GMOs — Risk or Revolution?
There has been debate over essentially every aspect of genetically modified (GM) crops ever since they were introduced. Much of the general public worries that genetically modified organisms (GMOs), will permanently damage the environment and have a negative impact on human health. Many professionals, on the other hand, defend GMOs, saying there is little to no basis for fear, and that the huge human population couldn’t be supported without them. Like every debatable issue, there many pros and cons, and many people support each side based on their own beliefs and ideals.
Personally, I don’t believe there’s an issue with GM crops, based on the scientific mechanisms by which they work, and the results from various studies. For example, if you think about it, humans have been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years (Kafar, 2016). Since people began farming, larger, more appealing crops were bred in favor of smaller ones with lower yields. Eventually, more crops became “domesticated,” and are notably different from their wild counterparts. For example, before humans began growing maize, it wasn’t a significant food source, and the seeds could be distributed naturally. However, after maize cultivation became more common, it became a high yield staple crop, and the seeds couldn’t spread by themselves; they needed people to harvest them. This demonstrates how genetically modifying organisms isn’t a new trend; it’s something people have always relied on for survival, it’s just genetically modifying organisms in a lab makes the job faster.
Another reason why I support the use of GM crops is because there’s no evidence suggesting they are dangerous to majority of the population or the environment. For example, there are no actual studies that warn people of a certain risk or danger associated with GM crops (Paarlberg, 2010). There are some studies that suggest GMOs are significantly dangerous, but these typically aren’t found in peer-reviewed journals, and are so poorly designed that the data presented isn’t considered to be valuable (Enennaam, 2015). It seems like people have been unable to find large faults with GM crops. While an absence of evidence doesn’t necessarily mean risks don’t exist, I believe if there were such dangerous effects as some people like to claim, scientists would have been able to uncover and prove them by now.
GM crops are also quite valuable because humans are not the only thing eating them; up to 70% of harvested GM crops are fed to livestock (Enennaam, 2015). This livestock helps produce food and resources for humans, including meat, milk, and eggs. If we didn’t have GM crops, we wouldn’t be able to feed as many of these animals as we currently do, which then means there wouldn’t be enough food and resources to support such a large human population. Researchers have also studied the foods livestock produce, and have been unable to find any risks associated with them (Enennaam, 2015).
I believe it’s important for people who argue against GM crops to know about the biology associated with them. DNA consists of four nucleotide bases; adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. Different orders and combinations of these bases code for the various proteins found in living things. If you genetically modify an organism, you only alter the DNA, so you could add, remove, or replace nucleotide bases to make the change. While alive, the modified organism produces different proteins to the original organism, which results in the different type of crop. However, when consumed, the organism is digested, and eventually broken up into its molecules; nucleotide bases being the center of concern. These bases are eventually used when replicating the consumer’s DNA, but no matter how they’ve been rearranged in the GM crop, there are still only four bases. There may be different amounts of each base in the GM crop vs. the original, but that doesn’t pose a risk to consumers. By this logic, unless the GM crop contains an allergen an individual is sensitive to, there is no reason why they should be considered dangerous.
Many people in the GMO debate overlook part of the actual issue, such as the process by which GMOs are tested and approved, or the significant benefits they provide to those in developing countries (Toft, 2010). At this point in time, it seems as though we depend on GMOs too much to stop using them, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t learn about the potential risks and benefits they provide.
GM crops have a significant role in the modern world. The current human population is around 7 billion, which is far above Earth’s natural carrying capacity. Without GM crops available to increase harvest yields, it would be impossible to feed everyone, which is especially true in developing countries. For example, in 2010, developing countries were responsible for 90% of the GM crops planted (Adenle, 2011). The types of GM crops utilized by these countries include drought resistant maize, which is one of the main food sources for over 30 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa (Paarlberg, 2010), and golden rice, which is a vitamin C supplement (Kafer, 2014).
In addition to helping end world hunger, GM crops have other benefits that can actually improve human health. For example, by creating crops resistant to pests, farmers don’t need to use as much pesticide (Kafer, 2014). Pesticide is a known and proven carcinogen, so reducing how much we use on food could have help reduce and prevent cancer. Genetically modified maize provides another example of how a GM crop can be healthier than the original. GM maize has been shown to contain lower levels of toxins from fungi introduced by insect damage, likely because the DNA now codes for proteins that make them pest resistant (Paarlberg, 2010).
It’s factors like these that inspire people to be pro-GMO; there are clear benefits to using GM crops, many of which we couldn’t live without or maintain the current population. It is undeniable that there are many positive aspects of GM crops, but many people are still opposed to their use.
