Nowadays there are many pirated things here in our world which are so much accepted by our dear consumers. One of these is what we called GMOs. It was not a pirated cds but these are genetic material that has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. But before I go more about the cons of GMOs let me first discuss to you what GMO is??
GMO (GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM) GMO are genetically modified organisms that have been created using new techniques of recombinant DNA technology. However, the term is misleading because almost all domesticated animals and crop plants have been genetically modified over thousands of years by human selection and cross-breeding. GMO are genetically modified organisms that have been created using new techniques of recombinant DNA technology. However, the term is misleading because almost all domesticated animals and crop plants have been genetically modified over thousands of years by human selection and cross-breeding. A plant, animal or micro-organism whose genes have been altered using genetic modification by the inclusion of foreign genetic material or by the alteration of some DNA. The foreign material may come from other individuals of the same or a different species, or it may be synthetic.
Here are the tremendous advantages of GMOs : Harm to other organisms. For example genes and their effect included in a crop may turn out to be poisonous to insects (monarch butterfly poisoned by GMO corns). Genetically modified foods may gain undesirable properties. The preservation of genetic variety in one specie is difficult. The technology make farmer to produce only one type fertile plants. By this technology transferred genes may contaminate to other organisms undesirably. This may cause biologic disaster.
Genetically modified foods may change the microbial flora of the soil. It may cause deperdition of essential microorganisms on soil. This ruin natural balance. When genetically altered microorganisms are consumed with food products, they may consolidate with human or animal organThe technology may cause undesirable degeneration. So, surprisingly, low quality products may be obtained. ism. His combination may cause deperdition, metamorphosis, or any other strange organisms. If the foods which were made antibiotic resistant by gene technology are consumed, it may give the same property to human. This cause failure of antibiotic-based treatments.
As a ring of nature chain, insects may be influenced by genetically modified foods and insects can develop resistant mechanism. Even beneficial foods that carry toxic effect genes can cause human illness. There is a risk of formation one kind of flora. Other organisms in the same medium may be influenced by genetically modified foods. Other organisms in the same medium may be influenced by genetically modified foods. The effect on natural ecosystems, gene flow into non GE crops, moral/religious concerns, and corporate control of the food supply.
GMO risks and hazards: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of risk As more genetically modified foods are being produced and marketed and as many different types of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continue to be released into the environment, the debate on the safety of genetic engineering has intensified. In this article, Professor TerjeTraavik argues that given the unpredictable consequences of genetic technology and the fact that any adverse consequences will only be evident in the long run, this is a proper case for the application of the 'precautionary principle'.
A HIGH number of plant, and some animal, species have been genetically modified by recombinant DNA techniques, methods included in the collective term 'gene technology'. In the USA ca. 40 genetically modified plant species have been approved for commercial use. After having been introduced in 1996, herbicide-resistant soybeans now represent 27% of the total, while GM maize is assumed to represent ca. 25% (Williams, 1998). Herbicide-tolerance (54%), insect- (37%) and virus-resistance (14%) make up the vast majority of gene modifications, while quality improvements with regard to growth and nutrient compositions represent less than 1% (James, 1997). This is caused by the wish of transnational manufacturing companies to offer packages of the company's own pesticide and GM plants which tolerate the pesticide (Ho, 1998).
Production, marketing and consumption of GM food are highly controversial. The controversy mainly concerns whether the first-generation GM organisms should at all be commercialised and also to what extent, and how, GM food should be labeled. In the EU, serious conflicts of interest and opinion are seen within and between member countries. The UK, Austria, Luxembourg, France and Greece have at present some sort of moratoria on GM plants, and the Environmental Advice Committee of the European Parliament has recently called for a limited moratorium. Organic plant breeders in various EU countries have brought governmental and commercial institutions to court, because scientifically based risk assessments cannot exclude cross-pollinations from GM crops from taking place. In the USA commercialisation of GM plants has met little opposition from government or consumers (Williams, 1998), and in Scandinavia public debate is nearly absent, in itself a risk factor.
Risk factors and hazards In order to carry out a genetic modification, a recombinant, genetic vector has to be constructed. The vector is intended to carry the cloned gene safely into the chosen organism and order the gene to become expressed, i.e. produce the protein that it codes for.A vector will, in addition to the chosen gene, be composed of a number of other DNA elements. Typically, it needs a control element (promoter/enhancer) necessary for expression of the gene, and an extra gene coding for resistance to an antibiotic or another cytotoxic substance. An alternative to the highly controversial antibiotic resistance genes for GM plants, is a gene (csr-1) providing resistance to the herbicide chlorsulfon (Bergelson et al; 1998).
