Environmental Risk of Genetically Modified Food - Case Study Example

Background There exist a number of environmental risk issues that pose actual or potential threats to living organisms and the environment, Genetically Modified Foods (GM’s) of which forms an imperative constituent. Resulting from the modification of organisms’ DNA as a result of the recombinant DNA biotechnology, (WHO. 2001:5), it is accomplished by the incorporation of genes from other organisms hence have drawn environmental, health and economic concerns, implications of perceived safety issues and based on the fact that variant scientific approaches uses organisms that are subject to intellectual property law, (Hallman, Aquino, Cuite, Lang, 2006:6). GM foods have been hailed for being the sure approach to meeting the global demand for food especially within the developing world. Scientists affirm that it remains the only viable option for the attainment of the second green revolution to ensure adequate food supplies within the global domain. Critics however affirm that GM foods poses significant environmental risk to the natural society hence they note that the planet has the capacity to produce adequate food for everyone with the lack of food resulting from respective political systems’ inability to properly plan and distribute food, (Schneider & Schneider, 2002:4). Analyzing the economic, environmental and health concerns of the issue, activists argue that environmental impacts of the GM food types should be of more concern comparative to the other related issues. On health, studies indicate that the consumption of genetically modified foods may have unforeseen long-term adverse effects on not only human but the natural ecosystem as well, (Huebner, Studer, & Luethy, 1999: 1137). A 1998 research by the Rowett Research Institute affirmed that genetically modified potatoes contained Lancet, a substance that showed adverse effects on rats. Gene transfer and allergies are two key health risks that have been quoted as resulting from GM foods, (WHO. 2001:1). Based on several studies ingestion of GM foods may result into significant gene transfer from the respective GM foods to bacteria within their gut, (Hallman, Aquino, Cuite, Lang, 2006:12). There are also concerns that GM foods results into allergies which impose significant environmental risk to humans and other living organisms on the planet. The genetic modification of plants may results into unwanted crops or weeds that are genetically resistant to herbicides and other chemicals, an aspect that may result into a wild outgrow of destructive plants. Additionally crops genetically resistant to pests may lead to the elimination of species from the food chain thereby adversely affecting various ecological systems. GM foods may also result into the loss of biodiversity with other experts warning that the current level of technology, insight and foresight may not be able to deal conclusively with the environmental consequences of genetic structure of creation, (Huebner, Studer, & Luethy, 1999: 1137). GM is also being noted for posing great risks to conventional breeding and organic agriculture with others arguing that growing of natural food substances may be eliminated as famers will tend to prefer organic farms. Environmental Risks of GM Foods; Logical Tree Conceptually, the logic diagram presented above focuses on a representation of the environmental concerns of GM foods, although other concerns; economic and health are also represented. It follows that five key effects of GM foods on the environment are identified. They include; creation of genetically resistant weeds, altering of the ecosystem, loss of biodiversity, loss of conventional breeding and a significant shift from the organic forms of agriculture. Collectively, all the five risk factors will endanger plant and animal life in specific areas of trial and owing to the environmental factors such as climate and disease stress, the entire planet as a whole. Although proponents ascertain that the above noted concerns are illusionary, the ecological relationship presents inherent uncertainties on the environmental effects. Research by Scottish Research Institute (SCRI) has indicated that certain GM foods are resistant to pesticides and herbicides hence are able to survive in the wild. This may form precedence for unintended creation of weeds and other plants that are resistant to human control, hence resulting into the alteration of native habitats, (Huebner, Studer, & Luethy, 1999: 1139). Research indicate that transfer of genetic materials from GM food crops to wild populations or their wild relatives may be inevitable leading to contamination and genetic pollution in which deadly toxins escape from the controlled scientific environment to the wild, (Huebner, Studer, & Luethy, 1999: 1139). Fear of loss of biodiversity is a noted as a potential adverse environmental impact of GM foods and remains a complex and complicated issue. The diagrammatic representation of the varied resultant environmental issues shows highly interdisciplinary and complex issues affirming that crucial to drawing logical conclusions, proper assessment remains the best approach to defining appropriate baseline for comparison, conclusions, and decisions. Risk and Risk Assessment Probabilities and magnitudes of the noted environmental risks can be quantified using varied approaches. Risk is a subjective concept that may mean different things to many people dependent upon their social, cultural and economic background and values. Adopting the mathematical expression of risk as; Risk = Probability × Consequences = Likelihood of Event × Negative Impact of the Event (Where the negative or undesired impact may be referred to as a hazard, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:20) Based on this approach, the environmental risks of Genetically Modified Foods may be expressed as rate or probability with the latter being the most favored since, imperatively; managing the probability will certainly manage the risk, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:20). Analyzing individual concerns, three considerations must be established; the possibility of harm, the probability of that harm occurring and the consequences of that harm, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:20). It is imperative to note that risk assessment of GM crops do not concern itself with whether certain risks are acceptable or tolerable within certain conditions, these decisions have to be made based on the various social, cultural, political or economic contexts, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:21). Risk assessment of varied environmental concerns of GM foods follows two approaches; the concept of familiarity and the precautionary principle. Conner, Glare, & Nap (2003:20) affirms that the latter is widely adopted and forms the basis for the regulation within the European Union and is a constituting component of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The principle of familiarity uses scientific knowledge to establish whether a given risk issue is likely to occur or not. This has however been adequately opposed with experts noting that the potential adverse effects of GM foods cannot be based on inadequate scientific data that exists within the area, (Huebner, Studer, & Luethy, 1999: 1138). Individual risk assessment of specific concerns also presents varied challenges. For example, assessing the risk of developing genetically resistant weed that may pose serious consequences to the environment, considerations such as the weed’s ability to grow well in