The Controversy of Genetically Modified Foods on Human Health
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are creatures in which their genetic make-up has been altered through genetic engineering or biotechnology in hopes of either obtaining favorable traits, eliminating unfavorable traits, or simply gene manipulation. Genetic engineering can be applied to plants, animals, bacteria, fish, and much more. Since its inception in 1973 (Goldbas), the use of genetic engineering brought us an increase in crop yields, increased our food supply, and enabled us to become more flexible in our resources in respect to climate change. In fact, about approximately 75%-80% of all genetically modified ingredients are present in processed foods (Imhoff). In addition, according to the Environmental Working Group, every American consumes about 193 pounds of genetically modified foods per year (Imhoff). Unfortunately, because the method was utilized for a short period of time and they’re a plethora of contradicting studies on GMOs’ impacts on health, the public have grown suspicious and fearful over the unknown risks that GMOs could have on human health in the future. Furthermore, the rise of large biotechnological companies that are capable of manipulating an enormous amount of our food supply with their own devised organisms fueled the public’s suspicion of what is exactly in their food. Thus, this led to a controversy of GMOs and the creation of two polarizing sides; One perspective depicting that GMOs can provide substantial changes to our lives and the other perspective being that our lives are on the line. In reality, however, most of the controversy of GMOs is derived from fear and speculation of the public and misinformation of various sources; Genetically modified foods are safe for consumption.
One of the main contributors that are fueling the controversy of GMOs on human health are the rhetoric that many sources use in order to frighten and sometimes make the audience perceive something in a specific way. For instance, an article from Natural News aggressively criticizes that Monsanto’s flaws in their own genetically modified corn MON810 that contains the Bt gene (Reynolds). In the article, the author includes words such as Franken-Food Company, and Franken-Food to imply that genetic engineering allows the creation of something hideous as it is equivalent to the creation of Frankenstein (Reynolds). Already, she is attacking the reputation of not only Monsanto, but other biotechnological companies that utilize genetic engineering. In addition, as she is directly attacking one of the largest biotechnological companies, she claimed that Monsanto had a twisted view of human ethics (Reynolds). Overall, the language that is being demonstrated is alarming and can persuade an audience to believe that they are in danger. Acknowledge the emotions that can erupt in response to such words; The power of words can be commanding. Another example would be the non-GMO Project, a popular non-profit organization that are dedicated to promoting a non-GMO food supply, that supports a study on the “GMOs Myths and Truths” created by 3 leading researchers at Earth Open Source (non-GMO Project). Even when the sources are utilizing their rhetoric in a professional fashion when describing their stance on going against GMOs, the words “unnatural” to describe the process of genetic engineering can instill a feeling of uneasiness in their audience. Anything that is not natural has to be something that is off. This may be the reason why the terms “organic” may make a product more appealing to consumers due to the fear of GMOs that are not deemed in that category. As a result, this may have fueled the unnecessary fear of GMOs’ impact on human health.
A second reason to why GMOs are safe for consumption is because the majority of scientists believe that GMOs are safe to eat despite the distinct portion of the public being suspicious over GMOs. According to the New York Times, about approximately 90 percent of scientists believe that GMOs are safe, while on the hand, only a third of all consumers can agree (Brody). Clearly, there is a disconnection between the scientific community and the general public. To support their stand, they utilized logically reasoning; Despite all of the health concerns over potential allergies and toxins in which they have not been fully addressed, there are a plethora of genetic engineering experiments and people consuming many meals without any issues as said by Robert Goldberg in an interview from the Scientific American (Brody). In fact, since the creation of the earliest genetically modified foods, there hasn’t been any detrimental impacts or solidly confirmed evidence of any health risks (Brody). On the contrary, however, one excellent criticism on genetically modified foods is that since the inception of genetic engineering, we may not know the long-term effects of genetically modified organisms even though we already know that nothing has happened so far. This will involve long-term studies on comparing the consumption GMOs products and non-GMO products (Brody). This is why various organizations such as the non-GMO Project and the Organic Consumers Association are dedicated to protecting the people’s health such as providing information on possible detrimental effects of GMOs. In addition, the non-GMO Project is considered America’s third party verification source for GMOs (non-GMO Project). In response, however, it seems absurd and unnecessary to be cautious of the potential long-term effects of GMOs since the basic concept of genetically modifying our organisms have been going on for centuries through the use of cross breeding similar species or cross pollination of similar plants. From an article, “Genetically Modified Foods: A Taste of the Future,” the author describes how we have always had the capability to manipulate the genes of various species in our agriculture for a long period of time (Lessick et. al). The only contrast between genetic engineering and the traditional methods of genetic manipulation such as cross breeding and cross pollination is the manner in which the method is done. Cross breeding or cross pollination consists of mixing of genetic composition in hopes of creating an offspring with a favorable characteristic, but it is only the result of random choice as we cannot control which specific gene we want to cross over (Lessick et. al). Furthermore, this is only possible with species that are closely related (Lessick et. al). On the contrary, genetic engineering eliminates some of the setbacks of traditional breeding. Not only does genetic engineering allows us to transfer desirable genetic traits directly without resorting to the use of trial and errors, but we can expand our possibilities of transferring genes from virtually any organism to a completely different organism. An example of this phenomenon would be inserting a Bt gene from bacteria to enable corn to produce their own insecticide (Reynolds). Not once have we questioned or grew cautious over the possible effects of consuming GMOs that were devised through traditional genetic manipulation. To further support this statement, according to Channapatna S. Prakash, the Director of the Center for Plant Biodiversity, even through the use of traditional breeding such as corn containing one gene that was originally found in soybeans, it wouldn’t even make it any less hazardous (Guterman). He also stated that traditionally hybrid species were never questioned for their safety (Guterman). If even credible scientists find genetic engineering almost as analogous as previous traditional breeding methods, why is it that the public is still fearful of consuming GMOs derived through genetic engineering.
