GMO food

Genetically Modified Foods
Name
Institutional Affiliation

Abstract
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) present one of the most controversial environmental, food and health subjects in the world today. Although the technology behind these foods is relatively new, it has been adopted extensively and is behind the production of millions of tons of human and animal food across the world. Proponents of GMOs argue that the technology leads to high crop yield and thus provides a potential solution for perennial food shortages in the worlds. It is also argued that crops produced through GMO technology have high resistance against diseases and pests. This means minimal use of pesticides, and thus more profits for farmers. Opponents of GM foods argue that since this is a new technology, it may have great health effects. Also, the technology may lead to super-weeds and bugs that are difficult to control. My diet comprises of a variety of foods, each of which some degree of adverse environmental effect. Regarding the issue of 100-mile diet, only a small percentage of my food can be considered part of the 100-mile diet.

Genetically Modified Foods
This paper presents a discussion of issues based on the topic of genetically modified foods. Although GM foods have become common, there are fears about their long-term effects. The first part of the paper discusses trends in the production of GM foods in Canada. The next two sections highlight the impact of GM foods regarding health, economic and environmental costs.

The last part is an evaluation of my diet from the socio-environmental perspective.
Food Production
Trends over the Past Fifteen Years on the Production of Genetically Modified Foods in Canada
Genetically modified orgasms describe plants, animals, and microorganisms whose original genetic material has been altered through artificial means for them to possess certain traits. The process of genetic modification involves combining DNA technology where genes from different organisms are combined to produce a species with desired traits. Foods made from these species are called genetically modified foods. Canada is among the largest producers of GM foods in the world. The North American country has a highly developed biotechnology industry producing a wide variety of foods. It leads the world in the production of GM corn and several as other food crops produced through technology (HC 2016).
Over the past fifteen years, Canada has witnessed some trends in the biotech industry, especially regarding GM foods. The most notable trend is the creation of a federal framework to regulate the production and marketing of GM foods. Health Canada (HC), Environment Canada, and Canadian Food Inspection Agency are the three agencies with the mandate of overseeing developments in the biotechnology industry (Health Canada, 2016). Among other things, the three agencies are responsible for ensuring that GM foods are safe for human and animal consumption and that their production does not harm the environment. The agencies play a major role in the formulation of policies and standards for regulating the industry. In line with the applicable laws, approval from the agencies is required for marketing of both domestically produced and imported genetically modified foods.
Another important trend is the labeling of GM foods. Research by HC has shown that most consumers are wary of the nutritional value and safety and GM Foods, and want to know if the food they consume is genetically modified. Health Canada develops and implements labeling policies for GM foods. Unlike other countries, Canada does not have legislations that require mandatory labeling of GM foods. As such, labeling and advertising of these foods are voluntary. Health Canada permits both negative and positive labeling of GM food so long as the claims are not deceptive and misleading (Health Canada, 2016).
Arguments For and Against GM Foods
Whether GM foods are safe is the most controversial issue as far as biotechnology is concerned. Diverse arguments have been raised to support and oppose food produced through biotechnology. The main argument for these foods is that GMOs are a perfect solution for food insecurity in the world. It is argued that the world population is increasing at an alarming rate and that the amount of available farming land is decreasing (Mazza, Soave, Morlacchini, Piva & Marocco, 2005). As such, humanity is facing a serious crisis of severe food shortage. Genetic modification has the potential to increase food yields, meaning that more food can be produced from limited farm space. Another argument in support of GMOs is that foods produced through genetic engineering have high resistance to pests, diseases, and adverse environmental conditions. There is thus less use of pesticides and other chemicals that are potentially harmful to human beings and the environment. By reducing the need for pesticides, production of GM foods also cut fuel emissions and therefore helps to combat global warming.
Genetically modified foods confer important benefits regarding improved texture and flavor. For example, corn can be modified genetically to have enhanced sweetness or peppers made spicier. Genetic modification can also improve the ability of crops and foodstuffs to withstand rotting and hence longer shelf life. Therefore, consumers are assured of fresh taste and less wastage. With advances in technology, biotechnology can make food healthier for human consumption. For example, through biotechnology, core nutrients in lettuce can be increased or the concentration of starch in corn increased. All these processes lead to improved health for the consumers of GM foods.
The most important argument against genetically modified foods is that the technology for producing them is new. Hence there is imperative for the world to be wary of potential health consequences of the foods. According to Mazza, Soave, Morlacchini, Piva and Marocco (2005), the long-term effects of genetically modified foods on human health, the environment, and food safety have not been studied and remain difficult to predict. Another argument is that it is extremely risky to allow large scale and commercial production of pest-resistant GM food because this results in the emergence of superbugs and weeds that could be difficult to control. Such bugs and weeds would cause massive destruction of crops in the world.
It has also been argued that genetically modified crops can cross-pollinate easily with conventional crops and contaminate them. This has the obvious danger of blurring the distinction between GM and non-GM foods, which could expose consumers to greater dangers. Thus, there are uncertainties surrounding the safety of GM foods. Some people feel that continued researchs in biotechnology will cause a mega crisis revolving around human health which will be difficult to avoid. Already, billions of people across the world have consumed a lot of GM food, which could be detrimental to their health. For instance, some people may be allergic to certain food types (such as proteins). Modifying crops to have additional proteins could lead to more allergic foods, which will have major health impacts on people. In addition to allergies, fears have raised about the possibility of GM foods causing cancer, resistance to antibiotics, reproductive malfunctioning, and digestive disorders.
