Is Genetically Modified Food Good or Bad for Human Consumption - Case Study Example

Is Genetically Modified Food good or bad for human consumption? "Almost any scientific discovery has a potential for evil as well as for good; its applications can be channelled either way, depending on our personal and political choices; we can’t accept the benefits without also confronting the risks." - Martin Rees, President: The Royal Society (2005) Introduction: Genetically modified food highlights the giant leap of mankind in the field of science and technology that enables researchers to control and at times go against the laws of nature, to manufacture food through ways and processes which goes beyond the realm of possibility or reason. Food thus created has managed to garner interest worldwide and met with a range of diametrically opposing emotions ranging from praise and appreciation on one hand to criticisms and concern on the other. GM (Genetically Modified) foods have been mired in controversy, ever since it was first made available through commercial sale in the 1990s when the Calgene company began testing the effectiveness of genetically engineered canola, marketed under the trade name Laurical, as a possible and cheaper alternative for canola, palm and coconut oil. Not only was the engineered oil more healthier but was also found to be commercially more viable /profitable than any existing natural product (Newton, 2009: p.111). As the effectiveness of GM foods gained attention the sales and production of the same exploded across the United States. It is estimated that between the period 1996 to 2002, the growth of GM crops increased exponentially by almost 3000 per cent and by 2004, 99 per cent of all crops grown in as many as six countries worldwide were genetically engineered (Newton, 2009: p. 6). Thesis statement: Consensus on GM foods being good or bad for human consumption is largely divided within the international community. With one side emphasizing and insisting on its significance based on factors such as cost benefits, commercial viability, shortage of food supply and pollution, and the other vehemently opposing the same on the grounds of its real nutritional value, vulnerability of children, negative implications on biodiversity and other unintended side effects brought on due to insertion of modified gene; the debate is a significant one since it is likely to have wide ranging implications on human civilization as a whole. This essay discusses the various pros and cons of GM foods, lists the key problems associated with its consumption and offers solution to address the same. The GM foods debate: The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines genetically modified foods as foods that are "derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g., through the introduction of a gene from a different organism" (WHO, 2015). Whether such food is beneficial or detrimental to human health is a matter of constant debates between groups with widely differing opinions. Personal benefit versus Public good: The supporters of GM foods claim that genetically engineered food products are designed to be healthier and they even help in reducing generation of food waste. Supermarket aisles in most parts of the developed Western world today are filled with a wide range of GM food which include food products used for everyday consumption such as cereals, frozen foods, vegetables, oils, tofu, and even milk and baby formula (Gunther, 2014a). Corporations have consistently claimed and pushed for genetically engineered foods to be made commercially available. Companies such as Pioneer owned by DuPont have released genetically engineered soybean under the brand name Plenish claiming that it is a much healthier replacement for hydrogenated oils used to fry food and keeping food from going stale. Similarly JR Simplot Co., the company that is touted to be U.S.s biggest producer of genetically engineered potatoes claim that the product marketed by them offers improved taste and reduces black spot bruises on potatoes which in turn hope in reducing food waste and save money for the consumers (Gunther, 2014a). However studies conducted over the years state otherwise. Contrary to the claims made by DuPont about Plenish oil being heart healthy a new study has challenged the effectiveness and health benefits of GM oil. According to this study, genetically engineered soybean oil induces weight gain and results in fatty liver, which ultimately increases the risk of heart disease manifold (GM Watch, 2015). Various health groups and activists have vehemently protested agains the use of genetically engineered foods citing health risks. A renowned advocacy group Food and Water Watch recently asked one of the biggest buyers of potatoes to stop buying genetically engineered spuds from J.R.Simplot Co., on the grounds that it is potentially harmful for the public health and continued consumption of the same is likely to cause long-term health concerns among the public. Citing the various health risks in a brief letter addressed to the CEO of McDonalds, Don Thomson, the Executive of Food and Water Watch, Wenonah Hunter claimed that genetically altering the plants is likely to unintentionally alter the inherent qualities of the crop with “potentially unforeseen consequences for human health" (Gunther, 2013). There is no consensus among the scientific community with regard to the effectiveness of genetically engineered foods. Supporters have aggressively claimed health benefits and cite the support and governmental approval received to commercially trade in such products