Aside from understanding that there may be no health risks with regards to GMOs as confirmed by many scientists and their various studies, there are proven benefits that counters the fears that comes along with it. For example, according to an article published in the International Journal of Childbirth Education called, “GMOs: What are they?,” Goldbas discusses some of the advances biotechnology has brought to agriculture, resulting in addressing some of the world’s problems such as malnutrition and starvation; “Breakthroughs include food plants which have been altered to be pest resistant and have greater nutritional values.” (Goldbas). One of these plants include the South African white corn that has the potential to be enriched with more protein (Goldbas). Golden rice that is enriched with Vitamin A and are a few other examples that can be enriched with more nutritious content. Furthermore, plants can be genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides, viruses, and withstand extreme environmental conditions (Goldbas). To support the previous statement, he mentions the genetically modified cassava plant, a starchy root that is normally eaten in tropical Africa, can offer its consumers enhanced minerals, vitamin A, and protein as oppose to their genetically modified counterparts (Goldbas). Thus, this can help to reduce weakened immune systems, childhood blindness, and iron deficiency anemia (Goldbas). Furthermore, as stated in the article from Medical Surgical Nursing, some of the benefits are not limited to an elimination of natural allergens found in certain agricultural products, improving the shelf life of food, enhancing taste, and becoming ingredients to help develop edible vaccines and pharmaceuticals (Lessick et. al). As demonstrated, GMOs can provide a new influx of solutions to address any of our problems and make what we already have even better. On the contrary, however, it is stated that there is no proven consensus on the safety of GMO consumption (non-GMO Project). Furthermore, there are studies that have been conducted that suggests that there may be GMOs may need more attention. According to an article from the Environmental Magazine, the author introduces Seralini’s study in which two groups of rats were either given genetically modified corn, their non-GMO counterparts, GMO corn with glyphosate, or glyphosate and water (Imhoff). This was done to replicate Monsanto’s study on their own genetically modified corn. As a result, the rats that consumed Monsanto’s GM corn and exposed to glyphosate caused more premature deaths, the development of tumors in some of the subjects, and increased liver damage, and kidney damage (Imhoff). Therefore, it may be necessary to be alarmed about what GMOs could potentially cause. In response, although the experiment did produce alarming results, there were a few inconsistencies throughout the experiment that may have skewed Seralini’s data. One can say that the sample size is too small for a toxicology study and the species of rats were already susceptible to developing cancers (Genetic Literacy). In addition, some of the rats that were exposed to genetically modified corn even outlived some of the rats that were in the group that weren’t exposed to GMOs (Genetic Literacy). Perhaps, we need to conduct more studies to confirm, but as of present day, the potential benefits of GMOs along with the current observation the people are consuming GMOs without any concrete problem is promising to confirm their safety and worth. Instead, imagine the endless possibilities in our agriculture and resources that GMOs can bring across the globe.
Currently, the controversy of GMOs remains strong today as many people ranging from various backgrounds have different perspectives on the health impacts that they can potentially impose on us. Fortunately, there hasn’t been any concrete evidence or any sign that people who consume GMOs on the daily basis have exhibited any illnesses or allergens in response to them. On the contrary, however, it may be ideal to continue conducting experiments on GMOs since they have only been around since the 1970s and there are recent contradicting studies, such as the Seralini’s experiment replicating the Monsanto’s GMO corn study, that may indicate GMOs may seem dangerous than it seems. Though, what is undeniable is that GMOs provide us with a plethora of benefits that can aid many of the world’s issues and advancements including malnutrition and medicine. Furthermore, along with the promising fact that the entire globe are consuming GMOs without any issue may be the one step forward to end the controversy of GMOs impact on human health.
References
MOST TRUSTED SEAL. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://www.nongmoproject.org/
Brody, J. E. (2018, April 23). Are G.M.O. Foods Safe? Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html
Reynolds, J.L. (n.d.). Monsanto’s GMO corn has no improvements on yields or reduced crop damage, report claims. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from
https://www.naturalnews.com/052360_Monsanto_crop_yields_MON810.html
Goldbas, A. (20+). GMOs: What are they? International Journal of Childbirth Education, 29(3), 20+. Retrieved October 16, 2018.
Guterman, L. (2000). Scientists leave the lab to defend bioengineered food. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(32), A29. Retrieved October 16, 2018.
Imhoff, D. (2013, March 1). Food Fight! Trying to Hold Back the Onslaught of Genetically Modified Foods-Or at Least Slap Them with a Label. E Magazine
Lessick, M., Keithley, J., Swanson, B., & Lemon, B. (2002, October 1). Genetically modified foods: A taste of the future. . MedSurg Nursing, 242+.
“Gilles-Éric Séralini: Activist Professor and Face of Anti-GMO Industry.” Genetic Literacy Project, geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/gilles-eric-seralini-activist-professor-face-anti-gmo-industry/.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
