INTRODUCTION:
There are a lot of questions concerning the policy of genetically modified crops in India, regarding the approach towards the development of economy, the technological impact on the nation and also the relationships between farming and business communities. The supporting parties of Biotechnology in agriculture argue that the genetically modified crops could be the solution to most of the existing problems in the country’s agriculture; opposing parties argue that it could have negative impact on the environment and livelihood of farmers. The policy changes in India on the GM crops were influenced by both the pro and anti GM parties, the approach of both the parties has been similar in many ways through their international
…show more content…
Meanwhile Illegal Bt cotton was found in Gujarat during 2001 and it was later found that the seeds were from a local company based in Hyderabad producing hybrid varieties called Navbharat Seeds Co and not Monsanto-MAHYCO Biotech.During the same year at the citizens’ jury of India meeting held in Karnataka which consisted of 14 farmers both men and women, the jury has voted against the GM crops after discussing and accessing all the information provided to them by the Monsanto, government, scientific institutes and other biotech organisations .The jury supported localized food systems over GM crops at the time and provided a list of actions that could be undertaken by the government and biotech companies for the approval of GM Crops in the future.
‘Genes are the functional units of heredity’, the insertion of a transgene (gene sequence from another organism of similar or different species) using technologies like genetic engineering and R-DNA into a plant makes it a genetically modified plant.GM Cotton is produced by inserting a gene coding for Bt (Protein present in bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis) into cotton plant, Bt-protein is toxic to certain pests like Bollworm. The name Bollgard was given to the newly developed genetically modified cotton and it was commercialized in the year 2002.Many developing countries have opted for GM crops, despite the presence of strong opposing parties and campaigns, including India, China, Canada,
When Huntington stated how the problem was that Mexican immigrants were not dreaming in English stirs up the fact that they are obligated to assimilate into the Anglo-Protestant culture. So Huntington’s statement wants Mexican immigrants and other Hispanic groups to lose touch with their own culture? But it was not the case for most Latino students who would want to identify their Hispanic background and ancestry at school. In Paul Gorski’s article, A Brief History of Multicultural Education, found the importance to identify the historical roots of not only the Hispanic community but other race communities as well. Such as saying the equality in learning about other countries instead of the traditional American History in a classroom setting
The driving factor behind plant biotechnology is “social constructionism”, in which “social values and institutional domains and their culture shape technology” [Goyder chapter 10]. Bioengineering companies might declare social needs as the motive behind pursuing this technology. In reality, these capitalist institutions possess the much needed economic surplus to invest serve their own desires. The social needs they “intend” to solve are: world food shortage, increase agricultural productivity, help the environment by eliminating pesticides, improve nutrition of foods. Opponents of biotechnology, scientists, consumer advocates, environmental protection agencies, do not buy this claim. According to them, these reasons are just the pretence to fulfil “...capitalist’s profit-making via the deployment of technology, [3 Goyder chapter 5]. Most crop developments so far has been “profit-driven rather than need driven” [4, ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security]. In a capitalistic society, patent laws under constitution permits ownership of seeds, living organisms; genes. Patents permit company like Monsanto could monopolize seed’s
GM foods are in the middle of many controversial issues; primarily these are addressed by conflicts over the relative pros and cons of GM foods. Major biotech companies like ‘Monsanto ' and ‘Cargill ' are promoting GM foods by focusing only on their beneficial aspects, giving least importance to their negative effects on safety, environment and biodiversity. On the other hand, governmental regulators and nongovernmental organizations, along with some scientists, are strictly opposing this type of blind promotion of GM food by enlightening the people on their negative effects The controversies associated with GM foods include issues such as safety, environmental benefits and risks, biodiversity, and ethical and social considerations.GM foods are implicated for adverse human health risks like people being allergic to it, environmental hazards such as development of super weeds, and pesticide and antibiotic resistance in disease causing organisms. On the other
In other situations, like devastating crop damage due to insect pests, proteins specifically toxic to the pests may be engineered in to cause fatality within the insect, as in the case of Bt corn. Opponents of genetically modified crops, or anti-GMO, state that the health effects of genetically modified crops are unknown and potentially hazardous to human beings. This health effect is not known because the genetically modified crops are a relatively new technology and it would require an extensive period of time to study the chronic effects, if any, of the GM crops. Given the limited data available, it is reasonable that some individuals may caution the use of GM crops. However, given that there will be future case studies and evaluations of GM crops, it is unlikely that the GM crops will cause any different health effects than normal crops. Anti-GMO groups also state that GMO crops are costly for farmers and the consumers. In addition, these groups, like GeneWatch, lobby the government in support of anti-GMO laws.
