More handpicked essays just for you.
Genetically modified organisms in our world today
Genetically modified organisms in our world today
Genetically modified organisms in our world today
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In animal agriculture today, manure that is produced by hogs has the potential to do a lot
of damage in the form of pollution; but rather than let this abundant resource go to waste, why not just fix it? Enviropig—a genetically modified hog programmed to have reduced levels of phosphorus in its feces— could be one of the first steps toward fertilizer that won’t have as large of an impact on our planet, while keeping our crops growing and our store shelves stocked. I believe that this transgenic animal provides our farmers with the best of both worlds: reducing their environmental footprint and maintaining economic stability; although its production is controversial, the moral obligation to do our best to keep our planet fit for future generations
…show more content…
makes Enviropig a valuable organism. The negative environmental effects of agriculture have been well documented, particularly the effect that farm runoff can have on surrounding ecosystems. Excess Nitrogen and Phosphorous, as a result of certain industrial and agricultural processes, leads directly to eutrophication of freshwater sources—the case of excess nutrients in water leading to blooms of algae and dead zones. While the breakdown and release of these two elements can occur naturally, humans have greatly increased their introduction into the environment. For example, soy bean production is a leading cause of Nitrogen release, which can soak into the groundwater. On top of that, fertilizers—particularly those made from hog feces due to their diet—contain very high levels of phosphorous and contribute even more to the runoff pollution when used to boost agricultural gains (Carpenter, 2008). This quickly becomes an endless cycle of dumping detrimental substances into our precious water supply in an attempt to keep up with growing Elliott Rinke BIO 300 TR 10:00-11:47 demand for food. In order for this cycle to be broken, some intermediary needs to be introduced that can fix this pollution problem. In animal agriculture, normal pigs are fed a diet composing mostly of cereal grains. In this feed, 60-80% of the total phosphate present is in the form of phytate which can only be broken down in the presence of the enzyme phytase. The problem arises in that the average hog does not naturally produce this enzyme; only in countries like the US, where there are restrictions on Phosphorous excretion in manure, do farmers supplement these pigs with phytase enzymes (Kornegay, 2001). But what if we introduced the gene that produces this enzyme into the pig genome? Enviropig is a genetically modified organism initially developed by Serguei Golovan and other scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.
These reseachers extracted the Escherichia coli gene that produces phytase in E. Coli bacteria and attached this gene to a Mus musculus—house mouse—gene called a parotid secretory protein promoter. This mouse gene is a protein associated with secreting digestive enzymes from the salivary glands of mice, and can be used in pigs in the same fashion; by linking these two genes together and inserting it into the genome of a pig, the scientists hypothesized that a transgenic pig should have the ability to secrete the E. Coli phytase enzyme in their saliva to break down phytate into accessible phosphorous. These researchers tested their hypothesis by producing 33 transgenic piglets, 14 of which were capable of producing significant amounts of phytase in their salivary glands. These piglets were then crossed to make subsequent generations for transgenic pigs, which had an even higher capability to produce salivary phytase. These pigs were then tested on their ability to utilize phytase by testing the concentration of phosphorus in their feces. Transgenic pigs in …show more content…
the Elliott Rinke BIO 300 TR 10:00-11:47 second generation were shown to have between 64 and 67% less phosphorous when compared to non-transgenic pigs eating the same non-supplemented feed. In order for a non-transgenic pig to reach this level of reduced phosphorus excretion, farmers would have to feed it large quantities of extremely expensive phytase supplements—and even then the supplemented pig would still be about 25% less efficient (Golovan et al, 2001). By introducing these genes into the pig DNA these researchers have found a way to both increase the regulation of phosphorus excretion and decrease the cost of raising pigs from birth to slaughter. They successfully created the intermediary that will allow us to preserve our environment while not placing a financial burden on our agricultural workers. So problem solved, right? Unfortunately, as with many other Genetically Modified Organisms, the public is turned off by the idea of Enviropig. GMOs conjure the idea of mad scientists trying to play God, a realm that most believe science should steer clear from. Others hear about GMOs and picture giant corporations trying to destroy the small businesses across the country. Some people around the world want GMOs to be removed as an option in their supermarkets. For example, in 2005 the citizens of Switzerland voted to instill a 5 year moratorium on the cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms and the import of transgenic animals (Abbott, 2008). This distrust of GMOs, whether founded on fact or opinion, may lead to the end for the Enviropig endeavor. While the research has been backed by consistent fact, the main firm backing the financial aspect of Enviropig’s development—Ontario Pork—has ended its funding because the transgenic pig hasn’t taken hold in the food industry after 5 years of research. In order for research to continue, Enviropig would have to be approved for consumption and Elliott Rinke BIO 300 TR 10:00-11:47 demand must increase (Nature, 2005). Another obstacle in the commercializing of Enviropig is the safety of its meat as a result of its modification. The inventors of this organism claimed that the necessary safety measures for Enviropig’s commercialization were five-parted: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Safety of the transferred DNA with regards to species to species transfer from E. Coli to pigs and then potentially to humans, as well as the its toxicity when consumed. The toxicity of increased levels of phytase in the diet, and how this could potentially lead to unintended effects, such as allergies. How similar Enviropig’s meat is to that of non-transgenic pork in the most basic compounds. How well the nutritional value is retained between generations of transgenic manipulation, which is linked to how similar the composition of the meat is. The exposure of this meat to the human diet, and how it could potentially alter metabolic functions. (Forsberg, 2005) The Food conclude that Enviropig is in fact safe for humans to consume before the organism would even be considered for sale; it is at this point that the ethics of transgenic meat production would come into consideration as public opinion would have to drive the demand for this product. I believe that, if it were deemed safe to consume in all five of these aspects by the FDA, the development and application of Enviropig in worldwide pork production is a worthwhile endeavor. By engineering these pigs to produce phytase from their salivary glands, farmers will be killing two huge birds with one stone: meeting environmental standards of phosphorus runoff and reducing long term costs by preventing the necessity of repeated supplementation of phytase and Drug Administration (FDA) would have to perform tests on all of these parts and Elliott Rinke BIO 300 TR 10:00-11:47 within their feed.
