Biology

These two essays contain important information that presents opposing views on the issue of biotechnology.  The arguments presented in these two essays present good information that can influence policy making. Critical assessment of the two essays reveals that they present a cycle of information that has been widely circulated and which is being used in the open public to make informed decision on genetic engineering. However, they are deficient of authentication in the sense that they express personal review rather that scientific data. The two essays are based on what individuals feel about genetic engineering but they rarely gives factual scientific backing under which policy formulation will be based on.

One key point that incorporates the view of the two essays is that the world is in need of the increased food demand.  The two essays reveal that the population is growing very fast and this is creating need for increased food production but the point of controversy is how this food need will be met. While one roots for genetically modified foods, the other roots for increasing food productivity through the convention means.

Indra K. Vasil roots for deregulation of the genetic modified food production to ensure that the world enjoy more food.  United States is among the countries that have stringent regulation on genetic engineering in face of rising criticism of genetic engineering. These measures are meant to ensure that there is a check up in biotechnology. It was seen as a measure by the government to ensure that there was enough research evidence to prove safety of the technology before the public was given the green light to use the technology. Phase deregulation therefore means that everyone would be at liberty to grow and market foods that have been produced using biotechnology. This may pose a challenge because there are segment in the population opposed to genetically modified foods and who would not be willing to compromise safety in conventional food production means. On the other hand, a complete ban on genetic engineering would bring to a sudden halt to the exploration of food production through the technology which means years of effort and financial expenses would be drained to waste.  Since it has not been proved whether genetic engineering is safe or not, it means the country would be doing away with a technology that would solve food crisis issue. In face of the ranging debate on the issues, it is evident that genetic engineering raises controversies and since it safety has not been guaranteed, it would be better to impose a temporary ban on GE products until such a time in the future that its safety is asses. This will provide government and policy makers with time to evaluate the technology and therefore make an information decision on its safety to humans and to the environment.

From the above websites, there are a number of strategies that have been taken to look into the issue of genetic engineering. According to truefood.org (2010) a court case is presented which shows the legal suite calling for ban of growth of GE foods. On another website, Union of Concerned Scientist (2010) calls for increase research through liaison with universities to ensure safety of GE foods is established before any step can be taken. This reason seems more realistic but only when there is a temporary ban on GE to allow for research. These sources are not reliable since they present biased views based on the orientation of the organization giving the information. Organization supporting GE calls for increased use of GE, while those opposed calls for a ban.  From the above review, my viewpoint against GE has not changed because there is not conclusive evidence that show the impact of GE foods. There is no research that shows the long term effects of GE and forms my knowledge on endangered world ecologies, I believe GE poses more danger to world environment and improvements can be made on the convention food production methods rather than risk environment with GE.