KWARA STATE POLYTECHNIC, ILORIN

SEMINAR PAPER

OMOTOSHO OLUWAPELUMI ISAAC

HND/22/SLT/FT/401

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE LABORATORY

TECHNOLOGY
APPLIED SCIENCE

TOPIC
GENETICAL MODIFICATION OF FOOD

SUPERVISED BY
MR. OKEDIRAN PHILIP
 ABSTRACT

The application of biotechnology in the genetic modification of plants in food production

has led to the appearance of genetically modified foods (GMFs) in the marketplace. From
inception, the subject of GMFs food has been controversial. The use of biotechnology to enhance
nutritional value has raised a number of fundamental questions about genetically modified foods
or plants all over the world. In spite of these controversies, GMF has been presented as the ultimate
weapon against hunger in Africa, and other developing countries. While the world debates on
whether or not to endorse genetically modified food in most of Western Europe and give it the
acceptance it already enjoys in the United States, we are totally oblivious of the fact that genetically
modified food has crept into Nigeria. Nigeria has been a recipient of food aid from countries like
the United States, that are renowned for producing genetically modified foods. In 2004, Nigeria
signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the United States government agreeing to
support GM crops. Are GMFs really a good substitute for the natural and traditional foods? Are
the benefits of GM crops as strong as claimed by pro-biotech interests? If GM crops are safe,
economically profitable, and environmentally friendly, why then has there been so much
opposition, concern and controversy in recent years? If the scenario is so good, if so many millions
of farmers and consumers are benefiting, if the increase in GM crops is so impressive, and if
poverty, malnutrition and hunger have been alleviated in developing countries, why then have
some governments imposed bans and why are consumers opposing those products in many places
around the world? Is there any substance in these arguments against GMFs? This paper discusses
these issues using Nigeria as a case study. We concluded that GMFs may not be the ultimate
solution to hunger and poverty in a developing country like Nigeria.

Keywords: Benefits and risks; Genetic engineering; Food aid; Developing countries.
INTRODUCTION

Genetically modified foods (GMFs) are most commonly used to refer to crop plants
created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These
plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance
to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally
been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time
consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create
plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly with great accuracy. Genetically modified products
include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds and fibres.
Genetic engineering technology has revolutionary potential in agriculture, for it allows
one to design a plant to one’s desire. In this way, it may seem entirely different from previously
existing agricultural technologies. However, this is not quite true, for humans have practiced
selective breeding for thousands of years. One aspect of genetic engineering which has been used
for centuries is the selective breeding of crop plants and farm animals to produce improved food.
Clearly, genetic engineering is merely a refined version of selective breeding, just another step in
the long tradition of improvements in agriculture. The only real difference between the two
methods is the possibility in genetic engineering of mixing genes between species.

