This article will solicit and discuss opinion on “Are GMOs bad for us or do they serve a higher purpose” (genetically modified organism) and how they can affect communities . This article will discuss the benefits of GMOs. The paper will explore how they can serve our environment when biotechnologies guarantee the resolution of long-standing social, political and moral problems. Also assess the deadly consequences on the environment, human and animal health. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayGMOs (genetically modified organisms) are an organism whose DNA has been adjusted or modified through genetic engineering. Typically, GMOs have been modified with the DNA of another living thing, whether a bacteria, plant, infection, or creature; these life forms were, are and will be called “transgenic” life forms. For example, some GMO experiments on tomatoes have been carried out with the aim of creating resistance to ice and solidification temperatures. They were able to use the liquid catalyst genes of a cold-water fish, winter flounder. Another option was that a gene from an insect that allows the arachnid to produce silk, for example, could be integrated into the DNA of a standard goat. To begin with, there are clearly two options for GMOs: government personnel, industry leaders and scientists who think GMOs are incredibly dangerous and on the other hand, there are people who think the opposite. According to Jacob Metcalf, the biotechnology industry often makes empty promises. This is particularly evident when biotechnology ensures a commitment to solving long-standing social, political and moral problems. Whether it's hereditarily engineered products, they can shed light on global famine or medicinal genomics can address our responsibility as humans in disrupted communities. Although this example guarantees the construction of sociotechnical frameworks out of presence, it is typical for much of the technology that has guaranteed to reorganize "life itself" at the molecular level. Growing meat innovations are an ideal site to solicit what sort of global production is empowered by the actual currents of food framework, morality and biotechnological responses to their demands. The author also discusses the ethics of biotechnology and global issues such as hunger, animals. farms, food, etc. "As food systems have become a site at which human ecology and technology are rapidly and publicly reassessed" represents the cold-blooded treatment of animals, as the author stated that like any innovation of animal generation , biotechnology-derived drugs or foods can significantly affect the well-being of creatures, making the experience of these extremely moral issues calm instead of resolved. Moreover, for the animals that Richard Twine highlighted in relation to genomes (the branch of genome mapping and molecular biology), biotechnology has opted for a "self-legitimizing" arrangement of moral developments by articulating itself with a supposed state of inevitable ecological crisis. . According to Metcalf, vision evaluates new material types of life and brings out fate with a certain urgency. He also says there could be a future for cultured meat, which is synthetic meat grown from in vitro animal cells, and sees it as the solution tosome of the world's problems. Advances in stem cells have made it possible to grow animal tissue in a way that could enlarge the animals' substance, but how the innovation would be scaled to reach the market remains unanswered. Since cultured meat echoes nutritionism and the reductionist reasoning that meat creatures are physical production lines, it would be complete hatred for culinary moralists, whether or not it satisfies intense needs. Guarantees for samples of reduced, sustainable and protected proteins at a low environmental cost. Metcalf says he wants to meet moral expectations in the production of synthetic meat. It is understandable that premium cuts of meat are not being replaced. However, reasonably priced tissues can be used for the production of cheaper products like burgers or nuggets. Jason Matheny (co-founder of New Harvest) claims in a 2006 Wired article that cultured meat is not organic, and neither is yogurt. . What's interesting to consider is that we already consume modified meat as a large part of our daily ration. Packing 10,000 chickens in a metal cage and giving them antimicrobials is also not appropriate. In addition, recent research conducted by the Royal Society found that cultured meat helps solve many problems, has many more benefits and is more effective than animal meat. By controlling its intake on a more or less large scale, cultured meat could solve the problems linked to excessive use of meat. Better and healthier food resources, influenced by ethics, can also end famine in several places like Ethiopia and Darfur without harming any animals. The humanitarian argument that everyone puts forward is that “soon I will be able to eat meat again without any hesitation, without worrying about my health, animal cruelty or environmental degradation,” says Willem Van Eelen (Dutch scientist). Besides GMO meat, crops are also genetically modified. Agricultural plantations increased by 15%, or 67.7 million hectares in 2003. This is indicated by the report of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agro-Biotechnology Applications (ISAAA), according to which growth continues despite opposition in Europe and elsewhere. Seven million ranchers in 18 countries developed bioengineered cuts on 167.2 million plots of land in 2003, up from 145 million plots of land in 2002, the ISAAA report states. In 1996, the year when hereditarily impaired crops were economically accessible, approximately 4.3 million plots of land were under biotechnology development. The number of countries that are in charge of 99% of total biotechnology, divided by 2 countries, adding Brazil and South Africa to the list, as well as the United States, Argentina, Canada and China . Since 2002, the latter four have been the main producers of biotech crops. China and South Africa saw the best annual increases, with both countries planting 33% more biotech hectares than in 2002. The top 10 countries planting more than 50,000 hectares are Australia, India, Romania and Uruguay; Eight other countries each plant up to 50,000 hectares of biotech crops. On the other hand, Europe presents another way of looking at the subject. European customers are rather skeptical due to their previous livelihood and ecological concerns, simple administrative control and questions towards organizations.