Vector DNA molecules are transferred across cell membranes aided by so-called biolistics ('gene-cannon'), chemical treatment or by exposing cells to an electric field. Thereafter vector molecules are transported to the cell nucleus to become inserted (integrated) into the chromosome(s) of the recipient cell. Integration takes place at unpredictable locations in the chromosomes. Vector transfer techniques are inefficient. Only a fraction of the treated cells take up and express the chosen gene. In order to select the vector-containing cell population, an antibiotic is added. Cells not expressing the vector resistance gene are then killed. Surviving cells are the basis for development of GMOs, in which all the cells of the organism contain integrated vector DNA and express the wanted gene.
Genetic modification is different from traditional cultivation and breeding It is often argued that genetic modification represents a more precise, but not fundamentally different, kind of breeding or cultivation. This must be rejected because unnatural recombinations are created. Genetic material is recombined between species for which there is no, or very low, probability of natural progeny. New, exotic genes or DNA sequences are introduced into unpredictable chromosomal locations. Conventional breeding shuffles around aberrant versions (alleles) of the same genes, while these are fixed in the chromosomal locations they have been given by evolution. Gene technology introduces new, exotic genes. Their location within the recipient cell DNA is unpredictable and with no possibility of targeting. This may result in unpredictable effects on the metabolism, physiology and biochemistry of the recipient, transgenic organism, effects not detected with traditional methods of control.
Environmental effects Researchers at the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Dundee have demonstrated indirect ecological effects of GM potato plants. The plants expressed an inserted lecthin gene in order to reduce aphid attacks. Ladybirds predating lecthin-containing aphids had their lifetime expectancies and reproducibility significantly reduced. Likewise, researchers at the Swiss Federal Research station for Agroecology in Zurich have demonstrated serious harm to lacewings foraging on aphids affected by the insecticide Bt toxin produced by GM maize (Williams, 1998). It is already a major worldwide agricultural problem that natural predators of crop-ruining insects are disappearing. An acceleration of this process would be tragic. Field trials in Denmark and Scotland have shown that GM oilseed rape may transfer their inserted transgene by cross-pollination of wild relatives (Mikkelsen et al., 1996), while experiments in France have demonstrated transfer of resistance genes from rape to radish (Chevre et al., 1997). Similar examples, with spread of transgenes over long distances, have been demonstrated for other GM plant species. Organic plant farmers in European countries have initiated legal actions on this ground. When their farms are situated in the vicinity of GM crop fields, their products may be deprived of the 'organic' labelling.
Recently it was demonstrated that self-pollinating GM plants may have a forced, augmented capability to cross-pollinate other plants, with a resulting transfer of inserted transgenes (Bergelson et al., 1998). The unpredictability was demonstrated by the fact that inbred, identical plants genetically modified in separate experiments had differing abilities to cross-pollinate other plants. Although the experiments were carried out on a single plant species, Arabidopsis thaliana, these results have general interest, also because the inserted gene (csr-1) has been introduced in various plant species as an alternative selection marker to replace antibiotic resistance genes. GM cotton plants with inserted herbicide tolerance genes have demonstrated two types of malfunctions. In some cases the plants dropped their cotton bolls, in others the tolerance genes were not properly expressed, so that the GM plants were killed by herbicide (Fox, 1997). The manufacturers blamed extreme climatic conditions, indirectly assessing claims of general unpredictability from opponents. A number of cotton farmers pressed charges. The manufacturers offered economic settlements out of court.
We can move genes - but do we have a 'technology'? 'Technology' is derived from the Greek term 'tekhne' which is connected to handicraft or arts. Our associations with the word include predictability, control and reproducibility. The parts of genetic engineering that concern construction of vectors are truly technology. But present techniques for moving new genes into cells and organisms mean: * No possibility of targeting the vector/transgene to specific sites within the recipient genomes. In practical terms this means that modifications performed with identical recipients and vector gene constructs under the same standardised conditions may result in vastly different GMOs depending on where the transgenes become inserted. * No control of changes in gene expression patterns for the inserted or the endogenous genes of the GMO. * No control of whether the inserted transgene(s), or parts thereof, move within or from the recipient genome, or where transferred DNA sequences end up in the ecosystems.
Dangerous dogmas! Dogmas concerning absence of hazards have often been proven wrong (e.g. the Titanic). A relevant example is the belief that DNA in food and forage cannot be taken up from the gastrointestinal tract. Some experimental studies, and the whole evolutionary history as well as our daily intake of vast amounts of DNA from various sources supported this belief. Absolute biological and ecological truths are, however, very rare, and rare phenomena may have important consequences when they take place. Recently this was illustrated by the demonstration that following ingestion by mice, DNA from the M13 bacteriophage could be detected as relatively long fragments in faeces, peripheral leukocytes, and spleen and liver cells in significant time intervals after feeding. In the cells the ingested M13 DNA was found in a chromosome-integrated form
GMOs a helpful but butbutbut a DANGEROUS ONE.. We those evidences I have been presented to you, all I can say is GMO is so much very harmful to our environment most specially to the living bodies. We must not continue using those product because it has a harmful effect/disadvantages to us.. by: grace dingle