I. NEW TECHNOLOGY – GENETIC MODIFICATION

1. What are genes?
Genes are made of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid). A gene is a unit of
hereditary material, which carries the information to produce protein(s) that
determines the characteristics of an organism. Plants and animals, from which
foods are derived, have thousands of genes in their cells.
Genetic modification
Genetic modification can be defined as a set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup
of living organisms such as animals, plants or bacteria. Although ‘biotechnology’ and ‘genetic
modification’ are commonly used interchangeably, biotechnology is a more general term, which
refers to using living organisms or their components such as enzymes, to make products that
include wine, cheese, beer and yougurt . The aim of genetic modification is “to isolate single genes
of known functions from one organism and transfer copies to a new host (in this case plant or food
crops) to introduce desirable characteristics”. The increased power of genetic breeding over
selective breeding allows a large number of applications, some of which are still in development.
One of the common uses of genetic engineering is to introduce herbicide resistance into plants.
Another is in making plants hardier or more productive; in particular, one can insert disease
resistance or the ability to grow in harsh environments. A third use is in the modification of crops
so that their produce lasts longer on the shelf. DNA is extracted from an organism and a specific
gene isolated through the use of restriction endonucleases, which cut DNA at specific points. The
resulting food produced through the process of genetic modification is said to be “genetically
modified”, “genetically engineered” or “transgenic”. The process of genetic modification is known
by many names such as gene manipulation, gene splicing, etc. There are basically two methods of
genetic modification which are the traditional breeding, and recombinant DNA technology
methods.
Genetically modified foods
The advent of GMFs came with the birth of genetic engineering. In the 1960s, a lot of
breakthroughs were recorded in the field of genetics. It was proven that this new knowledge had
the potential to revolutionalize food production, thus creating huge benefits for the world. By 1972,
another scientific breakthrough was recorded by Paul Berg, who joined together DNA from two
different organisms, to create the first recombinant DNA molecule. This breakthrough was
followed by a pioneer study in which Stanley Cohen and Robert Boyer inserted DNA from an
African clawed toad into the Escherichia coli bacterium. Shortly, after then, some companies
realized that this fledging technology could open up new highly profitable markets.
The first field trial of genetically modified organism was in 1986 when Frost ban, a spray
containing genetically modified bacteria was sprayed over strawberry crops to protect them from
frost damage. Frost ban was designed to stop the growth of other bacteria that catalyze the
formation of ice. In 1992, a Supreme Court ruling in the United States made the patenting of life-
forms of genetically modified foods legal. Following this, the first genetically engineered products
became available in the US markets in 1994. The Flavr Savr tomato that had been gene-altered for
longer shelf-life and milk from dairy cows injected with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone
(rBGH or rBST) causing them to produce more milk were two of the first GMFs available to
consumers. In the case of the slow-ripening Flavr SavrTM , scientists knew that a type of enzyme
causes tomatoes to soften as they ripen. When they isolated the gene responsible for the softening
enzyme and insets it backwards into the tomato’s genetic code, the resulting tomato maintained
good eating quality for a longer time than regular tomatoes. Hence the Flavr SavrTM tomato was
genetically engineered to keep it firm for a long period of time and it was a big hit with the
consumers. Calgene, the company that produced the genetically modified tomato was overcome
by a flawed business plan and the Flavr SavrTM tomato eventually disappeared from supermarket
shelves. Despite this, the Flavr Savr tomato helped the United States consumers to accept
genetically modified foods. By the year 2000, as much as 75% of the foods in American
supermarkets had ingredients from GE crops. Such foods include cereals, baby foods, corn and
soy products, cooking oils, squash and tomatoes.

Herbicide-tolerant crops are engineered to survive the application of a powerful herbicide

that would kill a non-engineered crop, making it easier for farmers to use more herbicide to control
nearby weeds. Insect-resistant crops are engineered with an insecticidal protein from a soil
bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis that kills certain insect pests when they eat the leaves or grain of
the plant. Four crops that have been genetically engineered for insect-resistance and herbicide
tolerance include corn, cotton, canola and soybean. Crops in development include soybeans with
higher protein content; potatoes with more nutritionally available starch and with improved amino
acid content; pulses such as beans which have been altered to produce essential amino acids; crops
which produce beta-carotene; and crops with a modified fatty acid profile. Different types of
peppers and melons with improved flavour are currently in field trials. Flavour can also be
improved by enhancing the activity of plant enzymes which transform aroma precursors into
flavouring compounds.
In addition to the use of biotechnology in the production of GM crops, the technique can
also be used to create genetically modified animals. But developments of this application may be
slow due to the greater difficulties in animal genetic engineering and to the social and ethical
concerns of consumers about the animal food applications of biotechnology. Nevertheless, some
genetically modified food animals are under consideration for approval and marketing. An
example is a salmon that that grows to marketable size more rapidly than regular salmon. Most
GM animal research is for medical applications, as in the case of the cloned sheep “Dolly”, where
scientists are investigating cystic fibrosis disease.
 Today, GM foods are common, especially in the United States. In many parts of the world,
farmers have embraced genetically modified crops so enthusiastically that the global area of
genetically modified crops has increased 30-folds in six years. Only five countries have embraced
and introduced genetically modified crops, they include Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China and the
United States.
What are the examples of GM crops/foods?
GM foods available on the market come in many forms. Some are whole foods like crops,
but most are processed foods. The characteristics of the GM crops/foods currently available on
the market are similar to their traditional counterparts, except they may have the advantages of
being more resistant to herbicides or insects, reducing wastage of production, etc. Some examples
of GM foods are -
CROP GM TRAIT COMMON FOOD PRODUCTS
SOYA Herbicide Soy beverages, tofu, soy oil, soy flour,
BEAN tolerance emulsifiers
(i.e. lecithin), and as ingredients in
breads, pastries

and edible oil.

