Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
group_4_presentation_1_-_genetically_modified_organism_s [2016/09/30 04:10] hongjj |
group_4_presentation_1_-_genetically_modified_organism_s [2018/01/25 15:18] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Genetically Modified Organisms ====== | ====== Genetically Modified Organisms ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{:presentation_1-_gmos.pdf|}} | ||
| Line 179: | Line 181: | ||
| - | There are many concerns about the release of genetically modified organisms into the wild. The major fear is that they would become invasive species. An invasive species is a non-native species that was introduced into an ecosystem, and causes (directly or indirectly) the degradation of the natural function and structure of the ecosystem. The modifications to these organisms, whether they are crops or animals, often give them an advantage in their environment; allowing them to succeed when the native species may not (33). | + | There are many concerns about the release of genetically modified organisms into the wild. The major fear is that they would become invasive species. An invasive species is a non-native species that was introduced into an ecosystem, and causes (directly or indirectly) the degradation of the natural function and structure of the ecosystem. The modifications to these organisms, whether they are crops or animals, often give them an advantage in their environment; allowing them to succeed when the native species may not (37). |
| - | For example, GM Altantic salmon are made to be bigger at a younger age, which could give them a significant advantage if they escaped to the wild. Since they are larger, the transgenic fish feed longer than the smaller wild salmon, and ultimately can outcompete for the food supply (Benfey, 2014). | + | For example, GM Altantic salmon are made to be bigger at a younger age, which could give them a significant advantage if they escaped to the wild. Since they are larger, the transgenic fish feed longer than the smaller wild salmon, and ultimately can outcompete for the food supply (4). |
| <box width classes round white centre|>{{:amanda.jpg|}}</box| Figure 11: GM salmon compared to Farm salmon. | <box width classes round white centre|>{{:amanda.jpg|}}</box| Figure 11: GM salmon compared to Farm salmon. | ||
| Line 190: | Line 192: | ||
| - | Gene flow is a great environmental risk when it comes to GMOs. This is where transgenes in the modified organism could transfer to wild species, soil bacteria (horizontal gene flow) or even humans. Gene flow occurs naturally within different species of plants, but there is a threat of transfer of undesirable genes into the pool, and populations could permanently change (Pretty, J. 2001). | + | Gene flow is a great environmental risk when it comes to GMOs. This is where transgenes in the modified organism could transfer to wild species, soil bacteria (horizontal gene flow) or even humans. Gene flow occurs naturally within different species of plants, but there is a threat of transfer of undesirable genes into the pool, and populations could permanently change (23). |
| - | It was shown in a Canadian study that GM Atlantic salmon were able to breed with natural-born salmon, and with closely related brown trout. They observed that the offspring were viable, which means they transferred their manipulated genes into the wild populations (spath). | + | It was shown in a Canadian study that GM Atlantic salmon were able to breed with natural-born salmon, and with closely related brown trout. They observed that the offspring were viable, which means they transferred their manipulated genes into the wild populations (29). |
| - | We can assume that gene flow will occur between GMOs and native species, but what is more concerning is the extent at which this will affect the native ecosystem (Pretty, 2001). Johnson (2000) said, ‘To add genes from other plants unwittingly and randomly to native gene pools may result in phenotypic effects which could change the way entire genomes relate to their physical and biotic environments’. The release or escape of genetically modified plants and animals should be avoided since it is difficult to predict the effect they may have on native species and ecosystems (Benfey, 2014). | + | We can assume that gene flow will occur between GMOs and native species, but what is more concerning is the extent at which this will affect the native ecosystem (23). Johnson (2000) said, ‘To add genes from other plants unwittingly and randomly to native gene pools may result in phenotypic effects which could change the way entire genomes relate to their physical and biotic environments’. The release or escape of genetically modified plants and animals should be avoided since it is difficult to predict the effect they may have on native species and ecosystems (4). |
| <box width classes round white centre|>{{:gene_transfer_from_gm_crops_to_their_wild_relative.jpg|}}</box|Figure 12: Gene transfer from GM crops to their Wild Relative. | <box width classes round white centre|>{{:gene_transfer_from_gm_crops_to_their_wild_relative.jpg|}}</box|Figure 12: Gene transfer from GM crops to their Wild Relative. | ||
| Line 201: | Line 203: | ||
| - | There are several different ways in which GM crops can impact non-target insects. A prevalent example in the public has been the monarch butterfly, and is considered a species of conservational value (Hails, 2000). In a lab study, Monarch larvae on milkweed leaves were dusted with Bt maize pollen and left to grow. It was found that the larvae with BT pollen ate less, grew slower and experienced higher mortality compared to the larvae cultivated with non-GM pollen. It is still difficult to measure the effect of Bt pollen on monarchs in the wild due to many natural factors, including; the required dosage of pollen, the likelihood of exposure to pollen, and the effect of degradation of Bt from rain (Wolfenbarger L., Phifer P.R. 2007). | + | There are several different ways in which GM crops can impact non-target insects. A prevalent example in the public has been the monarch butterfly and is considered a species of conservational value. In a lab study, Monarch larvae on milkweed leaves were dusted with Bt maize pollen and left to grow. It was found that the larvae with BT pollen ate less, grew slower and experienced higher mortality compared to the larvae cultivated with non-GM pollen. It is still difficult to measure the effect of Bt pollen on monarchs in the wild due to many natural factors, including; the required dosage of pollen, the likelihood of exposure to pollen, and the effect of degradation of Bt from rain (37). |
| <box width classes round white centre|>{{:monarch_butterfly_on_milkweed.jpg|}}</box| Figure 13: Monarch Butterfly on Milkweed. | <box width classes round white centre|>{{:monarch_butterfly_on_milkweed.jpg|}}</box| Figure 13: Monarch Butterfly on Milkweed. | ||
| Line 210: | Line 212: | ||
| **Public Opinion** | **Public Opinion** | ||
| - | According to Langer, G., 2016, over 90% of Americans, want to know if their food is a GMO . Over half of this population would avoid the food because they are either unsure about it or believe it to be unsafe (Langer, G., 2016). Many cultures benefit from GMO because for example they now have the ability to farm in environments that were previously too volatile. Parents, consisting largely of mothers, are against GMOs due to worry of genetic transfer and fetal harm (Langer, G., 2016). Scientists largely remain supportive and say that the public do not have all of the information. Scientists say that many have minimal understanding about what these products actually are, and their effects on the body or environment (Jaenisch, R. & Mintz, B.,1974). There are also organisations like Chipotle, a popular American burrito restaurant, that influences public opinion. In 2013 Chipotle chose to disclose which menu items were genetically modified, and later took them off their menu entirely (Jaenisch, R. & Mintz, B.,1974). This fuelled the public’s wariness of GMOs. Part of the problem with the lack of GMO awareness is due to Monsanto, a leader in GMO development and biotechnology, who failed to educate the public on the costs and benefits of GMOs from the early stages of production (Jaenisch, R. & Mintz, B.,1974). This resulted in a lot of fear and speculation and now Monsanto is stuck trying to quell this fear instead of educating consumers. Recently they have started attending public events to speak about GMO safety and help improve the public’s opinion. They had over 40 planned events in 2015 alone (Jaenisch, R. & Mintz, B.,1974). | + | According to Langer, G., 2016, over 90% of Americans, want to know if their food is a GMO . Over half of this population would avoid the food because they are either unsure about it or believe it to be unsafe (17). Many cultures benefit from GMO because for example they now have the ability to farm in environments that were previously too volatile. Parents, consisting largely of mothers, are against GMOs due to worry of genetic transfer and fetal harm (17). Scientists largely remain supportive and say that the public do not have all of the information. Scientists say that many have minimal understanding about what these products actually are, and their effects on the body or environment (11). There are also organisations like Chipotle, a popular American burrito restaurant, that influences public opinion. In 2013 Chipotle chose to disclose which menu items were genetically modified, and later took them off their menu entirely (11). This fuelled the public’s wariness of GMOs. Part of the problem with the lack of GMO awareness is due to Monsanto, a leader in GMO development and biotechnology, who failed to educate the public on the costs and benefits of GMOs from the early stages of production (11). This resulted in a lot of fear and speculation and now Monsanto is stuck trying to quell this fear instead of educating consumers. Recently they have started attending public events to speak about GMO safety and help improve the public’s opinion. They had over 40 planned events in 2015 alone (11). |
