The future of farming is in the hands of multinational corporations, that wish to manipulate small farmers and the environment by   dominating food supply.  Genetically altered plants are under going technological research.  Techniques are advancing with patens arising yearly.   Farming has been essential to cultures for hundreds of years world wide.  With the introduction of chemicals, large farms and corporate agencies have exponentially taken over.  Plant modification is a controversially issue that has positives and negatives.  The twenty-first century is not far away and the world population is negatively affected by genetic engineering.  Consumers must take a stand, expressing the concerns and debate positive alternatives.  Genetic Technology has been called, "Terminator Technology" which manifests the large scale dominance that corporate officials are attempting for the future of farming. To prepare the Earth for the future, technology is imperative, this entitles years of research, tests and altercations to provide a ecological and consumer friendly product.

Cultures world wide have developed techniques to grow crops.  Although it is essential for farms in the United States to use large equipment, countries else where still use older methods.  Historically the crops in the United States that one may grow would be used for a family or sold to near by neighbors.  In under developed countries people still farm small plots for the family.   Farming is a varied occupation due to geography, money, and size of land.  Hardships have come over farmers because of the increase of larger companies.  In Costa Rica the majority of  farm land has banana's and coffee beans that are owned by companies not out of that country.  While other farmers in the country supply products in small amounts to the towns or family.  The use of chemicals started after World War II.   Previously organic farming was the main method of growing crops.  A St. Louis based company, Monsanto, has a patented many agrochemical used world wide, affecting the ecosystem and the health of farmers and farm workers.  One of the main products sold is Roundup, which has a main ingredient, glyphosphate.  The patend expires for Roundup in 2000.  What is beyond that year, a deadly chemical or transgenic plant technology.  TPT, transgenic plant technology, is defined as insertion of designed recombinant DNA molecules into plants.  This technology which scientist control will put small farmers out of business.  To control the gene DNA sequences rules evolution.  If evolution has changed over years at a constant rate, now tooling with evolution will change it dramatically. 

The big business of the cultivation of genetically modified crops has scientist daring new advances.  The term genetic modification refers to the insertion of an alien gene into a plant to give it new useful traits.   From the naturally world view, this is disrupting the cycle of evolution.  The modifying of plants is very complex.  The first step (1) is the extracting the gene of interest then (2) using a plasmid from E. coli to be inserted in the gene.  From here an antibiotic resistant gene and another piece of DNA is put in plasmid.  The plasmid is place into another bacterium and it multiples.  The last step is to apply an antibiotic killing all bacteria except the acquired marker gene.   One bacterium that is added to crops is Bt which codes a protein toxic to insects.   The insects that cause harm to products are dying along with  harmless insects.  From tests it shows that some on these insects are becoming resistant to the toxins.  Bt kills beneficial organism bees, butterflies, and harmful earthworms.   People who ingest the anti-resistant gene crops might have problems with their own medicine.  Tests conclude that the positives are only short term and modifying plants will not produce a good product for the future. 

The multinational companies expressing the benefits of genetic technology have tested and have come up with excuses.  Excuses that can be proven to be short term high profit to them.  The United States government has accepted the biotechnology companies test results and have not done independent ones.  The tests are conducted into a laboratory and when taken to the field the products have a much different result.   There is 50 million acres in the United States that are devoted to biotech crops.   The government of the US have approved more than 30 crops for commercial use.   These crops use less pesticides, herbicides and other agricultural chemicals is what companies praise.  But in fact the chemicals are layered on later in the season, closer to the harvest.  When using both chemicals and genetic alteration the lands biodiversity is lessened and monoculture is still a  repeating problem.    Plants on there own build defenses and with the seeds manipulated to an extent the plants are acting much like computers.  One problem is genetic pollution which is spread by pollen.  Organic farmers are outraged because farms that are next to their own have spread the altered seeds.  Thus, producing plants which are not organic and that is not what consumers want.  The ecosystem around a biotech field is not benefiting from the alterations and will not give a plentiful harvest if the methods are repeating negative situations.
   