Corn oil, flour, sugar or syrup, and as

CORN Insect resistance ingredients in
Herbicide snacks, bakery products, confectionery
tolerance and soft drinks.

Delay softening of
TOMATO tissue Tomato puree and tomato juice.
What are the differences between genetic modification and traditional breeding?
Both genetic modification and traditional breeding involve altering the genetic make-up of
living organisms so as to produce the desired traits. However, the two techniques have the
following differences -
GENETIC MODIFICATION
isolation and transfer of well-defined genes
introduction of desired genes across the species barrier
faster and less costly
desired changes can be achieved in one generation
TRADITIONAL BREEDING
Crossing of thousands of genes at one time
Gene transfer usually within species
More time consuming in the process of observation and natural selection to achieve the
desired characteristics
 CHAPTER TWO
The benefits and risks of GMFs
With such great potential benefits came also potential harms and the debate over whether
or not to pursue genetic modification of foods is a passionate one. The potential harms of
genetically modified foods include its impact on human health (allergens, transfer of antibiotic
resistance markers), potential environmental impact (unintended transfer of transgenes through
pollination, loss of flora and fauna diversity), tampering with nature by mixing genes among
species, violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values, biopiracy, among others.
HEALTH
According to Hammer, GMFs have great potential as a relatively cheap source of human
therapeutics, especially for developing countries. Researchers believe that banana or any fruit that
is eaten raw could be genetically engineered to vaccinate against a wide range of diseases,
providing cheap sources of protection. A good example is the production of a blood anticoagulant
in canola fruit. Scientists have genetically engineered a variety of rice (golden rice) that could
prevent a form of blindness. Over 250million people worldwide are exposed to the risk of
permanent blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency. Golden rice could remedy this risk because
it contains a daffodil gene that produces beta-carotene. This pigment forms vitamin A when
absorbed by the human body and gives the rice its yellowish colour – hence the name “Golden
Rice. Monsanto , a multinational corporation and the world’s leading producer of GM crops asserts
that the biofortification of rice with beta-carotene (a precursor to vitamin and iron will reduce the
incidence of malnutrition and blindness due to vitamin A deficiency as well as reduce infant
mortality in developing countries . The Agri-biotech industry also purports that agriceutical
vaccines currently being developed will be much easier and less expensive to administer via
vaccine-containing food and will therefore facilitate the protection of millions of people in
developing countries against virulent life-threatening diseases. A recent study demonstrated that
when mice were fed potato tubers genetically modified to express Hepatitis B surface antigen, they
(the mice) showed a primary immune response by producing the antibody specific to that antigen.
Hence the desired effect of improved immunity may have been achieved through genetic
engineering. Foods could also be engineered to be healthier for the consumer; for example, plant
breeders have introduced a bacterial gene into potato plants which increases the proportion of
starch in the tubers whilst reducing their water content. This means that the potatoes absorb less
fat during frying, giving low-fat chips. Sweeter potatoes have also been produced which have
higher sucrose content than traditional varieties. Both rapeseed and sunflower are being altered to
produce more stable and nutritious oils, which contain linolenic acid and have lower saturated fat
content. Rapeseed has also been modified to produce a high-temperature frying oil in low saturated
fat.

