Table of Contents
- Thesis Statement
- The Body
- References List
United States of America has similarity in regulating the Genetic modified organism with Europe that dates back to 1970. Public organisations are avoided when the government has more time to study to come up with innovative proposals. It explains the laws that control GMO. There are several concerns around the GMO, creating an uproar in Europe and the United States. They include difference in policies, and how Europe handles the problems arising from this new Agricultural technology and how the food being processed should be safe for human consumption. This paper would mainly concentrate on the four issues mentioned above. Canada continues to preserve the ecosystem by taking care of biotechnology which will serve to enhance the welfare of its people (Miller 2002).
According to Hawkes (2000), genetically modified food (GMO) refers to types of foods produced through genetic engineering processes. The food is produced out of organisms with specific changed modified because of DNA. The process has contributed to introduction of various traits of breeding and mutation of organism. United States restricted the rules of health, surrounding and safety more than Europe where rules are not that strict. Mistrust exists between the government and these industries because of politics and their highly contentious issues, which involves a large level suspicion between them. Bernauer et al. (2003) explains that, United States of America has similarity in regulating the Genetic modified organism with Europe that dates back to 1970. Non-Governmental organizations are avoided in this regulation since regulators are granted more power to come up with new ideas in technological field. It talks about briefly the rules governing. There are some issues, which are of essence that are reviewed concerning the GMO in Europe and United States. They include difference in policies, and how Europe handles the problems arising from this new Agricultural technology and how the food being processed should be safe for human consumption. This paper would concentrate on certain things – aside from these, there are also other aspects (Forman 2010). Canada has a strategy that preserves the habitats and takes care of biotechnology because what should be achieved to promote improved protection by the kind of food one consumes and the quantity eaten.
Healey (2010) argued that it is dangerous to the atmosphere therefore there should be quality evaluation for consumer processing. Due to state legislation, some US states have enacted statutes such as the Plant Quarantine Act, the Federal Food Act, the Medication and Cosmetic Act, the Rodenticide Act, and the Hazardous Product Act. They help other bodies such as the US Department that deals with Agriculture, Food and Drug administration and United States Environmental Protection. These bodies have a say on biotechnology and they help in making sure it is utilized accordingly to the above acts. Canada depends on innovation top speed up the oversight thus they encourage the modernized food, thus they are properly represented in the scrutinizing of biotechnology by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Environment Canada thus leads to proper involvement in curbing risk factors of this technology by the health Canada. Modern plants in Canada are discussed widely in that they are plants, which have different traits absent in other plants of the same species. The policies in Canada consider this plant to have undergone all stages and are good for consumption and growth by the farmers for the population Canada. It is not harmful for consumption, and Agricultural engineers have proved it beyond reasonable doubt. Canada being a smaller state than USA the difference arises in handling this Biotechnology and United States America has better ways of handling the risk imposed by this technology. United states of America comes up with individual effect of controlling the pests and they force biotechnology industries to have a permit. Which allows them to work on this kind of innovation and it follows a wider path in getting this permit and several consultancy must be made aware and must agree to it before the assessment is performed. EPA has no mandate in checking the GMO but rather they focus on the product approach. United States of America has taken the toll order in conducting and controlling the Genetically Modified plants through many engineers who have been innovative enough to come up with this type of plant. This kind of technology received a total boost from the White House through its Science and Technology office. Due to the interest they had and biotechnology and its products because it was considered in raising the economy of United States and improving the level of technology in the country. The Engineers came up with a framework to involve all the participants in this process like the government and other agricultural agencies. Europe being a wider continent and considered developed America borrowed a leaf from them in terms of the biotechnology it came up with educating the people about Genetically Modified Organism this ha been embraced in the states fully. Brunk (2009) explains that the policy in European Union on biotechnology is different from that of United States since there is clash in time of their initialization and America began its mandate earlier European countries. European Union through the British Council was approved to take the GMO to the market to satisfy the engineers test the results and improve its policy. European Union had some controversies in the biotechnological environment where the people have opposed the Swiss corn, which is a GMO seed because it was considered as creating environmental risk. This led to reorganizing this EU rule since they allowed Swiss Corn, which was sold in the market, which was considered as a failure to this rule. The impact to this difference between biotechnology in European Union and United States was realized when States introduced the soy oil into the market. It enhanced further the policy and called for improvement in this rule. Another controversy arose among members of the public in that they did not approve to it due to the harmful effects in the environment and its high intensity of risk it creates to consumers. Prince Charles even argued that it is risky to the environment human healthy and it goes against God’s rule.