As long as all dietary safety measures are met completely, the moral obligation to preserving our planet for future generations is, in my opinion. far greater than any potential moral issues that arise in the creation of this organism.
In conclusion, Enviropig is a genetically modified organism created through the infusion of E. Coli phytase—linked to a salivary secretory gene of Mus musculus, the house mouse—into the genetic sequence of the common pig. By doing this these pigs are now able to break down their main source of dietary phosphorus, phytate, and subsequently excrete nearly 70% less fecal phosphorus for no increased agricultural cost. The main issues associated with this transgenic organism lie in the complicated safety testing that would need to be performed and the public perception of ingesting meat that has been modified in any way, as well as the moral issues that arise with altering animal design. In my opinion, however, the moral obligation to decrease mankind’s negative impact on Earth is of greater importance than these moral issues, and Enviropig is a great asset in fixing many of our problems with pollution and climate
change.
In his article “Boss Hog: The Dark Side of America’s Top Pork Producer,” (Rolling Stone Magazine, December 14, 2006) Jeff Teitz reports that not only are millions upon millions of pigs being abused and slaughtered each year by America’s largest pork producer, but, in turn, the waste produced by those pigs is polluting, destroying, and even killing others. Teitz begins by revealing that Smithfield Foods, the world’s most profitable pork processor, killed 27 million hogs last year, which is roughly equivalent to the entire human populations of America’s thirty-two largest cities. As Teitz delves deeper into statistics, he explains that more fecal matter is produced from half a million pigs at one Smithfield subsidiary than the 1.5 million residents of Manhattan, and in just one year Smithfield’s total waste discharge is enough to fill four Yankee Stadiums.
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Monsanto Company notes that there has been a 12 % population growth over the past decade, leading to higher food demands. The need for stronger fertilizers to sustain high quality products and improved production is critical. Monsanto Company’s products continue to receive widespread criticism and rejection despite their world domination. For instance, in a research by Heinemann, animals fed with genetically modified products were different from those fed with conventional feeds (2). This research provided concrete evidence on genetic modification of these animals
We care so much about what the food is and how it is made that we overlook about where the food had come from. According to the reading selection, “Killing Them with Kindness?” by James McWilliams, an American history professor at Texas State University, states “animals raised in factory farms have qualities that make them worthy of our moral consideration…[and yet, we] continue to ignore the ethical considerations involved in eating meat” (311). This exhibits that when Americans are so engrossed in healthy eating, our morals about animal rights are neglected. Most of what we eat are animals, and animals like we do have emotions, interests, and possibly goals in life. We pay no heed of the animal’s interests and it should not be that way since our interests are no more important just because we are more superior, intelligent beings should not give us the right to perceive animals in such a manner. In addition to paying notice of the origin of where the animals come from, we need to be aware of what killing animals will do to the earth. In the TedTalk, “What’s Wrong with the Way We Eat,” Mark Bittman states “10 billion animals are killed each year for food and they represent 18% of the harmful greenhouse gasses” (Bittman). This reveals that our careless consumption would not only lead to the suffering of animal deaths but the suffering of our world and our imminent death. As we increase our progression with our unhealthy obsession over healthy eating, there will not be any positive effects for the body, the animals around us, or the world. If we were to be conscious about the source of our food and the consequence of eating then we will be able to eat healthily and
...y cattle are responsible for the largest amount of manure production amongst farm animals (see Table 1) (para. ).