Agriculture

Foods can be improved by making the process of producing them easier for the farmers or
growers. This improvement can be achieved by providing the plants with genes for pest and disease
resistance, reduced maturation time, increased yield, and increased tolerance to a wider range of
climatic conditions or by making the foods more attractive to the consumers. Crops are difficult to
raise for different reasons; for example, strawberries are not very frost hardy which makes them
difficult to grow in certain climates. An anti-freeze gene from cold-water fish has been introduced
into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate
cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings. Years ago it was discovered that
the Arctic flounder produces an anti-freeze to protect itself in Arctic waters. Research is now
underway to introduce the antifreeze gene into fruits and vegetables like strawberries and
soybeans, which can be damaged or destroyed by frost.
Cultivation of genetically modified crops that are resistant to pests or diseases could reduce
the reliance of agriculture on chemical sprays. While this makes the crop easier and cheaper to
grow for the farmers, it also means that other indirect costs of spraying with chemical pesticides
are eliminated. Another area of genetic modification is the introduction of herbicide resistance into
plants. This allows the farmers to spray herbicides liberally on their crops, killing all the weeds
but none of the crops. A good example of this is the “Roundup Ready” soybeans, which is resistant
to the herbicide ‘Round up’. McGloughlin reported that genetically modified crops allow the
possibility of farming in poor soil or with much less use of fertilizer. Hence, there is conservation
of soil and energy.
However, genetically modified crops may interbreed with closely related weedy species,
thus making these weeds to become resistant to some of the specific herbicides. Such weeds are
referred to as “super weeds”. It is also speculated that the genetically modified crops for herbicide
resistance may become weeds due to their resistance to herbicides if they are allowed to escape
the confines of the paddock.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Carpenter and Gianessi reported that the opponents of biotechnology usually argue that
the adoption of genetically modified crops will lead to decrease in plant biodiversity, thus reducing
the sustainability of the planet. It is possible that if insect-resistant plants cause increased death in
one particular pest, it may decrease competition and invite minor pests to become a major problem.
In addition, it could cause the pest population to shift to another plant population that was once
unthreatened. GM herbicide tolerant crops allow farmers to apply “broad spectrum” weed killers
to their field, which kill other plants. There is the concern that this will continue the decline of
farmland wildlife because the use of these GM crops could lead to the removal of weeds from all
crops in the normal arable rotation. Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide
tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes
from the crops into the weeds. These “super weeds” would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other
introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. Another
possible impact of GM foods on the environment is the possibility of residues from herbicides or
pest resistant crops to harm key groups of organisms found in surrounding soil, such as bacteria,
fungi, nematodes and other microorganisms.
ECONOMY
Generally, GMFs are cheaper to produce than their natural counterparts. This is because
the process of genetic modification has minimized some of the cost especially on pest control on
the field and during storage. Since GMFs are produced by farmers at cheaper rates, the relief will
be passed on to the consumers who will purchase the produce at cheaper rates. Another benefit of
genetically modified plants is the reduction in the price of certain medicines that are produced
from them. Unfortunately, the benefits of GMFs to the economy are not as great as they may seem.
It is a well known fact in economics that, in a perfectly competitive market of agriculture, the high
profits earned by farmers in the short run will eventually pass to the consumers, causing the farmers
to earn less money in the long run . Consequently, the economic evaluation of the farmers’ situation
yields a number of potential costs and benefits but no conclusive recommendations. Hence, both
consumers and farmers are at the mercy of the world market. Currently, the United States and
Canada are by far the major producers of genetically modified foods, with very few other countries
participating.
Genetically modified foods in Nigeria
Before the oil boom, Nigeria was generating foreign exchange from crops like cocoa,
kola, groundnut e.t.c and farming was a factor part of productivity in the country. The oil boom
saw agriculture decline over the years, leaving every citizen to depend on annual budget based on
oil sales and depending on day-to-day expenditure based on the parallel market. Presently,
Nigerian agriculture is facing the growing encroachment of urbanization, industrial expansion, and
an expanding transport infrastructure. Deforestation and cultivation in fragile ecosystems is also
leading to soil degradation. Consequent upon these challenges on agriculture, Nigeria imports a
lot of things especially food from other countries.

An investigation carried out by Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth on the

potential presence of GM ingredients in Nigeria has found food aid as one of the potential channels.
Nigeria is in principle not a food aid recipient, but continues to receive rice from the United States
as food aid. In 2003, Nigeria received 11,000. 6 metric tones of soy meal as food aid from the US
Food for Progress programme. Taking into account that over 80% of soy beans in the US are
genetically modified, it is therefore likely that Nigeria has been receiving GMFs without prior
information to the government and the people. Another source of potential introduction of GMF
is through commercial imports of food containing ingredients from corn and soy. It has been
reported that China may release genetically modified rice into the market in 2006. With the bulk
of rice consumed in Nigeria coming from Asia, it is a matter of time before genetically modified
rice from China floods Nigerian markets.

