Genetically Modified Food: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly
By Rich DeAngelo
From an Amoeba to the Blue Whale, every living cell must absorb energy to sustain life. Organisms obtain this energy through food. In Particular, humans have existed for roughly 200,000 years, and yet just 12,000 years ago was when humans first began to farm grains to eat. Just 43 years ago in 1972, the first Genetically Modified Organism was created by Paul Berg. “Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called "modern biotechnology" or "gene technology," sometimes also "recombinant DNA technology" or "genetic engineering." It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species. Such methods are used to create GM plants-which are then used to grow GM food crops.” (Jones, 1999.) “A prime example of traditional genetic biotechnologies is selective breeding of plants and animals. The rudiments of selecting plants and animals with desirable traits and breeding them under controlled conditions probably go back to the dawn of civilization, but the expansion of knowledge about genetics and biology in this century has developed selective breeding into a powerful and sophisticated technology…Traditional breeding technologies have been immensely successful, and indeed are largely responsible for the high yields associated with contemporary agriculture. These technologies should not be considered passé or out of date. For multigene traits like intrinsic yield and drought resistance, they surpass genetic engineering. This is because selective breeding operates on whole organisms-complete sets of coordinated genes-while genetic engineering is restricted to three or four gene transfers with little control over where the new genes are inserted. For the most important agronomic traits, traditional breeding remains the technology of choice.” (Yang, 2003.) For thousands of years humans have been modifying the genetic traits of crops and livestock to produce better yields. Now humans have the ability to modify specific genes in any organisms DNA. With the introduction of GMO’s comes a three headed monster. Those who approve of GMO’s, those who disapprove of GMO’s and then those who are undecided. It is the authors’ belief that the creation and consumption of GMO’s is inevitable, livestock and crop yields have been genetically modified on a macro scale for thousands of years, and now mankind can manipulate DNA on a micro scale, this has proven to be safe for human consumption, better for the environment, will continue to improve mass production of food for a growing population, with the only concerns being ethical such as new diseases and allergens. The author believes if GMO’s are properly regulated with careful monitoring for any potential pitfalls, that GMO’s can be a tremendous asset and help improve sustainable forms of agriculture.
A concern about GMO’s being dangerous for human consumption is the transfer of allergens. “Scientists had successfully transferred a gene from Brazil nut into soybean to improve the grain crops nutritional quality. Subsequent experiments showed that people allergic to Brazil nuts were similarly allergic to the transgenic soybean.” (Nordlee et al., 1996). This can be avoided by properly labeling food with proper allergy information, or an alternative would be to remove the gene that causes an allergic reaction with some people. “Farmers and plant breeders have been altering the genes of crop plants for centuries. However, genetic modification differs from conventional breeding in the precision of gene transfer (Halford & Shewry, 2000). Genetic modification allows specific genes to be identified, isolated, copied, and introduced into other organisms in more direct and controlled ways (Jones, 1999). Additionally, gene technology holds great promise to produce foods that can prevent illness and promote wellness (such as rice engineered with high levels of vitamin A and iron to alleviate nutritional deficiencies in developing countries; soybeans used for pharmaceutical production; and bananas that produce human vaccines against certain infectious diseases).” (Lessick, 2002.) This makes GMO’s safer for human consumption because the food can be made more nutritious or to create medicines that will improve the quality of human life.
“There is also potential for environmental and health risks. First, developing countries may become testing grounds for novel and potentially risky substances that they have neither the capacity nor the regulatory frameworks in place to deal with. Second, many developing countries are rich in natural biological endowments and have raised concerns about the potential of GM seeds to increase the genetic uniformity of crops they grow and/or of native flora. Third, cultural diversity may be threatened as current risk analysis procedures attempt to incorporate marginalized groups into a mainstream identity. Fourth, there is potential for biohazards being created, such as insect populations becoming resistant to the toxins in GM crops or plants developing into herbicide-resistant ‘superweeds’. The capacity for field testing under closely monitored conditions is potentially poorer in developing countries than in industrialized countries. Fifth, labelling requirements may be technically unattainable or unaffordable in poorer countries, thus excluding them from entering lucrative world markets for GM products that might emerge in the future.” (Paarlberg, 2000). If a developing country doesn’t possess the capacity or framework to deal with risky substances then they should not be participating in GMO research if they don’t have the means to deal with a “worst case scenario”. These potential problems can be avoided by simply only allowing GMO production if the region can do so safely and autonomically, without placing a burden on other countries for help, or posing a risk to its people. “The use of GE in agriculture was perceived as presenting several distinct benefits, including enhanced farming productivity, reduced pesticide use and run-off, tailored micronutrient enrichment of food and reduced food costs and other attractions for consumers. The use of GM foods and crops presents several distinct benefits to developing countries. First, remote and disadvantaged rural areas that were bypassed by the Green Revolution (due to unsuitable soil, water, and topography and labor endowments) will benefit from GM crops because they depend less on the hard-to-get hard-to-manage ‘packages’ of purchased chemical inputs. Second, additional environmental benefits arise from reduced pesticide use through the spread of herbicide-resistant and pest resistant GM varieties, because there will be less run-off of pesticides into surface and groundwater, and reduced need for tillage. Third, natural rural ecosystems would be under less pressure from population-linked expansion of land area devoted to low-productivity crop farming (especially shifting cultivation) and livestock grazing. Fourth, human health will benefit. Micronutrient-rich crops can be engineered (e.g. rice can be enhanced with vitamin A to counter eye damage among the poor), and increased farm productivity will boost food production and lower the price of food staples in poor countries, increasing the consumption of food and non-food goods among the poor” (Levidow, 1999). It is the author’s opinion that the rewards overwhelmingly outweigh the risks for environmental issues. Despite not being as tightly regulated a poorer area will be able to produce a greater yield of crops without the need for chemicals and pollutants because they will be growing GMO which is resistant to pests and weeds.