Various studies have suggested that people shouldn’t be very concerned, but there are some negative consequences to creating and using GM crops. For example, if the GM crop contains certain genes from another organism, it can actually cross-react with an individual’s allergen and cause an allergic reaction (Putten, 2016). For example, there was a GM soybean that contained a gene from Brazil nuts, so people who ate those beans and were allergic to the nuts had an allergic reaction, despite not actually eating the original source of the allergen (Adenle, 2011). This could put individuals with allergies at risk, as they won’t always know the product they’re consuming contains the allergen.
Another issue with GM crops concerns how they are tested. As of 2013, all GM crops must be tested on rats for 90-days before being considered safe or risky for human consumption (Enennaam, 2015). This is long enough to observe any immediate effects of the GMO, but it doesn’t really give us insight as to whether or not the crop can affect the individual later on in life. People have been pushing governments to make the minimum test period longer and to test GM crops on other animals, such as livestock, but these campaigns have led to little success, mostly as the tests are quite expensive (Enennaam, 2015). This doesn’t mean the GM crops being tested are necessarily bad, but it means we don’t have a completely clear idea of how they could affect people and future generations, which can be quite a worrying fact.
Something else that people find quite frightening about GMOs is that a transferred gene doesn’t necessarily have the same effect in the GMO as in the original carrier (Krimsky, 2016). Genes can undergo post-translational modification, which means they can be altered after being transferred. Currently, scientists don’t appear to have a method of accurately predicting how such genes could be modified; they have to resort to testing each GMO individually, which, as previously mentioned, is quite expensive, and doesn’t provide much reassurance.
In conclusion, as long as there are GM crops in use, it’s likely there will be a debate. However, it’s important to educate people on both sides of the issue; only then will they be able to make a judgement based not on the media or scaremongers, but based on how they feel about the actual evidence and research. GM crops have clear benefits, such as feeding the world and reducing pesticide use, but also have some risks, such as allergens or the unpredictability of the genes being transferred. By understanding the science behind GM crops, individuals can decide whether or not they are willing to use and trust them.
Work Cited
Literature:
Adenle, Ademola A. “Response to Issues on GM Agriculture in Africa: Are Transgenic Crops Safe?” BMC Research Notes. BioMed Central Ltd., 8 Oct. 2011. Web. 2 Apr. 2016. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/792/art%253A10.1186%252F1756-0500-4-388.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fbmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com%2Farticle%2F10.1186%2F1756-0500-4-388&token2=exp=1459626862~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F792%2Fart%25253A10.1186%25252F1756-0500-4-388.pdf*~hmac=575c31174f2180a31dfc6417a24ea50845254b29b0c52154249d87e3ab720995
Eenennaam, Alison L Van. “GMOs in Animal Agriculture: Time to Consider Both Costs and Benefits in Regulatory Evaluations.” Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology. BioMed Central, 25 Sept. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2016. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015968/
Kafer, Krista. “Organic and Pro-GMO.” LexisNexis. N.p., 31 Aug. 2014. Web. 2 Apr. 2016. http://www.lexisnexis.com.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=144565&sr=HEADLINE(Organic+and+pro-GMO)%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B2014
Krimsky, Sheldon. “An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment.”Sage Journals. N.p., 7 Aug. 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2016. http://sth.sagepub.com.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/content/40/6/883.full.pdf+html
Paarlberg, Robert. “GMO Foods and Crops: Africa’s Choice.” Science Direct. N.p., 30 Nov. 2010. Web. 2 Apr. 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/science/article/pii/S1871678410005145?np=y
Putten, M.C. Van. “Novel Foods and Allergy: Regulations and Risk-benefit Assessment.” Science Direct. N.p., Feb. 2011. Web. 1 Apr. 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/science/article/pii/S0956713510002549
Toft, Kristian. “GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food.” EBSCOhost. N.p., 4 Sept. 2010. Web. 3 Apr. 2016. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5ec8e75f-3585-4c75-979c-62e843b53490%40sessionmgr120&vid=1&hid=128
Pictures:
“Social Enterprise Institute at Northeastern University.” Social Enterprise Institute at Northeastern University. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
“Quality Assurance and Food Safety for Arizona Youth Livestock Producers.”Arizona Youth Livestock Quality Assurance. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://extension.arizona.edu/quality/images/pages/swine.jpg
“Dairy and Egg Products Nutrient List.” Weight Loss Ideally. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://www.weightlossideally.com/nutrition-facts/dairy-and-egg-products-nutrient-list/
“Life Sciences Cyberbridge.” Life Sciences Cyberbridge. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
https://www.chem.wisc.edu/deptfiles/genchem/netorial/modules/biomolecules_chime/dna1/basepap.gif
Vosburgh, Robert. Pesticide Residue Levels Remain Low. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://supermarketnews.com/blog/pesticide-residue-levels-remain-low
“Toxic Apple.” Toxic Apple Royalty Free Stock Photo. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/loribennear/files/2014/03/pesticides-toxic-fruit.jpg
“Africa.” GMO EVIDENCE. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/GMO-study-on-rats.jpg