The International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, Nigeria is making
efforts to prevent the outbreak of virulent Cassava Mosaic Disease in Nigeria, which could lead to
food shortages in the country. GM cassava was created at the Donald Danforth Centre in St. Louis,
United States and sent to Nigeria for experimentation through IITA. However, the application to
test the GM cassava was withdrawn by IITA due to its failure to achieve the required resistance to
cassava mosaic disease.
 The genetic modification of foods makes excellent economic sense for the major
agribusiness and food corporations and has been strongly backed by them. Some of the biggest
names in the food business openly use genetically modified components, while others will not
disclose whether they use them or not. Such companies include Arnotts, Cadburys, Coca-cola,
Coles and Woolworths’ house brands, Golden Circle and Nestle. Already, Nigeria has drafted a
biosafety law allowing the use of GMF technology, which the National legislature is yet to
approve. The country also does not have any policy on the importation of GMF, unlike some
African nations such as Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho and Zambia, which have banned the
import of GMFs.
 CHAPTER THREE
Benefits of application of genetic engineering
Genetic engineering is relatively a new laboratory technique used by scientists to change the
DNA of living organism. It has already supplied us with products that alleviate illness, clean up
the environment, and increased crop and livestock yields. It also helped to create thousands of
organisms and processes useful in medicine, research, and manufacturing. Genetically engineered
bacteria churn out insulin for treating human diabetes, production of which would be substantially
more expensive without the use of genetic engineering.
The number of organisms used in genetic engineering research is steadily increasing, as is the
number of types of animals being used in the research. Genetically engineered organisms are used
in many different sectors today, including agriculture, biomedical research, and animal farming.
Farm animals are modified to increase productivity and reduce costs for farmers. Pigs are
engineered to have less fat, fish are being modified to grow larger more rapidly. Genetic
engineering holds the promise of creating new, more productive strains of farm animals for meat
and milk production. These new strains may be more resistant to infections, reducing the need for
large, unhealthy doses of antibiotics. They may also be engineered to produce more meat, so we
need not slaughter as many animals, or they may produce milk or other products with vital nutrients
otherwise not found in those products, ensuring a healthier source of such nutrients
Risks of application of genetic engineering
Since the technology plays with living organisms, interacting with other living organisms the
risks involved are inherently more dangerous and unpredictable than experiments using chemicals.
Because of the unpredictable nature of living organisms, once a GMO has been released into the
environment, it is impossible to control. Genetically modified organisms are living organisms and
therefore, unlike chemicals that may become diluted, GMOs have the potential to disperse to new
habitats, colonize those sites, and multiply. Their novel activities, including the production of
metabolic products, enzymes and toxins will occur as long as the GMOs remain metabolically
active. Once established, living organisms cannot be recalled .
One risk associated with genetic engineering is that it is based on the idea that each trait of an
organism is encoded in a single, specific gene, and that the transfer of that specific gene will also
cause the transfer of the sought-after attribute. However, genes cannot be regarded as separate
entities. They are all related, and they are all influenced by many factors including the external
environment. This means that even though a gene may be related to a specific characteristic in one
organism, it may not produce the same trait in another species or even in another organism of the
same species. Therefore, it is almost impossible to predict the effect that transferring a specific
gene will have on the individual to which it is transferred.

a) Risks to biodiversity
The introduction of genetically modified plants into the environment may have devastating
effects on biodiversity. Birds, insects, and other animals that are dependent on certain crops for
survival may find themselves unable to eat the genetically engineered crops due to the introduced
gene or modification [9]. They may be allergic to the new traits, or find them poisonous. Therefore,
these animals would have to find other sources of food, or face starvation. This would impact the
entire food chain and the predator-prey relationships. The introduction of a modified organism into
the environment may cause the displacement of indigenous fauna and flora [14]. If the new strain
is superior to the parent strain, it may take over the habitat or eliminate the wild
b) Risks of genetically modified foods
Since the reason behind genetic engineering is basically to improve the quality of human lives,
it is important to discuss the potential adverse effects that genetic engineering may have on human
beings. Genetic material can enter the human body through food, bacteria, viruses, vaccines and
medications. Most GMO sourced foods have a marker gene inserted in them along with the gene
representing the desired trait. According to theses authors, if the marker genes were transferred
successfully, the organism will exhibit a new resistance to particular antibiotics. Problems could
arise for humans who eat food with these genes in them, particularly if they are unaware of the
presence of the gene. The antibiotic resistance gene could reduce the effectiveness of any
antibiotics that the person happens to be taking at the time they are eating the product. Also, if
people are constantly eating food with antibiotic resistance genes in them, they could develop a
resistance to antibiotics as well. There is a risk that the nutritional quality of genetically modified
food will be lower than that of unmodified foods.
In addition to the potential problems caused by marker genes and decreasing nutritional
quality, genetically modified organisms may cause allergies in many people. If people are not fully
aware of the nature of the food that they are eating, they may consume substances which are
harmful to them. Even if a person knows that s/he should avoid a specific substance, he may not
be aware that the insertion of a new gene into the product has caused the expression of a similar
substance. For example, people would not expect meat genes to be inserted into tomato. If a person
were allergic to meat, he may also be allergic to the tomato, without realizing that it is the same
substance causing the allergic reaction. For this reason, it is important that genetically modified
foods be clearly labeled.