Genetic engineering is already providing a more stable solution for agricultural production in the economy to stand on. In nine years (i.e. 1996-2005), profits from genetically modified crops were twenty-seven billion dollars. Those twenty-seven billion dollars were not just in the United States or countries like it, but the profits almost split half and half between first and third world countries (O'Neill 19). In India, for example, cotton yields have jumped to one hundred-fifty percent from the use of genetically modified crops, vastly increasing the farmers’ profits (19). The planting of these crops can really help farmers know what they are going to make every year and plan accordingly. Also, helping the farmers’ expenses is the lack of chemical pesticides needed on the crops and reducing time spent using the pricey traditional breeding methods (Mannion and Morse 749-751). Even if genetically modified crops are not planted in every field, adjoining fields can benefit due to the “halo effect.” The “halo effect” is the ability of pest protection on the genetically modified crops to affect the non-genetically modified crops due to the lack of insects in the genetically modified field (754). Genetically modified crops affect the economy in a positive way and should be seen as a smart
Genetically modified foods should be banned more than now because they are harmful for people’s health, farmers are damaged by mass production and can not help improvement of economy.
However, these risks are purely speculative: 81 separate studies costing approximately $65 million have been conducted by the European Commission alone and have shown no evidence of any risk linked to GM foods (1). Indeed, the U.S. has concluded that the risk of GM crops is minimal. As a result, in the U.S., genetically altered crops accounted for 93% of planted soybeans and cotton and 86% of corn in 2009. (2). Considering the success and benefits of GM crops in America, developing countries have followed suit. In 2009, India planted 84,000 square kilometers of genetically modified cotton, and Brazil planted 214,000 square kilometers of GM soybeans, a 26% increase from the year before (3). Like the U.S., these countries conducted a risk-benefit analysis and concluded that the economic, health, and food surplus benefits of GM crops offset the unproven risks (4). Thus, agricultural biotechnology is being implemented in farming techniques throughout the world.
Mr. and Mrs. HarshHeart believe in the importance of stern discipline and impose strict rules
In the article ‘India Rejects First GM Vegetable, Hampering Monsanto’ by Jay Shankar and Thomas Kutty Abraham, they discuss how India’s first GMO called bt brinjal (genetically modified eggplant) is rejected by the Indian government due to the fact that there are potential threats to the GMO. GMO’s are genetically modified organisms that are made so that they can enhance the original organism in various ways. The Indian government wants to make sure that they have food security, especially with GMO’s, so they rejected the bt brinjal because they felt that there weren’t enough tests run on the organism. Also, they’re worried because farmers don’t take many precautions when putting pesticides on the plants, which puts them at risk. After making sure that bt brinjal is safe, India needs to keep the GMO’s so that they’ll be able to feed their growing population and to save money.
Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most
What exactly is the controversy surrounding genetically modified foods and plants? An immense amount of advocacy for and against the implementation of genetically modified method in the development of food and the agricultural development of crops and plants. The intention of this report is to definitively explore both aspects of advocacy surrounding genetically modified foods and plants or crops. As their is a significant population of individuals, organizations and groups that strongly support the use of genetically modified methods, there are an equally great population that adamantly defies and warns against the implementation, deployment and overall use and consumption of genetically modified foods and plants or crops.
Genetically modifying food has caused many controversy around the world for the way foods are modified. Most of the food we eat are canned, fresh, and ready to be eaten. Most of the food has also been genetically modified. Although modifying food has been used for many years, many countries have not adapted or want to genetically modify their foods. Genetically modifying food is a good and bad thing but there will always be different opinions about genetically modifying food, but one thing is for sure, genetically modifying food will increase more and more.
Christians believes these are the Ten Commandments God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. Christians and Jews had been following these commandments as the rule of the Lord. Most Christians believes that if they breaks these commandments and does not repent for it, they will pay for it.
According to the World Health Organization (2014. 1), "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called 'modern biotechnology ' or 'gene technology ', sometimes also 'recombinant DNA technology ' or 'genetic engineering '. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.” Many organic crops farming farmers are against cultivating of GM crops because of the threat to farm land and environment however, biotechnology companies and GM crops growing famer desire to have profit and consumer look for low price. Thus, the debate over the environmental impact of genetically modified GM crops is growing. Although GM crops negatively affects on some organism in environment, they reduce the use of pesticides and increase crop yield.
In this brief, the reader will see the differences between organic and conventional cotton farming spreading from the country of India to the United States. For many years, genetically modified organisms, GMO’s, have been a popular debate topic for people who believe that they are not safe. Different people have different opinions, the purpose of this brief is to provide information about organic and conventional cotton farming. The readers will see the data collected for both types of farming, including yields, costs, and labor. They will be able to understand the public opinion and what they believe is the proper way to farm cotton. The reader will be able to determine which type of farming is best suitable for them, whether they are purchasing cotton products, or growing cotton themselves. Deciding between organic and conventional farming will include the differences in costs, yields, labor, and the environment around the farms, which will be compared in this brief.