Hillstrom (2012) asserts that a research conducted by Alessandro Nicolia, Fabio Veronesi ,Danielle Rosellini and Alberto Manzo A discussion of the past 10 years of GMO health problems. They argued that so far the genetically modified crops in not risky to the surrounding. They dwelt on all fields of crop wellbeing, it has responded to the surrounding, and their harmful nature to the population that is involved in it. Some years back several scholars argued on this issue of GMO that has raised so many eyebrows on how the seeds are kept safe. Jose L. Domingo and Jordi Gine Bordonaba in their article Environment International pg 37 argued that genetically modified seeds should be studied on a wider basis as proposed also by non-governmental organizations before giving humans to feed on. They also argued that there is limited risk in genetically modified seeds to the surrounding since it passes several tests before its presentation to the public for utilization. They consider it safe for animal usage and should not be discouraged from the environment. Their major aim was to come up with a view that the modernity can help in making the Genetically Modified Organism safe. Many views about genetically modified seeds are not explained to the public and many people do not understand it fully. It is discriminating because not all the population in each country is learned; the illiterate individuals cannot understand it perfectly unless the awareness is created. This has not been realized since it also requires funds to educate these individuals. The present state of GMO has been criticized but also has been accepted since it doubles the harvest and it saves time in that the time taken for maturity is squeezed.
Evidence and Discussion
In the face of fiscal similarity to the US, Canadian coverage-makers have embraced tighter levels of health and safety. A realistic choice political economist will definitely expect that there will be significant pressure on Canadian coverage-makers to match legislative requirements with the USA. The paper points out that a policy group viewpoint helps overcome the confusion.
Take one (Nigel, 2000),
We claim that policy networks are broad as they include the mechanism by which coalitions of players hammer out the means through which coverage beliefs, policy priorities, coverage discourses and coverage decisions are built. In the core of these techniques are the particular directives and historical histories of network participants that gather their understandings, viewpoints, and discourses over time. The personalities of particular actors shift over time when compared in time and location with each other. The measure of transparency of coverage networks, for instance, generates trends of exclusion that justify the coverage values articulated in legit coverage discourses. In the United States, there are two related biotech policy forums. According to Santaniello (2001), the functions of cooking, gathering, and rising are differentiated. Main state actors overlap two of the three GMO networks. In Canada we have mandated two government agencies that evaluate environmental and wellness threats. In comparison, a culture that manipulates biotechnology goods for benefit. Promotion and control happen in separate forms between Canada and the U.S. The American networks have followed a notion construction strategy with more permissive legislative objectives than Canadian networks. The deepening of state and civil society ties has led to this growth of international politics. The USA has overwhelmed the EPA because of the country’s strengths in implementing environmental laws. The American environmental chance appraisal network is more related than the Canadian one. Both networks demonstrate a great deal of continuity.
In conclusion, countries have various perspectives about genetically modified species as it leads to improved foreign agricultural contact. Genetically Modified Species are important for the advancement of countries’ development and by globalisation. It is also a good tie between the government and the farmers as it has improved economic realisation of different countries all over the world such as the U.S and Canada. Even though GMO has detrimental effect on agriculture, several academics have led to optimistic studies in relation to rendering it an outstanding mode in agricultural laboratory activities. In the present world, citizens are prepared to consume food from genetically engineered plants even if they do not realise the long-term impact it would have on them as far as wellbeing is concerned. The government should follow different ways and processes to build employment for the youths as genetically modified foods are created.
- Hawkes, Nigel. (2000), Genetically Modified Foods: Copper Beech Books
- Hillstrom, Kevin. (2012), Genetically Modified Foods: Lucent Books, Gale Cengage Learning
- Fedoroff, Nina V., and Nancy Marie Brown. (2004), Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Foods: Joseph Henry Press
- Forman, Lillian E. (2010), Genetically Modified Foods: ABDO Pub.
- Ruse, Michael. (2002), Genetically Modified Foods: Debating Biotechnology: Prometheus Books
- Santaniello, V. (2001), Market Development for Genetically Modified Foods: CABI
- Brunk, Conrad G. (2009), Acceptable Genes? Religious Traditions and Genetically Modified Foods: Suny Press
- Healey, Justin. (2010), Genetically Modified Foods and Crops: The Spinney Press
- Mchughen, Alan. (2000). Pandora’s Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods: Oxford University Press
- Miller, Norman. (2002), Environmental Politics Casebook: Genetically Modified Foods: Lewis Publishers
- Anstey, T.H. (1986) One Hundred Harvests: Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, 1886-1986. Ottawa: Research Branch, Agriculture Canada.
- Barrett, Katherine and Elisabeth Abergel (2008) Breeding Familiarity: Environmental Risk Assessment for Genetically Engineered Crops in Canada. Science and Public Policy, 27: 2-12.
- Bernauer, Thomas and Erika Meins (2003) Technological Revolution Meets Policy and the Market: Explaining Cross-National Differences in Agricultural Biotechnology Regulation. European Journal of Political Research, 42: 643-683.