Next, comes the issues of sustainable agriculture for a growing population. “The corporations that market GMOs and the associated chemicals seek to control global agriculture and food production by buying up seed companies, patenting seeds, and locking farmers into exclusive agreements. This strategy will dramatically reduce agricultural biodiversity and lead to more industrialized and unsustainable farming.” (Varzakas, 2007.) This is a potential problem that would create a monopoly on food sources. This is exactly why legislature and a governing body is necessary to regulate the industry, because you may have corporations controlling every aspect which would result in conflict of interests. “The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides. Insect resistance is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that permanently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high. Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields. Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.” (Varzakas, 2007.) GMO’s have proven safe and effective at improving and increasing crop production. These crops are resistant to diseases, insects, viruses, and herbicides. They are safe for human consumption and safe for the environment because there has been a reduction in the quantity of herbicides used.
The main ethical concerns with GMO products are the potential virus resistance. “The potential risks accompanied by disease resistant plants deal mostly with viral resistance. It is possible that viral resistance can lead to the formation of new viruses and therefore new diseases. It has been reported that naturally occurring viruses can recombine with viral fragments that are introduced to create transgenic plants, forming new viruses. Additionally, there can be many variations of this newly formed virus.” (Steinbrecher 1996). It is possible that new diseases and viruses can be created as a result of the disease resistant plants. This can be combatted by accounting for the newly created viruses when genetically engineering the plants to prevent these viruses from being created. “The evolution of resistant pests and weeds termed superbugs and super weeds is another problem. Resistance can evolve whenever selective pressure is strong enough. If these cultivars are planted on a commercial scale, there will be strong selective pressure in that habitat, which could cause the evolution of resistant insects in a few years and nullify the effects of the transgenic. Likewise, if spraying of herbicides becomes more regular due to new cultivars, surrounding weeds could develop a resistance to the herbicide tolerant by the crop. This would cause an increase in herbicide dose or change in herbicide, as well as an increase in the amount and types of herbicides on crop plants. Ironically, chemical companies that sell weed killers are a driving force behind this research.” (Steinbrecher 1996). This goes back to the dire need for regulation. If there is a conflict of interest, the party should not be allowed to be involved. A chemical company that produces weed killer would benefit greatly from creating crops that need to utilize extra amounts of weed killer. This is a major ethical issue when it comes to GMO’s and can only be stopped with the proper regulatory legislature and enforcement.
As stated in the introduction there was a third category that people fall into and that is the undecided group. It is important to educate yourself on global issues like sustainable agriculture and genetically modified foods, because ignorance of these issues just creates in-action. The author asks that you arm yourself with knowledge and develop your own personal opinion on GMO’s. “Failing to understand non-scientific perspectives will inevitably lead to a communication and decision-making breakdown. What is important to individuals from different cultures and why it is important to them needs to be made more salient in the GM food debate. This task cannot be done without a systematic examination of values and views of different cultural groups. Furthermore, international agreements that protect vulnerable countries are essential. While global rules should minimize national differences and bring predictability to international trade, they should also still allow for legitimate national differences in concerns and priorities with regard to uptake of complex new technologies.” (Finucane, 2002.) Proper regulation is paramount to the success and sustainability of genetically modified Foods. GMO’s have been proven to be safe for human consumption, better for the environment than traditional farming techniques with use of pesticides and pollutant run off, will improve industrial mass production of food for a growing population, however the only concerns are ethical such as new diseases, allergens, and big corporation monopolies with conflicts of interest. GMO’s can successfully improve agriculture for the entire human population if it is utilized responsibly and regulated. If the reader previously belonged to the undecided or disapprove of GMO groups, the author urges you to reconsider your point of view, as it would be in your best interest to educate yourself on the facts.
Works Cited:
Bawa, A., & Anilakumar, K. (n.d.). Genetically modified foods: Safety, risks and public concerns—a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 1035-1046.
Finucane, M. L. (2002). Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: The role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61(1), 31-7. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/PNS2001127
Lessick, M., Keithley, J., Swanson, B., & Lemon, B. (2002). Genetically modified foods: A taste of the future. Medsurg Nursing, 11(5), 242-6. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220134906?accountid=12536
Varzakas, T. H., Arvanitoyannis, I. S., & Baltas, H. (2007). The politics and science behind GMO acceptance. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 47(4), 335-61. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199107883?accountid=12536
Yang, X., X, C. T., Kubota, C., Page, R., Xu, J., Cibelli, J., & Seidel, G.,Jr. (2007). Risk assessment of meat and milk from cloned animals. Nature Biotechnology, 25(1), 77-83. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1276