All of the livestock being raised throughout the world produce enormous amounts of manure and urine, which in turn pollute natural resources. Animal waste changes the pH of our water, contaminates our air; and the gases emitted are believed to be a major cause of global warming. To keep costs down, the modern animal farming practice is to raise livestock in feedlots and factory farms where thousands or tens of thousands of animals are crowded into small spaces. However, this makes the animal waste problem worse because of concentrated waste. Livestock in the U.S. produce 2.7 trillion pounds of manure each year. That’s about ten times more waste than was produced by all the American
Bost supports his claim by comparing the process of raising meat to the process of harvesting of crops; he argues both systems have their flaws, in the sense, they produce pollution into the Earth’s atmosphere and kill animals whether it was their intent or not. The author’s purpose is to inform both non meat eaters and meat eaters the ethics of eating any food in general in order to create an understanding of where their food comes from and how their food choices affect the surrounding organisms as well as the environment. The author writes in an objective tone for his audience who may be biased on the issue of the ethics of eating meat or crops, he equally provides the pros and cons of both opposing views and compares the overall effects they have on organisms, in the end Bost advices both sides to reflect on the ethics of eating
Throughout “The Omnivore's Dilemma” Pollan makes it evident that the overall callous nature of the meat industry, harsh living conditions, and the brutal deaths of animals are all in the name of pleasure. Although, He makes good claims as to how these realities of this industry are justified but essentially it is clear that indulging in meat products does sacrifice morals. Morals you may or may not have depending on one's stance on ethics involving the consumption of animals.
Composted cow manure makes garden plants grow great. It has rich strong fertilizer. Usually it is mixed in with the soil or put on top of the dirt. Sometimes if the fertilizer is too limited it cannot make the right amount of heat to get enough nutrients. Although if it is too big, it can't get air very well. In order to give the manure air, you have to turn the pile a lot.
Problems in our world are sometimes more complicated then diagnosis and treatment, some are interactions of ourselves and the world around us. Global warming is an example, as it increasing begins to change the climate, humans need to adjust to prevent our health from deteriorating. Today though our bodies rely on our own modifications to keep up with the rapid change; genetic engineering of ourselves and world has allowed humans to overcome challenges nature throws at us. Humans today must quickly adapt to the new demands and availabilities in our world. If humans were able to make modifications such that our bodies could reject most meats, we would be less reliant on the huge industries that contribute much of the greenhouse gas emissions, also we could avoid contaminants that make us sick. Livestock farming causes 51% of worlds’ greenhouse gas and causes deforestation in order to provide room for the animals. Whether by taking pills or changing the whole DNA sequence from birth, we could make...
People assume that eating factory farmed animals or wild animals are unethical, because humans are capable of thinking morally and making decisions based on that. One may argue that if animals can eat other animals, then it is acceptable for humans to eat other humans. This idea is not true. In nature, the animals ...
There is much to be said about how exactly meat is being produced. In the present day, there are hardly any farms out there that still practice the traditional and environmental - friendly way. Animal agriculture is widely used all over the world and greatly contributes to climate change. Meat production leads to global warming because of the combination of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The process of raising animal is the major source to these harmful gases. It is vital to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change by reducing meat consumption. However stopping this meat eating system is extremely difficult, given that we had been consuming meat ever since our ancestors domesticated animals for that purpose. Over the decade Animal agriculture has been getting worse and worse. In 1973 when the Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz announced ‘’ what we want out of agriculture is plenty of food’’, overproduction was encouraged and lowering the price of meat was carried out; this originally started when there was a massive increase in corn (Wolfson). In order to keep up this mass production of meat, multiple pounds of grains are fed to livestock. Livestock industries depended on corn and soy based food and used over half of the artificial fertilizer used in the United States (McWilliams).
Meat cultivation uses more land, water and resources to house, transport, and slaughter animals and their grain and food than it would cost to fund in vitro meat studies. In April 2008 the In Vitro Consortium first met at the Norwegian Food Research Institute. The consortium is “an international alliance of environmentally concerned scientists striving to facilitate the establishment of a large scale process industry for the production of muscle tissue for human consumption through concerted R&D efforts and attraction of funding fuels to these efforts. ”Meat in both its production and its consumption has a number of destructive effects on not only the environment and humans but also live stock. Some of these effects are antibiotic resistant bacteria due to the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, meat-borne pathogens (e. coli), and diseases associated with diets rich in animal fats (diabetes).
...e Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21.6 (2008): 580-96. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
America focuses heavily on its livestock and crops earning us a major role in global trade as a farming nation. Unfortunately this has led to some poor choices in treatment of our animals. Many farmers who believe in animal rights say that it started back when farmers only tended to fewer animals, “Ownership of farm animals became concentrated in fewer hands, and flocks and herds grew larger. As a result, the individuality of animals was lost to their owners and they began receding from most people's everyday life” (Namit 29). When people lost their connection to the animals that provided their food, the quality of the animal's lives began to dramatically decrease. Consumers constantly pushed farmers to their limits with high quotas. To keep up with demands agriculturalists turned to some unorthodox practices to keep costs low and still maintain their annual quotas; “To raise efficiency and cut costs, farm animals began to be engineered for abnormally rapid weight gain, fed unnatu...