Biosafety Protocol: Is There A Need For One? Essay, Research Paper
Biosafety Protocol: Is There A Need For One?
By John M. Seguin
Outline
Thesis statement: An international biosafety protocol should be created to
set up and keep control over the merchandises designed with biotechnology.
I. The bing Torahs and ordinances that govern the release of
transgenic
beings are unequal or nonexistent.
A. The developed states of the universe are utilizing ordinances
that were designed to command and supervise harvests created with
traditional engineerings.
B. Biotechnology is regulated by three different bureaus.
C. The undeveloped states have virtually no ordinances
regulating transgenic beings.
1. This indicates that biotechnological research can and is
being conducted in these states without ordinance.
2. There are many biotech companies based in developed
states that have subdivisions or joint ventures around
the universe.
II. The possible hazards of transgenic beings to the environment
is still being determined.
A. Some experts warn that there is a danger that biotechnology
can make mutant loanblends.
B. Biotechnology has the possible to harm the economic systems of some
developing states.
C. The last and possible the most of import statement for an
international biosafety protocol is in the name of ignorance
and cautiousness
III. The United States, Germany, Japan, and Australia are the lone
states opposed to the biosafety protocol.
IV. The demand for a alteration in the universe of agribusiness is undeniable.
As the universe moves closer to the twenty-first century, research and development
in the country of biotechnology has increased dramatically. Harmonizing to Bette
Hileman of Chemical and Engineering News, the universe population will increase by
3 billion people in the following 30 old ages while the sum of land available for
agribusiness can non be greatly expanded. & # 8220 ; Biotechnology & # 8211 ; specifically that
facet involved in reassigning cistrons from one species into the [ DNA ] of another
– has the possible to relieve. . . & # 8221 ; ( 8 ) this and many other jobs confronting
the universe in the close hereafter. Even though biotechnology has already shown
dramatic consequences in the creative activity of good transgenic ( genetically
engineered ) species, many states and research workers are & # 8220 ; . . . rather mistrustful about
the utilizations of biotechnology & # 8221 ; ( 8 ) . Therefore, an international biosafety protocol
should be created to set up and keep control over the merchandises designed
with biotechnology.
The bing Torahs and ordinances that govern the release of transgenic
beings are unequal or nonexistent. In general, the developed states of
the universe are utilizing ordinances that were designed to command and supervise harvests
created with traditional engineerings like hybridisation and cross-breeding
( Hileman 8 ) . Pamela Weintraub, of the National Audubon Society, states that
many expected jobs with biotechnology can be kept under control with proper
ordinances, but the ordinances ( where there are any ) government biotechnology
today are & # 8220 ; tangled and vague & # 8221 ; ( 164 ) .
In the United States for illustration, biotechnology is regulated by three
different bureaus: the United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) , the Food
and Drug Administration ( FDA ) , and the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) .
These three bureaus regulate merchandise research and commercialisation of
transgenic beings depending upon their nature and intended usage. The Department of agriculture
regulates transgenic workss grown on a big graduated table. If a merchandise of transgenic
beginning is to be used as a nutrient, so it falls under FDA ordinances. The EPA
has legal power over all transgenic beings that express or map as a
pesticide, and all genetically engineered micro-organism. Because Congress has
elected non to instate a jurisprudence specifically modulating transgenic beings, all
three of these bureaus are utilizing bing ordinances designed for harvests
created by traditional methods. Harmonizing to Bette Hileman of Chemical and
Engineering News, & # 8220 ; Under the bing legal model, environmental releases of
most cistron tically engineered animate beings are basically unregulated & # 8221 ; ( 9 ) .
The undeveloped states on the other manus have virtually no ordinances
regulating transgenic beings. This means that research can and is being
conducted in these states without ordinance to protect the ecology. A
declaration passed by the European Parliament confirmed this when they stated,
& # 8220 ; Deliberate releases of genetically modified beings are being carried out in
many developing states, which have no statute law or substructure to guarantee
their safe usage. . . & # 8220 ; ( Hileman 8 ) . Further cogent evidence that this is taking topographic point is
the velocity with which transgenic harvests are being commercially produced in these
states. China, for illustration, has transgenic veggies engineered for
opposition to viruses that have been on the market for approximately 18 months. Similar
transgenic harvests in the United States are still in the testing and blessing
phases at the USDA ( Moffat186 ) .
There are many biotech companies based in developed states that have
subdivisions or joint ventures around the universe, particularly in undeveloped states.
One of the biggest, Pioneer Hi-Bred International based in Des Moines, Iowa,
has subdivisions in over 30 states ( Hileman 16 ) . Many of these companies
behavior adequate research to adequately guarantee that there are minimum
environmental and ecological hazards, but Rebecca Goldburg, president of the
biotechnology plan at the Environmental Defense Fund, & # 8220 ; . . . warns that other
companies may follow through merely if equal ordinances are in topographic point & # 8221 ; ( qtd. in
Weintraub 163 ) .
The possible hazards of transgenic beings to the environment is still
being determined. Some experts warn that there is a danger that biotechnolo
gray
can make mutant loanblends that can earnestly jeopardize the ecosystem ( Dalglish
41 ) . As stated by Heike Dornenburg, quoted in The Reference Shelf: Geneticss and
Society, & # 8220 ; The figure of genetically engineered merchandises at the threshold of
commercialisation is turning. A figure of environmental and ecological hazards
remain unreciprocated & # 8221 ; ( 152 ) . One concern is that transgenic workss could either
go weeds that could raise the cost of weed control, or could reassign cistrons
into wild relations that could so develop into weeds. Other hazards include the
accidental spread of new virus strains which could derive opposition to virus
immune workss, every bit good as possible damaging effects on insects, birds, and
other animate beings that feed on transgenic workss ( Dornenburg 152-53 ) .
