. Drawing on analyses of rape, surrogacy, and markets in human organs, this book challenges notions of freedom based on ownership of our bodies and argues against the normalization of markets in bodily services and parts. The book explores the risks associated with metaphors of property and the reasons why the commodification of the body remains problematic. The book asks what is wrong with thinking of oneself as the owner of one's body? What is wrong with making our bodies available for rent or sale? What, if anything, is the difference between markets in sex, reproduction, or human body parts, and the other markets we commonly applaud? The book contends that body markets occupy the outer edges of a continuum that is, in some way, a feature of all labor markets. But it also emphasizes that we all have bodies, and considers the implications of this otherwise banal fact for equality. Bodies remind us of shared vulnerability, alerting us to the common experience of living as embodied beings in the same world. Examining the complex issue of body exceptionalism, the book demonstrates that treating the body as property makes human equality harder to comprehend.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document