Supporting GM foods from the socioeconomic and socio-environmental perspectives
Despite the various arguments against the production and consumption of genetically modified foods, there is evidence to show that these foods contribute to immense socio-economic and socio-environmental benefits. According to Lu, Wu, Jiang, Guo and Desneux (2012), biotechnology has contributed to a reduction in carbon emission. The reduction is due to low fuel use and spray of harmful chemicals. Certain genetically modified crops are capable of withstanding pest attacks and therefore do not need pesticides. Hence less fuel is being used in spraying farms (Nielsen, 2003). The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is estimated to be equivalent removing tens of millions of automobiles from the road. It is estimated that GMO technology enabled pesticide spray to reduce by 500 million kg between 1996 and 2012. This has significantly reduced the adverse environmental impact associated with insecticide and herbicide use in farms planted by GM crops.
According to Haslberger (2003), the pest-resistant technology used in certain crops such as cotton, potatoes, and corn has consistently led to high yields of these crops. Between 1996 and 2013, this technology led to an additional 250 million tons of corn and soybeans in the world. This shows that biotechnology has immense potentials to enhance not only food security but also economic prospects for farmers who plant genetically modified crops. Essentially, biotechnology has enabled farmers to grow more crops and harvest greater yields without increasing the sizes of their fields. If biotechnology were not available to the millions of farmers who have adopted it, they would require additional farms to reach the current global production of food. This could be too costly to the farmers and could have great consequences for the environment.
Mallory-Smith and Sanchez (2011 argue that biotechnology has helped farmers across the world to earn reasonable incomes from agriculture. He estimates that farming genetically modified crops bring an average additional income of about $117 per acre. This increase in income is important for farmers in developing countries, many of whom are resource constrained and only farm in small pieces of land. Generally, biotechnology continues to be economically viable as an investment option for farmers around the world. Compared to farming of non-genetically modified foods, GMO farming is cheap and more profitable because it results in increased yields, which in turn drives down consumer prices.
According to Scott, Inbar and Rozin (2016), one of the major socio-environmental impacts of GM foods is that their production reduces the need for tilling which in turn helps in soil conservation. Tilling involves turning over the soil to remove or disrupt growing of weeds before planting. In large scale farming, tilling requires the use of tractors (and burning of fuels), which damages the soil by interfering with water retention and sequestration of nitrous and carbon oxides. Because genetic modification of crops has led to significant improvement in weed management, GMO farmers are moving away from or scaling down the need to till farms. This has contributed to environmental conservation.
Landrigan and Benbrook (2015) have noted that a combined economic and environmental benefit of genetically modified foods is the ability to reduce hunger in the world. As the world population approaches nine billion by the middle of the 21st century, production of cereal grains alone will have to increase by over 1 billion tons to guarantee the world optimum food security. This will be the case against a background of decreasing land area available for farming due to, among other factors, urbanization, and desertification. This factor, coupled with the decreasing rate of crop yield improvement using the traditional breeding techniques reinforces the need for more GM foods. A Severe shortage of food due to prolonged droughts and subsequent famine in many countries in Africa and Asia means biotechnology presents solutions to the persistent hunger problem.
Personal Food Consumption
Advances in technology have facilitated a dramatic increase in food production. As a result, people now have better and more enriched diet choices compared to the past. Alongside these improvements, the socio-environmental impact of producing and consuming food has increased fundamentally. Cultivation of lands for farming has huge negative effects on essential services offered by nature such as degradation of pollutants and biogeochemical cycling. Also, the expansion of agriculture has increased the rate at which certain plant and animal species are becoming extinct. Another important socio-environmental burden of food production and consumption is increased energy use. Across the world, energy consumption in the food industry is very high as evidenced by the extensive use of energy in the production, processing, packaging and transportation of food. The implication of all these is that the diet choices that people make can result in adverse effects on the environment and the diet.
My diet consists mainly of vegetables, cereals, meat and dairy products, oils and sugars and soft drinks. Production of these types of foods has a huge socio-environmental impact. Studies such as Scott, Inbar and Rozin (2016) have shown that a meat diet results in more carbon footprint than a vegetable and fruits diet. It is estimated that livestock farming and related industries such as meat processing result in 5% of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, there are potential social-environmental benefits of reducing consumption of meat and other animal products. Other studies haves shown that all food-related emissions could account for a quarter of human emissions. That is 9% from deforestation due to farming, 12% from direct agricultural production and 3% from activities such as processing, refrigeration, freight, packaging, and cooking. Therefore, an average consumer regardless of one’s diet choice causes a significant impact on the environment each day. This means that my socio-environmental impact, although hard to quantify is quite high because my diet consists of virtually all food types.
An important thing I have noted is that even though my diet preferences are very diverse, several factors determine the specific food I take as well as the quantity. One of these factors is cost. Due to economic hardships, I tend to forego or reduce the price of highly priced foods such as meat and fruits. Another factor is culture. I am Canadian and therefore my diet is strongly influenced by the cuisine culture of my country. Nonetheless, I like experimenting with diets from other cultures especially the United States and Europe. My diet is also influenced by nutritional value, taste, and GMO content. Due to concerns about GMO effects, I try to avoid GMO foods where possible. Although most of my food is produced in Canada, a small percentage (less than 15%) would qualify as part of a 100-mile diet. This is because I live in a big city and there are not many farms nearby. Only meat, dairy products, and some vegetable varieties are produced within a 100 km radius from my residence.

