This process is generally referred to as G.M. and was developed years ago when mass spraying of fertilizers onto crops was commonplace and detrimental to harvesting and to financial success.
These pesticides were not selective, in other words they could kill all that were affected by the chemicals.
Scientists using Biotechnology then worked on an idea to manipulate this negativity. This could only occur if the plants, herbs and so on could offer unique resistance to the chemicals being used.
This could be achieved by identifying a gene or genes which could for example be drought, disease, bacterial or insect resistant.
The idea was to inject desired genes and inactivating unwanted ones. The altered organism would then produce new proteins or enzymes for cells to perform new functions.
From its very beginnings, the practice of G.M. has raised eyebrows and been controversial. The very idea of interfering with nature became a disturbing reality and stimulated varying opinions...
Many governments wish to challenge the process and introduce stricter legislation. In all fairness, discussion is warranted, regarding the "pros & cons" of this issue.
There are unknown long term effects on the ecosystem and possible damaging traits. One of the key lessons of Biology is that no change takes place in a vacuum as the cycle of wild life is so interdependent that an alteration in one area can have grave consequences in another.
This is an un-natural way of producing food and that organic production is much healthier.
With production of foodstuffs being dominated by large corporations, the traditional farmers could be squeezed out.
Under-developed nations could have an increased dependency on G.M. products to their own detriment.
These un-naturally harvested foodstuffs can provoke allergies and possibly encourage the growth of tumours.
There is no doubt an element of cruelty exists with animals being subjected to increased growth, artificially.
Human beings have in fact, been "lab rats" up to now testing the safety of ingesting these products.
With increased production, the cost of foods could decrease.
With each purchase made, one could be assured of the finest quality. Vegetables could be modified to produce healthier oils like omega 3 and 6 and 9.
The muscle in meat being modified could have more protein and less fat.
Foods becoming frost resistant could have a longer shelf-life.
With growing populations - 3rd world-hunger could be alleviated, therefore societies could benefit.
Sadly when humans have greater exposure to any changes these could ultimately be accepted as the norm.
A 'super pig' labelled Pig 26 has been created and a new venture is to modify dairy milk to mimic that of breast milk.
Battery farmed salmon, being plumped up with hormones and genes from other species are in the realm of 'Science Fiction'.
Cows without horns could lead to greater numbers being confined as hurting each other will be minimal.
Chickens being hormonally modified to produce more female chicks will be a benefit to egg production.
Future prospects are indeed frightening!
Finally, it is most encouraging that at this point the cosmetic industry is relatively free of tampering.
In the production of MATSIMELA products no drastic changes will ever be made to compromise the consumer.
The high standards maintained are essential to the brand and to its future success in a competitive market.