Biotechnology besides has the possible to harm the economic systems of some
developing states. Harmonizing to Lawrence Busch, a Michigan State University
sociologist, if it becomes executable & # 8220 ; . . . to utilize works cell civilization techniques
to do high-value stuffs, such as vanilla and chocolate butter. . . & # 8221 ; ( qtd in
Moffat 187 ) so these merchandises can be made in the research lab, alternatively of holding
to pull out them from tropical workss. The economic systems of the states that have
traditionally produced these stuffs rely to a great extent on them for income. If
these stuffs can now be produced cheaper and easier in a research lab, so the
developing state will lose one of its major exports ( Moffat 187 ) .
The last and perchance the most of import statement for an international
biosafety protocol is in the name of ignorance and cautiousness. Burke K. Zimmerman,
writer of the book Biofuture: Confronting the Genetic Era, expounds on the
uncertainnesss of biotechnology:
Possibly we all have a demand for certainty in our lives, or the confidence
of cognizing the bounds to our lives or the destinies that could bechance us. Here,
nevertheless, we can non let ourselves that comfort. The cognition we have gained
about populating cells in recent old ages has been huge, but it has besides showed us how
much more we have yet to larn. We will merely hold to accept the fact that
there are uncertainnesss in our lives with which we will hold to postulate for some
clip to come. One of those uncertainnesss is the absolute confidence that there
can ne’er be a biological catastrophe ( 150 )
Many research workers argue that there hasn & # 8217 ; t been adequate testing and
virtually no working experience in this field. Mentioning to the detrimental
effects modern agribusiness has already had on the environment, Jack Brown, a
works breeder geneticist at the University of Idaho, provinces, & # 8220 ; Modern agribusiness
has happened at a monetary value. We should larn from our experiences what catastrophes
could bechance us before we jump into large-scale production of gene-modified
workss & # 8221 ; ( qtd in Hileman 15 ) . Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Washington-based
Foundation on Economic Trends, sums up the sentiment on the release of
transgenic beings by saying, & # 8220 ; Every debut is a haphazard ecological
roulette & # 8221 ; ( qtd. in Weintraub 160 ) .
The United States, Germany, Japan, and Australia are the lone states
opposed to the biosafety protocol. They maintain that voluntary guidelines are
all that is needed to modulate international biotechnology. The oppositions of a
biosafety protocol besides argue that it will harm international trade and
corporate net incomes ( Hileman 8 ) . A few research workers, typically in the private
sector, maintain that & # 8220 ; Biotechnology is merely an extension of traditional
agricultural patterns like hybridisation and cross-breeding & # 8221 ; ( Mather 18 ) .
Harmonizing to John C. Sorenson, general director of Asgrow, & # 8220 ; . . . bioengineering
does non endanger works or carnal diverseness, any more than conventional seed and
carnal genteelness plans do & # 8221 ; ( qtd. in Mather 162 ) .
The demand for a alteration in the universe of agribusiness is undeniable. The
universe population is expected to about duplicate in the following 30 old ages.
To feed this many new oral cavities with the same agricultural patterns, the sum of
land available for agribusiness must about duplicate in size. The lone
available land that is non being used for agribusiness already is the endangered
and protected natural countries ( Hileman 8 ) . When the sum of land used for nutrient
production additions, so so does the sum of chemicals used in today & # 8217 ; s
agricultural procedures addition. These chemicals are critical because they offset
or forestall the losingss from weeds, plagues, and diseases. Hopefully with new
engineerings, biotechnology being one of them, workss will be created that can
grow and survive without the usage of these environmentally harmful chemicals
( Hileman 14 ) . While many people agree that biotechnology will be at least portion
of the solution, they are besides concerned about the safety of transgenic
beings
that are released into the environment ( Barker 126 ) .
Plants Cited
Barker, Penelope, erectile dysfunction. The Mention Shelf: Geneticss and Society. New York: H.W.
Wilson Company, 1995.
Dalglish, Brenda. & # 8220 ; Changing the face of the farm. & # 8221 ; Macleans 06 March 1995:
41-42.
Dornenburg, Heike, and Christine Lang-Hinrichs. & # 8220 ; Genetic Engineering in Food
Biotechnology. & # 8221 ; The Reference Shelf: Geneticss and Society. Ed. Penelope Barker.
New York: H.W. Wilson Company, 1995. 145-153.
Hileman, Bette. & # 8220 ; Views differ aggressively over benefits, hazards of agricultural
biotechnology. & # 8221 ; Chemical and Engineering News 73 ( 1995 ) : 8-17.
Mather, Robin. A Garden of Unearthly Delights: Bioengineering and the Future of
Food. New York: Penguin Group, 1995.
Moffat, Ann S. & # 8220 ; Developing Nations Adapt Biotech for ain needs. & # 8221 ; Science 08
July 1994: 186-187.
Weintraub, Pamela. & # 8220 ; The Coming of the High-Tech Harvest. & # 8221 ; The Reference Shelf:
Geneticss and Society. Ed. Penelope Barker, New York: H.W. Wilson Company, 1995.
155-167
Zimmerman, Burke K. Biofuture: Confronting the Genetic Era. New York: Plenum
Imperativeness, 1984.