Concerns about eating GMOs can also arise for religious reasons. According to Chaudry and
Regenstein, some of the potential controversies that consuming such foods would create for
religious persons who observe dietary laws. Jewish law (Halacha) accepts genetic engineering to
increase the quality or quantity of the world's food supply. But within the Muslim world no need
for genetic modification of food crops because God created everything perfectly and man does not
have any right to manipulate anything that God has created using His divine wisdom. Whereas in
Christianity, no overarching consensus on the permissibility of GM technology, performing of GM
research, or consumption of GM foods.

Consumers’ attitude to GMOs

Despite the potential benefits there is a sizeable consumer opposition to genetically modified
foods and other biotechnologies. Public attitudes to the biotechnologies are related to risk. It would
be comforting to think that views were made on rational evaluation of the science, but usually they
are made on values and emotion. A survey of attitudes in United Kingdom (UK) to genetic
modification of foods found 70% of those questioned thought it was morally wrong. The figure
was somewhat less in a United States (US) survey (45%). However, with greater exposure of the
topic in recent years, public concern seems to have increased more.
According to the survey conducted by Biotechnology and the European Public Concerted
Action Group, over 16,000 people in the European Union for their opinions about the use of
biotechnology for genetic testing, production of medicines and vaccines, increasing crop pest
resistance, food production, developing genetically modified animals for ethics, transgenesis and
xenotransplantation. Although all of these applications of biotechnology were thought to be useful,
the last three, which involve genetic manipulation of animals, were viewed negatively. Perception
of risk appeared to play relatively little role in this judgment, except in the case of food production.
What was most important was whether or not the application of the technology was felt to be
morally acceptable. The committee that interpreted the survey concluded that the results indicated
that perceived usefulness was a precondition for support and that people were prepared to accept
some risks for those benefits, but that moral doubts acted as a veto irrespective of views on risks
and benefits.
According to Sandoe and Holtung, similar views were aired at a consensus conference held
in Copenhagen in 1992. The welfare of genetically engineered animals was a major concern of the
participants, but they also thought it morally unacceptable to induce genetic changes in animals in
order to adjust the animals to existing agricultural methods or to produce cheaper food. Likewise,
Hoban and Kendall surveyed approximately 1300 adults in the USA followed by focus group
discussions revealed that, while most believed that biotechnology would be personally beneficial
to them, 53% also believed that it was morally wrong to use biotechnology to change animals,
while only 24% believed that changing plants was wrong. The least acceptable applications of
biotechnology were those that changed the composition of meat or milk, or increased animal
growth rates. In the focus groups, women were particularly concerned about the humane treatment
of animals and animal welfare issues arising from biotechnology.

Ethical concern in genetic engineering

Genetic engineering of a living organism may for a variety of reasons be thought of as being
morally problematic in itself, i.e. due to its mode of production or to its source of genetic material
be perceived as wrong or morally at least dubious. But genetic engineering may also be thought of
as morally problematic because of its consequences. Kaiser argued that all variants of intrinsic
arguments against animal biotechnology could be summarized in the following claim: It is
unnatural to genetically engineer plants, animals and foods. The commonly most well-known
argument of this sort is the so-called “Playing God-argument”. The basic assumption of the
argument is the following: God has drawn up invisible boundaries between the realm of God and
the realm of humans. Those that transcend this boundary are guilty of hubris, i.e. excessive pride.
Obviously, any such argument would also be dependent on the more specific assumptions of a
religion concerning the relation of God, humans and animals. The problem is to know where this
boundary is. One version of the Playing God-argument holds that it is morally wrong to break
down naturally occurring boundaries between different species, and another holds that it is morally
wrong to modify living nature.

