Case Study
Super weeds in a Corn Field
Americans have come a long way. No more horses and buggies, candle lit houses or entire families living in one household. Scientific advancements have changed the American culture to become a “techno-crazed” one. How has this effect impacted how and what we eat?
Would you invest in something that you can produce faster, cheaper and in greater quantities? The Role of Culture in Risk Regulations explores how America’s attitude toward scientific technology is impacting health risk of various forms of life. “The general culture theory of the United States is that its people have a desire for personal wealth and often accept social changes to accommodate the technological advancements that aid in offering vast individual wealth" (331).
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) can be found in half of all groceries in the USA, which caused political controversies since they were introduced. In examining the “sociological influences on domestic farms, economic impacts to international agriculture markets, and unintended environmental consequences of genetic breeding,” these “super weeds” threaten the health of farm life that surrounds it. While modified bt corn had not been approved for consumption, it was incorporated in the food supply in the early 21st century. Bt toxin, bacterium in soil, is used by organic farmers to create plant resistance to pest and increase harvest production. This has been viewed as an economic decision heavily influenced by a cultural bias.
Would you invest in something that you can produce faster, cheaper and in greater quantities? The Role of Culture in Risk Regulations explores how America’s attitude toward scientific technology is impacting health risk of various forms of life. “The general culture theory of the United States is that its people have a desire for personal wealth and often accept social changes to accommodate the technological advancements that aid in offering vast individual wealth" (331).
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) can be found in half of all groceries in the USA, which caused political controversies since they were introduced. In examining the “sociological influences on domestic farms, economic impacts to international agriculture markets, and unintended environmental consequences of genetic breeding,” these “super weeds” threaten the health of farm life that surrounds it. While modified bt corn had not been approved for consumption, it was incorporated in the food supply in the early 21st century. Bt toxin, bacterium in soil, is used by organic farmers to create plant resistance to pest and increase harvest production. This has been viewed as an economic decision heavily influenced by a cultural bias.
The Regulatory Relief Program of 1992, advises that “biotech foods would be tested for human and environmental health and environmental health hazards by the companies producing the new products” and there was “no genetic labeling by regulatory agencies or the food industry” allowed because agencies feared labeling would cause consumer confusion (330). Private sector companies spent billions of dollars to create genetically altered organisms which also create confusion of technicality on controlling testing and the use of chemicals. Therefore, it can be argued that, if companies are covering the operational cost, restrictions from the government should be limited until it reaches the public sectors. Because this is a relatively new phenomenon and because the long-term effects are still unknown, controversies are bound to continue until science seeks successful results.
Furthermore, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and USA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have asserted that corn that has been modified to be herbicide tolerant and insect resistant have not negatively impacted humans and the environment. Nevertheless, bioengineered corn strains in Europe that are identical to the Bt and RR crops in the United States have been banned. Europe has been able to ban these strains due to a “safeguard clause” that permits countries that are part of the European Union to limit resources that are exchanged between countries. Therefore, this clause restricted the sale and purchase of bioengineered corn in countries that supported it. In addition, countries are only allowed to have restrictions after it is possible to assert that the genetically modified organisms pose risks for both humans and the environment.
However, according to research done by the European food safety authority, it was discovered in 2006 that GMOs such as Bt176 maize, MON810 maize, T25 maize, Topas 19/2 oilseed rape and Ms1xRf1 oilseed rape are safe to eat. One of the main concerns for Bt176 and T25 was that antibiotic resistance would be transferred between humans and the corn. As described in the blog, GMOs have marker genes that are used to show whether or not the alteration of the organism has been successful. So in some cases, those marker genes can serve as antibiotic resistants in humans. Nevertheless, it was found that the Bt176 and T25 did not transmit antibiotic resistance to humans. |
|
On the other hand, the European food safety authority has concluded that MON810 maize possesses a at toxin called Cry1Ab, and it may possible harm biodiversity. Finally, the Topas 19/2 and Ms1xRf1 oil seed rape was deemed safe for human and animal health. Prior to the research, the main concern was that herbicide tolerance would be unintentionally spread; however, it was found that the situation could be avoided by managing oil seed rapes by properly ensuring there isn't any spillage. Based on this discovery, the cultivation of these crops was allowed in the countries that were part of the European union. Yet some countries decided that there was too much risk for the genetically modified organisms to be permitted.
The importance of labeling is also very important in both the United States and European countries. Proposition 37, the idea that all genetically modified products must be labeled, has caused much debate. In addition, food products that were bioengineered could not be labelled as "natural". For those who support Proposition 37, they believe the law would let people know what they are eating. On the other hand, some people assert that Proposition 37 has many "loopholes" and those who created to the law do not have the intentions to ensure the safety of consumers. Rather, the proposition is a way to take money away from the taxpayers ("Prop 37: Genetically engineered food. Labeling. Initiative"). Furthermore, Proposition 37 was on the voting ballot for voters of California and it was defeated by 53% voting against it.
The importance of labeling is also very important in both the United States and European countries. Proposition 37, the idea that all genetically modified products must be labeled, has caused much debate. In addition, food products that were bioengineered could not be labelled as "natural". For those who support Proposition 37, they believe the law would let people know what they are eating. On the other hand, some people assert that Proposition 37 has many "loopholes" and those who created to the law do not have the intentions to ensure the safety of consumers. Rather, the proposition is a way to take money away from the taxpayers ("Prop 37: Genetically engineered food. Labeling. Initiative"). Furthermore, Proposition 37 was on the voting ballot for voters of California and it was defeated by 53% voting against it.