the new environment, absence of effective enemies such as diseases and herbivores and the specific weed characteristics that makes its probability certain must be put into consideration, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:20). Comparative analysis of the potential benefits and perceived threat has also been adequately applied to determine the environmental risk factors of GM foods. Qualitative analysis of the fear of loss of biodiversity for example, is based on assessing GM crops’ benefits and potential threats comparative to the benefit-threat analysis of the crops they are to replace. Similar approaches are also applied when analyzing the aspect of loss of conventional breeding approaches with proponents affirming that suppose the approach is a better alternative to conventional breeding, with the production of hybrid plants which are pest resistant, the approach should be supported, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:22). Limitations A number of weaknesses exist on the scientific knowledge of quantifying the environmental effects of GM crops. The most notable weakness is the basing of majority of risk assessments on plant attributes for example, the probability of developing genetically resistant weeds is based on resulting attributes after the deliberate introduction of new genetically modified species into a new environment, and the assessment of these characteristics following this move, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:24). Scientists however do not consider whether natural crops can also invade the ecosystem similar to the GM foods leading to the growth of resistant weeds. Conner, Glare, & Nap (2003:23) affirms that common distinctive attributes of weeds such as plasticity, phenotypic, dormancy, indeterminate growth, seed production and continuous flowering may not be clear cut to link specific weed types to GM technology hence the risk assessment procedure may be flawed, (US GAO, 2002:8). Scientist’s inability to concretely state the differences between the potential impact of gene transfer between GM crops and other species comparative to their non-GM counterparts have also been faltered and noted as a reliable question to the environmental impact of GM crops, (Huebner, Studer, & Luethy, 1999: 1138). The varied risk assessment procedures have all failed to directly link GM foods to the noted adverse effects. He however notes that plant science should be based on provable, publishable research hence the risks calculability are reduced to zero as majority of the result are unverifiable. He also notes that majority of GM environmental risk assessments fail to use appropriate tools such as comparing possible transgenic lines to the same generation of null segregants as controls, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:26). Feasibility of Risk Control Since nearly all GM foods are scientifically created, varied risk presented can be adequately controlled. The rise of genetically resistant weeds can be controlled by controlling gene flow indices that indicates the likelihood of a given crop species to hybridize with wild relatives or other weeds, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:27). This will ensure chances are adequately reduced when applicable to specific crop types. Monitoring of gene flow from certain crops within a given region will also ensure that no ecological effects occur from the GM cultivated crops. With no or minimal gene flow, gene transfers from specific GM crop plants to the surrounding flora will ensure the conservation of the ecosystem, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:28). The risk issue of compromised biodiversity may be averted via GM crop control with various authorities and policy makers reaching a consensus on pertinent issues. For example, the long term effects of GM foods on biodiversity have repeatedly been noted as adverse, yet long term is a subjective concept that could range from months to decades and centuries, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:31). Intense studies into the GM foods’ effects on biodiversity will ensure increased productivity while saving biodiversity. With proper monitoring and control, GM may be a better tool for plant breeding making it an asset to conservation, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:32). The issue of loss of conventional breeding may be averted by balancing between GM and natural forms of production thereby allowing for the transfer of genes within species in a more controlled and efficient manner, (Conner, Glare, & Nap, 2003:32). The particular concern on organic farming industry may also be controlled by proper policy development and implementation though Conner, Glare, & Nap (2003:30) affirm that this is not a threat and the concerns are purely emotional. Comparative Analysis Comparing the risk of loss of biodiversity as a result of GM crops and from other human activities, risk assessments indicate that the latter is far more significant comparative to the former. Human activities with the exclusion of GM research have rapidly led to the loss of the planet’s biodiversity. For example, looking at the destruction of rain forest within the last two decades of the 20th century, mankind destroyed the heritage at an incredible speed. Analyzing the risk of GM foods and that of other human activities to biodiversity loss, it is evident that the probability and the consequence of human activities far outweigh that of GM foods, (Schneider & Schneider, 2002:6). Perceptions People across the globe have reacted differently to the likely environmental effects of GM foods comparative to other potential risks such as health and economic concerns. Multitudes have been skeptical on the scientific ability to precisely modify natural processes and yet still come up with safe products, (Klintman, 2002:72). Although the awareness of the presence, risks and potential benefits of the GM technology remains scarce, Hallman, Aquino, Cuite, Lang (2006:1), states that the general population feels that the risk associated with the GM products may be minimal and is controllable. Although the global population value naturalness and healthfulness in foods, majority have come to note that GM foods are not as risky as presented by critics, (Klintman, 2002:72). References Conner, A. J., Glare, T. R. & Nap, J. 2003. ‘The Release of Genetically Modified Crops into the Environment: Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment’ The Plant Journal (2003) 33, 19–46 Hallman, W. K., Aquino, H. L., Cuite, C. L., Lang, J. T. 2006. Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. Rutgers University Huebner, P., Studer, E., & Luethy, J. 1999. ‘Quantization of genetically modified organisms in Food’ Nature Biotechnology, 17 (11), 1137-1138 Klintman, M. 2002. ‘The Genetically Modified Food Labeling Controversy: Ideological and Epistemic Crossovers’ Social Studies of Science, 32(1) 71-91 Schneider, R. K & Schneider, R. G. 2002. Genetically Modified Food. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Retrieved, November, 23rd, 2009 from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FS/FS08400.pdf US GAO. 2002. Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regimen of Safety Tests as Adequate But FDA’s Evaluation Process Could Be enhanced.’ General Accounting Office. Retrieved, November, 23rd, 2009 from: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02566.pdf WHO. 2001. Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved, November, 23rd, 2009 from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/en/ec_jan2001.pdf Read More