Genetically Modified Food - Research Paper Example

Running Head: GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD Genetically Modified Food Genetically Modified Food Introduction Genetic modification offoods has become a common practice in North America. Originally, the discoveries in this area were thought important because they opened doors to creating crops that were supposed to be more resistant to pests and supposed to produce higher yields. However, their overwhelming presence on the market is better explained by their profitability (Thomson, 2007). GM technology is a complex, multi-faceted issue that concerns farmers, consumers, scientists, agricultural corporations, environmentalists, politicians, and the public. The technology promises to deliver crops that need less chemical inputs, that can grow in adverse conditions, and that have higher nutrient contents. As a result, GM could provide solutions to problems of poor, hungry, and marginalized people in developing countries (Weirich, 2007). Yet opponents of the technology are concerned that genetic modification can erode biodiversity, lead to genetic pollution, and cause the evolution of "super bugs" and "super weeds" (Weirich, 2007; Weick and Walchli, 2002). They also raise questions about the health safety of GM food and equity issues relating to the ownership of GM seeds (Weick and Walchli, 2002). The Arguments Surrounding Genetically Modified Food Advocates of genetic modification often contend that the risks associated with it do not differ much from risks introduced by conventional breeding. Indeed, in 1990, the International Food Biotechnology Council recommended that GM food plants could be regulated with existing laws and practices and that no additional regulatory measures were needed (Ingenthron, 1991). Some argue, on the other hand, that new biotechnology is qualitatively different from conventional techniques (Victor and Runge, 2002). In conventional breeding, whole blocks of genes are moved by allowing crossovers or meiosis (Lappe and Bailey, 1998). With genetic engineering, only isolated genes carrying specific traits are transferred. Also, genetic engineering allows gene transfer between species that would not naturally exchange genetic material. The later trait makes this new technology revolutionary, as revolutionary as the splitting of the atom. Giddens (2000: 8) called it a quantum leap, both in terms of its possible advantages and risks. Like every scientific revolution, GM technology has entered into public debate with its perceived benefits and costs. Perceived Benefits/Advantages In 1991, the Office of Technology Assessment stated that biotechnology would contribute to agriculture by: (1) lowering production costs; (2) increasing yields; (3) providing higher-quality food; and (4) reducing pesticide and herbicide use (Krimsky and Wrubel, 1996: 4). The proponents of new biotechnology claim that genetic engineering would also: (5) extend the growing season of grains and fruits; (6) breed plants or microorganisms which enable in-situ cleaning of polluted soils, surface waters, and aquifers; (7) develop new strains of crop plants capable of withstanding drought, frost, and salinity - three major problems that restrict plant growth; (8) breed fuel crops as an alternative to depleted fossil fuel resources; (9) develop crop plants better adapted to greenhouse effects; and (10) breed plants resistant to increased UV radiation (Weick and Walchli, 2002). These claims underlie the popular argument that the developing world has much to gain from GM technology. New strains of crops would help developing countries escape from low agricultural productivity, poverty, hunger, and malnutrition (Victor and Runge, 2002). Hence, proponents presented the technology as a panacea to overcoming third world hunger and malnutrition, achieving sustainable agriculture, and combating the adverse impacts of global climate change. Perceived Risks /Disadvantages Although genetic engineering promises substantial benefits for the environment, economy, and human health, there exist increasing concerns about the potential impacts of GM organisms (Tam, 2000). Opponents of genetic engineering fear that: (1) insect resistant crops would eventually lead to the development of resilient bugs, requiring greater insecticide use; (2) gene flow from herbicide resistant crops into wild relatives would create "super weeds"; (3) widespread use of homogeneous crop varieties would lead to the erosion of biodiversity; and (4) there would be irreversible genetic pollution through the environmental release of GM organisms and as a result of possible cross-pollination (Weick and Walchli, 2002). Opponents also raise concerns about the health safety of GM foods and issues of intellectual property rights associated with ownership of GM seeds (Weick and Walchli, 2002; Bollier, 2003). In addition, ethical considerations exist about gene transfers across species, whether or not "tampering with nature" is acceptable and if scientists should be allowed to "play God" (Juanillo, 2001). Potential Health Risks There are three major concerns addressed in the literature regarding the possible human risks associated with GM foods. These are: (1) the possibility of foods containing unknown or unexpected proteins, which could cause allergic reactions in vulnerable individuals; (2) increased