Dearest readers,
For my post, I will be taking a stance on the use of genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) in animal feed, scientific research, and, most importantly, your food supply. Recently, the scientific community and the general public have been butting heads over some key aspects of the GMO debates. Many are concerned that foods containing GMOs may be less healthy than their organic counterpart. For this reason, much of Europe has legislation which requires foods containing GMOs to be labelled. A grassroots movement in the United States has been started to get similar legislation passed here. Some are so radical as to say research into genetic engineering should be abolished entirely. The following annotated bibliography will show you a fraction of the research that has gone into forming my opinion on this hot topic.
“Misplaced Protest.” Nature 485.7397 (2012): 147–148. Print.
The author of this article argues that GM crops are a new technology with a lot of potential, and they deserve to be given a chance. Scientists at Rothamsted Research have been working with GM crops despite continued protests from the public. A group of protesters called Take the Flour Back have gone so far as to threaten the researchers with destroying their work. Despite their best efforts to explain the good they are trying to accomplish with their work, protesters have vowed to destroy their work should they continue experiments. Were such an event to take place, it would set a dangerous precedent for future research into GM crops.
“An Absurd Law.” Nature 463.7284 (2010): 1000–1000. Print.
The author of this article argues that Turkey is hindering scientific development by passing wide sweeping legislation in hopes of hindering research in genetic engineering. Turkey, in an attempt to make their legislation closer to that of the European Union which they hope to join, is about to pass legislation which will limit research into GM crops. The law will ban cultivation of GM crops, along with generation of any GM animals or microorganisms. While it does explicitly ban research into further GMOs, it creates an application process which will render any GMO research impractical.
"Editorial: Fanning GMO Fears." Gainesville SunJul 02 2014. ProQuest. Web. 1 Feb. 2015 .
This editorial argues the ignorance of the public is hindering the progress of GM crops. Despite the fact that many advancements in genetic engineering have created safe, useful, environmentally friendly crops, most media attention is instead directed towards fear inspiring stories of Frankenfoods. Unfortunately, even though most opposition to GM crops is not based in science, the lack of public support is still enough to keep new GM crops from reaching the market.
"EDITORIAL: New GMO Law Unnecessary." McClatchy - Tribune Business NewsDec 18 2013. ProQuest. Web. 1 Feb. 2015 .
This editorial argues that the legislative movement towards labeling products containing GMOs is at the very least unnecessary. The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Medical Association all agree that no research thus far has indicated any significant health risk associated with GM crops. In addition, most crops that are GMO free are already labeled as USDA organic, making a GMO label redundant.
Fresco, Louise O. “The GMO Stalemate in Europe.” Science 339.6122 (2013): 883–883. Web.
This editorial argues that while the European Union is starkly against GM crops, Europe is actually quite conflicted. Despite public movements against GM crops, Bt corn and a high-starch potato are grown in parts of Europe. Progress in Europe is halted as producers, consumers, and scientists each have their own motives. In addition to this, some nations within the European Union are now requesting the right for each country to determine individually what crops to reject or accept. The author points out the irony that those in Europe who have benefited the most from scientific advancement are now the most skeptical of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment