Genetically Modified Organisms In Agriculture Environmental Sciences Essay

Genetically circumscribed Organisms In Agriculture Environmental Sciences Es citeimportant environmental benefits with olive-sized or no risk. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been the subject of knock everywhere for m some(prenominal) years, with many people either all for or completely a crystallizest their mass production and sale. But what exactly is a GMO? It is defined as an organism whose characteristics have been altered by the insertion of a ingredient from a nonher organism utilize agenttic engineering techniques, usually to allow the recipient more(prenominal) desir fitting distinctions for compassionate exploitation. In agriculture, this is about often generation increased pest or weedkiller resistance in inheritableally modified (GM) brings.The question of risk associated with GM crops has divided opinion amongst both(prenominal) experts and the public however there still does non seem to be any conclusive license for either benefits or ris ks on the environment where these organisms ar cultivated.This essay depart address some of the popular issues elevated with regard to environmental benefits and risks and try to weigh up the pros and cons of GMOs in agriculture.With the ever-increasing merciful universe, our planet is being put under more and more nip as we try to keep up with the demands for resources. It is estimated that food production volition have to increase by 70% by 2050 to provide the predicted 9.1 meg people with enough food (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2009). But with the go on expansion of human populations, we shall also see a further shortage of land suitable for agriculture. The answer to these problems came when genetic engineering allowed us to tailor-make an organisms characteristics to our desires increasing crop yield, or reducing trauma by pests, thereby allowing a greater quantity of crop to be harvested from the homogeneous amount of land.One of the main characterist ics desired in a cultivated crop plant is a resistance to pests such(prenominal) as insects and widows weeds. Since their introduction in 1947, there has been a steady increase in the go for of synthetic pesticides to reduce crop losses ca exercised by insects, weeds and diseases (Phipps and Park, 2002). However, an estimated 43% of total world production of the major crops is lost each(prenominal) year, with a further 10% lost after harvesting (Oerke et al. 1995). The persona of pesticides has been linked to negative effectuate in the environment the loss of UK tillage biodiversity such as insects and bird species and the change in food sources of farming area birds (Ewald and Aebischer, 1999). In GM crops, insect resistance is achieved within the plant deoxyribonucleic acid itself, so the need for the spraying of pesticides is much reduced. The most common gene selected for insect resistance is extracted from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis because it produces tox ins which are in the raw to a specific group of insects including the European maize borer, corn earworm, s surfaceh-western corn borer and corn rootworm (Schuler et al. 1998). Plants containing this gene are called Bt varieties. In 2000, out of a global total of 5.3 million hectares of cotton expectant, 3.2 million hectares were Bt varieties (James, 2000). China is wholeness of the largest producers of cotton, with cotton farmers relying heavily on pesticides, however, in a survey conducted during 1999 and 2000, pesticide use on cotton plants was reduced on fair(a) from 55kg (on non-Bt varieties) to 16kg (on Bt varieties) per hectare, and the number of times sprayed was reduced from 20 to 7. Also, the survey field of studyed that the use of toxic organochlorines and organophosphates was nigh completely stopped (Huang et al. 2001). This evidence is supportive of the use of insect resistant GM crops because there is less need for the use of pesticides which have a negative ef fect on the biodiversity of the environment. However, this method whitethorn result in the evolution of resistant pests, which would make the GM crop redundant and thereof re- pitch the need for stronger pesticides until a substitute is found for the Bt gene (Hails, 2000). Furthermore, an Australian playing area has discovered that Bt toxin is found in the root of modified plants at standardized concentrations found in the leaves. This means that the toxins can pass into the kingdom easily, non whole from degrading leaf matter, precisely also directly from the roots and could effectivenessly lead to an accumulation of toxin in the territory or in the organisms which digest it insect larvae and microbes. In this way, GM crops could have an indirect jar on biodiversity of insects (and their predators), non-target plants and the soil environment about which we still have only limited have it offledge (Vadakattu and Watson, 2004).Alongside pesticide resistance, the other main desired trait of engineered crops is a margin to herbicides. 63.7% of GM crops grown in 2005 were engineered with herbicide tolerance (James, 2005). The plants are modified to be resistant to angiotensin-converting enzyme powerful herbicide called glyphosate, which means that farmers can grow the crop and spray it with one exercise of glyphosate herbicide to kill any weeds, but the crop itself will not be affected. This is advantageous because it reduces the cost to the farmer and also reduces the displace-off of sprayed herbicides into the surrounding ecosystem (Whitman, 2000). The average reduction in herbicide use on GM soybeans in the USA when studied proved to be around 10%, and although it do 16 herbicides redundant, the usage of glyphosate increased 5-fold (Phipps and Park, 2002). The biggest risk associated with herbicide resistance comes from capableness gene transfer across species to close relatives, thereby creating an unregulated interbreeding of a GM plant. If this relative is considered a weed, resistance to the herbicide will result in a super weed, where it cannot be killed using glyphosate and farmers must revert back to physical processes such as tilling, which in diverge accelerates soil erosion and nutrient leeching (Hail, 2000). Yet there is unparalleled evidence from canola oil seed farmers in Canada of the positive effects of growing the herbicide tolerant (Ht) variety in 2000, when 55% of all canola grown was Ht, the total amount of herbicide used was reduced by 6 million kg, 31.2 million litres of diesel fuel were saved which in turn saved Canadian $13.1 million and 110,000 tonnes of coke dioxide being released into the atmosphere (Canola Council of Canada, 2000). The report also described how farmers have adopted a zero or minimal tillage strategy to control weeds, which has the environmental benefits of less soil erosion and less blow released into the atmosphere it is estimated that 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are no longer released, so one could say that GM crops may help reduce the rate of global climate change. At present, it appears that there are important benefits and disadvantages of herbicide tolerance, but that more question into the probability of carrefour with non-desired species should be carried out in order to establish a balanced argument. Currently, the advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages, but this situation may change in the future if resistance spreads to other species.The question of crown of thornsisation has always surrounded GM crops, but the risk of a hybrid plant surviving in the natural environment and establishing a population has always been considered extremely small. The potential for a crop to pass over with a weed is dependent on numerous factors the relatedness of the species, geographical location and versed compatibility to name a few. However, even if a GM crop were to hybridise with a weed relative, the resulting cross would be dependent on a different set of factors in order to be successful and breed it must overcome all normal plant moderate factors such as competition, nutrients, light etc. but also be able to reproduce itself and survive over many generations. The likelihood of a hybrid surviving in the wild is extremely small, to that degree it is important to come back that the risk does outlast and that such a plant would have a higher fitness, be potentially more invasive and likely out compete its relatives, resulting in quenching through hybrid (Conner et al. 2003).In fact, extinction caused by the introduction of GM crops is a larger problem than originally anticipated. Farmers all over the world are favouring high-yield, Ht and pest resistant crops which gain more profit than their natural relatives, resulting in uniform monocultures. Currently, 1350 traditional crop species face extinction, with an average of 2 species being lost every week, because they are being replaced with engineered vers ions of themselves (FAO, 2003).Genetic engineering does not stop with crops. There exist today GM trees designed for better quality timber or ease of paper production, and GM plants used in biofuels. Much explore is being done on GM animals for use as a food source and use in medication, although none have yet been licensed to be sold. From an environmental point of view, one of the most interest applications of GM comes in the form of phytoremediation. Scientists have genetically engineered bacteria to nifty polluted and contaminated soil, and plants which can take up heavy alloy residues from the soil (Meagher, 2006).ConclusionThere has been and still is much debate over the safety of GMOs, with particular emphasis on GM crops because they have the potential to alter ecosystems, and because they ultimately end up on our plates. While the effects on human health are substantially risky, they are beyond the topic of this essay.The cultivation of GM crops has become more widespre ad since their introduction, with 25 countries now growing them commercially and many more growing them on a trial basis (James, 2008). With continuing research into genes, it seems inevitable that genetic engineering of crops will continue in order to produce the best, most desirable crop likely, while also minimising the environmental impacts.There is evidence for both sides of the argument concerning benefits and risks to the environment, however, not all GM plants behave the same way. The advantages of Ht canola in Canada are obvious, yet in other species the tolerance is not so great and additional spraying is still required. This may be down to geographical location, soil type or farming practise, but it is important to remember that there is no uniform behaviour of GM crops. The environmental benefit of pest resistance is a reduced use of pesticides thereby increasing biodiversity by only targeting specific problem pests or else of killing all the insects in the vicinity. H owever, this is met with many potential risks such as accumulation of Bt toxin in the soil which may reduce soil biodiversity, possible evolution of resistance in target pest species and the need to jam genes for resistance to pests which are not affected by the Bt toxin. The environmental benefits of Ht crops admit reduced spraying of herbicides which in turn will reduce run off and contamination of water sources, reduced tilling of soil which decreases soil erosion and requires less mechanical management of fields, which means less carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere to contribute to global warming. The main risk of Ht crops is the potential for hybridisation and invasion of a resistant weed species. From this analysis, we can see that one modified crop may have more advantages than disadvantages, yet for another(prenominal) gene there are more disadvantages than advantages.It is difficult to know what to debate about the situation. While we still do not know the impact s these crops may have on the environment and the ecosystems they exist in, some may say that we should not grow them until we know more, but will we ever know how they will behave in the natural environment if we only prove with them in a laboratory?To conclude with my own opinion, looking at the bigger picture, GM crops will not offer us any environmental benefits because ultimately they are grown for human consumption, meaning the human population will continue increasing because food is not a limiting factor. More food will result in more people, which will lead to the continued exploitation and destruction of our planet. As a species, we have overcome the forces of natural selection through the development of medicine and with the expanding use of GM crops, it looks like we are set to overcome the limiting factor of food availability.