As stated by Partridge also stated that, environmental ethics is concerned with responsible
personal conduct towards the environment, natural landscapes, natural resources, and all species
and nonhuman organisms. According to this author, it is important to keep environmental ethics
in mind when discussing genetic engineering, as many of the arguments against genetic
engineering have to do with whether it is ‘right’ to modify organisms and the natural environment.

CONCLUSION
Agriculture and medical industry are two major applications of genetic engineering.
Agriculture particularly modifying plant varieties greatly benefits from genetic engineering.
Though the slogan of genetic engineering is ‘feeding the world and sustainability’, there are many
arguments in favor use of genetic engineering in the future. Consumers have raised a series of
concerns and uncertainties with regard to human health, environment, and animal welfare, moral
and religious acceptances. Since genetic engineering risks involved are not well understood. The
risks related to the GMOs should be studied in detail and accessed by the public. Governments in
all countries should have regulations on safety issues, labelling and traceability of GMOs.
REFERENCES
(1) Dennis ES, Ellis J, Green A, Llewellyn D, Morell M, Tabe L, and Peacock W. Genetic
contributions to agricultural sustainability. Phil Trans R Soc B, 2008; 363: 445-446.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2172. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)
(2) Hefferon, Kathleen L. “Nutritionally enhanced food crops; progress and perspectives.” Int
J Mol Sci. 2015; 16(2):3895-3914. http://doi:10.3390/ijms16023895.
(3) Epstein R. Redesigning the World: Ethical Questions about Genetic Engineering." Ethical
Issues in Biotechnology.
(4) Richard Sherlock and John D. Morrey, eds. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford:
Rowman and Littlefield, 2002, pp.47-70. http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/Redesigning.htm
(5) Bailey, J. Genetic modification of animals: Scientific and ethical issues. In Animal
Experimentation: Working towards a Paradigm Change, 2019. 443-479.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_020.
(6) Bawa AS and Anilakumar KR. Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public
concerns-a review. J Food Sci Technol, 2013; 50; 1035-1046. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-012-
0899-1.
(7) Lassen J, Madsen KH and Sandoe P 2002. Ethics and genetic engineering – Lessons to be
learned from GM foods. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng, 2002; 24:263-271.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s004490100262.
(8) Holy Bible English version. Deut 14:8. https://www.biblica.com/bible/
(9) Wong MS, Hawthorne WJ, and Manolios N. Gene therapy in diabetes. Self Nonself, 2010;
1:165–175. http://doi.org/10.4161/self.1.3.12643
(10) Louis-Marie Houdebine. Impacts of genetically modified animals on the ecosystem and
human activities, Global Bioethics, 25:1, 3-18, https://doi.org/11287462.2014.894709.
(11) Van Eenennaam AL. GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits
in regulatory evaluations. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2013; 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-1891-
4-37.
(12) Prakash D, Verma S, Bhatia R, and Tiwary BN. Risks and Precautions of Genetically
Modified Organisms. ISRN Ecology, 2011. https://doi.org/10.5402/2011/369573.
(13) Dhan Prakash, Sonika Verma, Ranjana Bhatia, and B. N. Tiwary, “Risks and Precautions
of Genetically Modified Organisms,” ISRN Ecology, 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2011/369573.
(14) Kathryn E, Kemper, Mike E, Goddard. Understanding and predicting complex traits:
knowledge from cattle. Hum Mol Genet, 2012; 21: 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/dds332.
(15) Bob BM. Wong and Candolin U. Behavioral responses to changing environments. Behav
Ecol, 2015; 26:665-673. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru183.
(16) Taire M Genetically modified foods, keeping the peace in Liberia [Internet]. 2003 [access
2006 dec 11]. Available from: http:// www.checkbiotech.org.
(17) Whitman DB. Genetically modified foods: harmful or helpful? An Overview. CSA. (2000).
(18) Fernandez-Cornejo J, McBride W. Adoption of bioengineered crops. United States
Department of Agriculture [Internet]. 2002 [access 2006 dec 11]. Available from: http:/
/www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/.
(19) Okonko IO, Olabode OP, Okeleji OS The role of biotechnology in the socio-economic
advancement and national development: an overview. African Journal of Biotechnology.
2006;5(19):2354-66.
(20) Webber GD. Genetically engineered fruits and vegetables. United States Department of
Agriculture. [Internet]. 2002 [access 2006 dec 11]. Available from: http://www.nal.usda.gov/
bic/Education_res/iastate.info/bio8.html.