Who is conducting the research, corporations all over the world have tried and tested ideas.  These companies have developed Bt crops and other invaluable genes.  The companies operate in several areas, such as pharmacy, agricultural chemicals, and seeds.  Some of these powerful companies are merging.   Monsanto has acquired a number of seed companies.  European based companies have intermingled to form larger expansions.  The reason for this amplifications is so they can capture the market for genetically modified crops and maximize their chances for inserting altered genes into existing crops.  The multinational companies that are tampering with evolution want power over the world's food supply.  These advances are based on greed not need.  Farmers will have to pay royalties to the biotech companies.  One organic farmers in Canada had seeds that Monsanto had patented.   He did not plant these and he believes that they were blown over from trucks or a different farm.  Monsanto took this older farmer to court claiming  that he had illegally planted the firms canola.  They were suing because he should pay them $37-per-hectare fee.  The farmer is not giving up on this case.  Their are many supporters behind him.   Investors have urged clients to avoid investing money in genetically modified crop technology because the agribiotech business is not profitable to consumers.  The agribiotech business is pushing for total control this dictatorship is not enhancing choices for consumers and farmers. 

Companies are pushing for more research but not informing consumers.  In Europe, consumers are revolting against grocery stores, companies and farms selling genetically altered plants.  On some packaged products labels are mandatory that contain genetically modified ingredients. Countries like Japan, Australia, and Canada have written on there products expressing how they were grown.  In Britain head lines in newspapers have called the new technology, "Frankenstein Foods."  In the United States consumers are not aware because there is no information to read in supermarkets and on packages.  Consumers do not think this is an issue.  The lack of information will effect the future generations.  It took 10 years to get nutrition labels on foods, there is no telling how long it will take for the government to pass a law demanding labels on how the food is grown.  North America carries no requirements on labels and there is a large amount of ingredients in processed foods that contain genetically altered foods.  Many food companies have said that there products will not have genetically engineered ingredients.  Companies such as, Gerber, Nestle, and Cadbury.  Retailers need to be prepared for an upcoming revolt from citizens. The United States will be examining the safety of genetically altered foods but as one official said it is "impractical" to have labels.  It is not impractical for consumers to have a choice and be aware of safety hazards.  It is the responsibility of a consumer in all countries to be aware of what they eat and how it is grown. 

Regulations are under effect on genetically altered crops. The United States and Europe based companies are different in some ways but overall they want to control the food chain. Europe has banned more products then the US but still there are corporations doing research that puts pressure on farmers and the land.  With all the research being conducted farmers will end up the ones suffering.  One farmer said, "The question is, where do Monsanto's rights end and mine begin?"  Paying royalties to the biotech companies and globalization of crop varieties is just a few ideas on how corporations plan to control the food chain. The globalisation is harming the Earth. Diversity is depleting from crops varieties. The industrialization of farming under the pressure of agrichemicals companies launch a dependent relationship, with genetic engineering under way biotech agribussiness will accelerate the lack of diversity. With less varieties to choose from today farmers will have to rely on the corporations. This method of doing business is hurting peasant farmers. In conclusion, regulators must ask the opinions of consumers and let individuals choose what they want to eat with the turn of the century coming soon government regulators need to make decisions that will benefit the future of farming and the environment.

The controversy of gene-spliced foods has many parties involved.  The multinational companies are researching the altercations of the structure of a plant.  This may improve the plant's quality and make it resistant to insects and insecticides, but the speed at which the plants are being sold and grown is alarming.  The health benefits to humans and the environment is not known.   Altering crops hurts the tradional plant varieties and it will wreak havoc on the ecosystem.  In the United States government regulations are accepting the research by corporations and not conducting independent research themselves.  As one official said that mandatory labels on processed foods is "impractical."   These decisions are not letting consumers choose for themselves.  Officials from governments and corporations are not providing an ecological and consumer friendly product.  The altercations made are negatively affecting the Earth.