Conclusion
Whether GM foods should be accepted as conventional foods is a hotly debated issue. There is no agreement among scientists regarding the safety and health of GM foods. That notwithstanding, foods produced from biotechnology has shown great potentials to end hunger in the world. As such, these foods will continue to be produced and consumed despite their potential health consequences. Many countries including Canada have stepped up efforts in biotechnology research as a solution to the world’s food problems. However, it is not clear whether this technology will be sustained in the long-term owing to the potential adverse impact on the environment, economy and human health.

References
Haslberger, A. G. (2003). Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 739–741.
Health Canada (2016). Health concerns. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/index-eng.phpLandrigan, P. & Benbrook, C. (2015). GMOs, herbicides, and public health. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(8), 693.
Lu, Y., Wu, K., Jiang, Y. Guo, Y. & Desneux, N.(2012). Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services. Nature, 487, 362–365.
Mallory-Smith, C. A. & Sanchez, E. (2011). Gene flow from herbicide-resistant crops: its not just for transgenes. J Agric Food Chem, 59, 5813–18.
Mazza, R., Soave, M., Morlacchini, M. Piva, G. & Marocco, A. (2005). Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues. Transgenic Res, 14, 775–84.
Nielsen, K. M. (2003). Transgenic organisms—time for conceptual diversification?.Nature Biotechnology, 21(3), 227–228.
Scott, S., Inbar, Y. & Rozin, P. (2016). Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 315–324.