bacterial resistance to antibiotics due to the use of antibiotic resistance genes as markers; and (3) unexpected toxins or interactive effects from increasing the content of nutrients in food (Whittaker, 1998). Unknown or Unexpected Proteins Unknown or unexpected proteins in food could arise from the introduction of any DNA, but cause particular concern when the DNA is taken from foods which are known allergens or from organisms which have never knowingly been consumed as food. Research has revealed that these are not idle fears. An experiment with soy modified with a gene from the Brazil nut plant has shown that highly allergenic substances can be transferred unintentionally, placing at risk anyone with a known allergy (Rifkin, 1998, 104). Critics have pointed out that many crops are being modified with genes that come from organisms that have never before been a human food source (Rifkin, 1998, 104). As a result, there could be new substances appearing in our food that are highly allergenic without our knowing it. It could also be quite difficult to identify the source of these new allergens if genetically modified foods are not segregated or labeled, because it will be impossible to determine what people have been consuming. The Royal Society of Canada has also stated that, although there is no evidence that current GM products have caused any allergic reactions, the identification of potential allergens in GMOs is only accurate and reliable when the transgenes come from known allergenic sources. When GM food contain novel proteins from sources without a history of extensive human exposure, assessment becomes more difficult (Royal Society of Canada, 2001, 72). The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee ("CBAC"), a non-governmental group reporting to the Minister of Health with respect to issues arising from development of new biotechnologies, has noted potential risks of GM foods with respect to new allergens, but concluded that post-market surveillance is difficult to implement in Canada (CBAC, 2002). Increased Antibiotic Resistance Increased antibiotic resistance is unlikely to arise from our consumption of foods containing proteins that confer such resistance on the food organism, but could result from fact that the use of antibiotics to detect transformed cells results in a greater exposure of bacteria to the antibiotic (Royal Society of Canada, 2001, 49) Greater exposure increases the likelihood that a bacterial cell that has developed resistance through a spontaneous mutation will obtain a selective advantage and produce a much larger number of offspring containing the resistance gene. It has also been shown that bacteria have the ability to transfer or take up genetic material across their cellular walls, and there is a possibility that bacteria will be able to obtain the resistance genes via a gene transfer from the transformed cells (McHughen, 2000, 47). New Toxins As for the possibility of new toxins in our foods, plans to increase the amount of a particular nutrient in a particular food item could increase the risk of spoilage or the growth of pathogenic bacteria which also thrive on that nutrient (Busch, 1991). Additionally, the boosted nutrient could interfere with some other essential nutrient. The fact is that we dont completely understand the complex molecular interactions in our food that make it healthy for us to eat. The Royal Society of Canada has noted that, if the contents of certain nutrients in a food fall at or beyond the extremes of the range that are used by nutritionists in determining parameters of a healthy diet, there could be health implications, particularly for humans who rely heavily on that foodstuff in their diet" (Royal Society of Canada, 2001, 84). Outstanding Issues There are, of course, other concerns expressed by people who are unhappy with the rapid introduction of GM foods into the marketplace. Many of these concerns are environmental and could ultimately have health impacts as well. Some of these concerns are summarized briefly here. Among the agricultural concerns are the reductions in the availability of genetic raw material due to over-reliance on particular strains, and the market effects of the monopolization of so many aspects of agriculture by a very few multinational corporations. The development of the ultimate strain has resulted in farmers relying on one or two varieties in their crops because they are the most competitive producers. But these crops often become vulnerable to disease or blight, and when there is only one plant variety present, disease can wipe out the entire crop (Rifkin, 1998, 107-115). When such blights have occurred in the past, such as the 19th Century potato blights in Ireland, researchers returned to the wild potato species of the high Andes to find strains that were resistant to blight. But there are fears that wild species could be transformed by "genetic pollution." If the genetically modified varieties are able to crossbreed with the original native species or traditional domesticated species, much of the existing biodiversity in edible plants could be eliminated. This is particularly true if the bioengineered crops have an advantage over the native species conferred by the genetic modification There have also been many concerns about genetic modification expressed by environmentalists, largely stemming from the potential for lost genetic variety and concerns about the ability of wild species to compete with "escaped" genetically improved varieties. The possibility of cross-breeding is also a concern for environmentalists (Rifkin, 1998,81-91). Other concerns are more political. Like the growing concentration of genetic material, the biotechnological revolution is rapidly concentrating control of most of the worlds food system in the hands of a small number of multinational corporations (Busch, 1991, 25-26). Genetically modified seeds are often designed to work only with pesticides or fertilizers produced by the same manufacturer, which will undoubtedly lead to higher prices for all of a farmers inputs. For farmers in developing countries, it may be difficult to obtain bioengineered varieties, making it harder for them to compete with foreign producers. Conclusion Genetic modification - manipulation of life processes at the molecular level ­enabled scientists to develop crops with desired traits. GM food has been a controversial issue. Proponents present it as a panacea to solving environmental problems while feeding the world. Opponents raise concerns about the health safety of consuming GM food, ecological impacts of farming GM crops, ethical issues about tampering with nature, and inequitable distribution of risks and benefits of such crops. There is a general suspicion, at least in certain segments of the population or in certain parts of the world, about new technologies. Do we really need these new technologies? When the first generation of GM foods has so clearly been derived to benefit the producers and not the consumers, while the consumers are expected to accept the foods and their safety without question, these suspicions become more deeply rooted. We begin to wonder who is driving the technology agenda. Corporations seek out larger market share and, with their involvement in the initial research, influence the direction of technological change. It is likely that part of the reason consumers in some parts of the world have rejected GM foods, while even those in North America have displayed some skepticism, is because they see no benefits to themselves in consuming these foods. But the issue that is probably of far greater concern is food safety. Numerous food and water safety scares in Europe and, more recently, North America, have doubtless contributed to consumer skepticism about any new technology used in the production of our food. For the consumer, acceptance of GM foods depends upon assurances that they are safe. For many consumers, there is also an issue of choice, or certainty - that is, to know when they are consuming GM foods. References Bollier, David (2003) Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. New York, NY: Routledge. Busch, Lawrence, William B. Lacy, Jeffrey Burkhardt and Laura R. Lacy, (1991) Plants, Power and Profit: Social, Economic and Ethical Consequences of the New Biotechnologies. Cambridge, MA:Basil Blackwell. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (1992), Improving the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods and Other Novel Food in Canada: Report to the Government of Canada Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee, Ottawa. Giddens, Anthony (2000) Anthony Giddens and Will Hutton in Conversation. Pp. 1-51 in Will Hutton and Anthony Giddens (editors). Global Capitalism. New York, NY: The New Press. Ingenthron, Gerard D. (1991) Public Communications: Genetically Improved Food Crops. Food Technology (April): 1l0-117. Juanillo, Jr., Napoleon K. (2001) The Risks and Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology: Can Scientific and Public Talk Meet? American Behavioral Scientist 44(8): 1246-1266. Krimsky, Sheldon and Roger P. Wrubel (1996) Technological Innovation in Agriculture. Pp. 9-28 in Sheldon Krimsky and Roger P. Wrubel. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment: Science, Policy and Social Issues. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Lappe, Marc and Britt Bailey (1998) Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of Your Food. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. McHughen, A., (2000). Pandora 8 Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rifkin, J., (1998). The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World. New York: Tarcher/Putnam. Royal Society of Canada, (2001). Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation Food Biotechnology Canada, Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada. Tam, P. (2000, January 3). Genetically modified foods: the battle comes to Canada. Ottawa Citizen, pp. A1, A8. Thomson Jennifer A. (2007). Seeds of the Future: The Impact of Genetically Modified Crops on the Environment. Ithaca, NY: Comstock. Victor, David G. and Ford Runge (2002).Farming the Genetic Frontier. Foreign Affairs 81(3): 107-121. Weick, C. Wagner and S.B. Walchli (2002).Genetically Engineered Crops and Foods: Back to the Basics of Technology Diffusion. Technology in Society 24: 265-283. Weirich Paul, (2007). ed. Labeling Genetically Modified Food: The Philosophical and Legal Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Whittaker, M. (1998). Reevaluating the Food and Drug Administration’s Stand on Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods. 35 San Diego L. Rev. 1215. Read More