Wekesser 1996). This is not to say that the agricultural industry is booming with the recent production of "super livestock and crops". Inversely, many people disagree with either some forms of gene therapy or all of gene therapy. Gene therapy is very risky and may cause more harm than good. Take the development of nuclear warfare for example. This resulted in a thirty year long cold war between the U.S. and the USSR. In this situation there was obviously more bad done than there was good. Genetic engineering can end up the same way; there may not be a war but there will be more harm than help. That being said, gene therapy is morally wrong (Skaggs 2001). Not only is genetic engineering morally wrong with humans it is wrong in the agricultural field too.
What were to happen if a biologically produced organism designed to increase crop production were to overtake an entire ecosystem? (Woods 2000).
The organism could spread into natural habitats killing the "crop frying" organism that was food for an earthworm which was food for a bird which was food for a snake etc... This may be only minor in comparison to what can happen to a genetically altered animal that has gone wrong. As stated above, in 1987, a doctor altered pigs' growth hormones resulting in arthritis, gastric ulcers, enlarged hearts, dermatitis, and kidney problems (Wekesser 1996). Or even worse, what would happen if genetically altered food wreaked havoc on the human body? In 1994 this did happen. Beef which was shipped from South America to Europe was contaminated with a hormone that became lethal a result of altering the cattle from which it (the beef) came (Skaggs 2001). This shows a direct, palpable consequence to humans and genetic engineering.
What's the current U.S. policy...