| Line 217: | Line 219: | ||
| Scientists can continue to develop ways to make GMOs safer for the ecosystem and people. The ultimate goal is to make the technology more accepted by the public, something that could be obtained from education initiatives. A large setback to GM technology is its environmental effects; therefore addressing this problem will solve many issues. There should be efforts made for example, to refine what a plant resistant to pests secretes so that it targets only the pest and not other organisms (see details on monarch butterfly). Companies can also aim to increase types of pharmaceuticals they are pharming in genetically modified organisms to decrease the need to produce it by other means. | Scientists can continue to develop ways to make GMOs safer for the ecosystem and people. The ultimate goal is to make the technology more accepted by the public, something that could be obtained from education initiatives. A large setback to GM technology is its environmental effects; therefore addressing this problem will solve many issues. There should be efforts made for example, to refine what a plant resistant to pests secretes so that it targets only the pest and not other organisms (see details on monarch butterfly). Companies can also aim to increase types of pharmaceuticals they are pharming in genetically modified organisms to decrease the need to produce it by other means. | ||
| - | Overall the process can be streamlined to allow for easier and more effective relocation of genes. Finally, if these things can be implemented successfully this will allow more food to reach different areas. Perhaps countries that must import a variety of food items could begin to grow them on their own instead. This would allow them to be more self sufficient and cut down on the environmental strain of transporting food from other countries. | + | Overall the process can be streamlined to allow for easier and more effective relocation of genes. Finally, if these things can be implemented successfully this will allow more food to reach different areas. Perhaps countries that must import a variety of food items could begin to grow them on their own instead. This would allow them to be more self-sufficient and cut down on the environmental strain of transporting food from other countries. |
| Line 224: | Line 226: | ||
| Controversy is mainly surrounding health and environmental risk factors of GMOs. This includes factors that are known and unknown due to lack of research. Rumours and stigmas about GMOs that are portrayed by the media are often results from scientific papers that have been exaggerated. | Controversy is mainly surrounding health and environmental risk factors of GMOs. This includes factors that are known and unknown due to lack of research. Rumours and stigmas about GMOs that are portrayed by the media are often results from scientific papers that have been exaggerated. | ||
| - | The USA does not currently have labelling laws for GM food (Rangel, G., 2015). It remains to be decided if labelling GM products is good or bad. On one hand, labelling something as GMO makes the consumer more aware but means that less will buy the product (as mentioned in Public Opinions). This results in increased food market prices and resource strain as companies attempt to satisfy the demand for non-GMOs. | + | The USA does not currently have labelling laws for GM food (25). It remains to be decided if labelling GM products is good or bad. On one hand, labelling something as GMO makes the consumer more aware but means that less will buy the product (as mentioned in Public Opinions). This results in increased food market prices and resource strain as companies attempt to satisfy the demand for non-GMOs. |
| - | By 2050 the UN predicts that humans will need to produce 70% more food than we currently do now in 2016 (Northoff, E., 2016). This increase in food production alone will strain resources, and GMOs have the potential to help by providing food with more nutrients, the ability to grow in harsh climates and many other altercations that could be a solution to our growing population’s food demands. | + | By 2050 the UN predicts that humans will need to produce 70% more food than we currently do now in 2016 (19). This increase in food production alone will strain resources, and GMOs have the potential to help by providing food with more nutrients, the ability to grow in harsh climates and many other altercations that could be a solution to our growing population’s food demands. |
| The question remains, is a world without GMOs sustainable? | The question remains, is a world without GMOs sustainable? | ||