as evidence of its effectiveness and even have even gone as far as to claim that NGOs cannot be trusted (Gunther, 2014b), while critics on the other hand claim that neither the government regulating bodies nor the companies could be trusted with regard to the thorough and honest assessment /evaluation of safety of GM foods (GM Watch, 2014). In the words of Mihael Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumers Union "This is new science and we need regulation that is appropriate (Gunther, 2013). With no common consensus between either of the groups the only possible solution is let the consumers choose and decide for themselves. This could be made possible by introducing and implementing a regulatory framework that makes it mandatory for companies to clearly display the type of food or the contents used in preparation, including trades as well as restaurants (Wallace, 2011). This could help in making the consumer aware of the type of food they choose to consume be it organic or GM food, and with the support of federal legislation the companies can be held responsible for any potential harm caused due to consumption of such food. Lack of knowledge: Americans, like millions of people in developed countries worldwide, eat a significant proportion of GM foods everyday. Although the consumption of GM foods has become fairly common and even supported by governmental regulatory bodies, the knowledge regarding its potential risks or side effects is still rudimentary. There continue to exist a wide gap between published studies that indicate the toxic impact of GM foods or substantiates beyond a reasonable doubt, that such food is harmless and on the contrary beneficial for human consumption (Domingo, 2000; Bakshi, 2003). The current and widely accepted principle applied in support of consumption of GM foods is based on the fact that since such food is similar in composition to the natural food, it is hence harmless and unlikely to cause negative health consequences. No proper investigation is carried out so far that clearly points to the ill effects or presence of high level of toxins in such food and the resultant consequences of genetically altering a food crop on long-term human health (Kuiper et al., 2002). The supporters of GM foods claim that GM food not only offer similar and in some cases improved health benefits, but also contribute to improved environment, reduced food waste and provision of food at cheaper and affordable rates to millions of those starving in developing countries. Refuting critics claim that genetically engineered food contain insertion of genes which could prove to be highly toxic, the proponents argue that GM food does not involve the purposeful use of toxins and that food manufacturers take stringent measures to adhere to quality standards since such food is subject to far greater scrutiny than organic food. Hence GM foods are safer for human consumption (Grain-Sherman, 2009; Lofstedt, 2002). Dr. Martha Herbert, a pediatric neurologist stated: "Today a vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history" (PBS, 2015). Since the knowledge about GM foods is still at an elementary stage it is highly imperative to ensure that there are more in-depth studies carried out by credible sources that offers a greater insight into the phenomenon and offers a fair and unbiased perspective on the benefits or consequences of consuming GM food. Children are more vulnerable to the health risks posed by genetically modified foods. Children are much more vulnerable to food allergies ad compared to adults. According to available statistics, food allergies occur more frequently (up to 8 per cent) in children as compared to only 2 per cent in adults. Some of the most common foods that are likely to be detrimental to childrens health and well being include milk (cow or goat), chicken /egg, soy, peanuts and tree nuts in young children and infants and wheat, fruits and vegetables, seeds, and spices (World Allergy.org, 2015). According to reports milk and milk products generated from cows that are fed genetically engineered bovine growth hormone that enables them to produce more milk, are known to contain high level of substances which results in increased levels of pus, antibiotic residues, and a cancer-accelerating hormone to be introduced within the human system. Also cows injected with the genetically engineered genes /hormones are far more likely to fall prey to udder infections known as mastitis. The presence of this rBGH hormone in cows is known to stimulate the IGF 1 hormone, which in turn affects cell growth of infants in cows as well as humans. This hormone is also largely been associated with increased risks of breast, prostate and colon cancers among humans (ejnet.org, 2015). According to the Organic Consumers Association (2015) the federal nutrition program, which allows the insertion of the fatal rBGH hormone in cows, is responsible for providing milk to schools nationwide. The National Milk Producers Association stated that nearly 430 gallons of milk was distributed across schools in the nation during the year 2005-2006, of which a significant proportion could contain milk produced by using the artificial growth hormone, which in turn is likely to increase the health risks among young vulnerable children with already fragile immune system as compared to the adults (Organic Consumers, 2015). Today an entire generation is being fed and raised with genetically engineered food at an early age on a day-to-day basis, with little or no knowledge about the potential harm it is likely to cause to human health in the long run (Cantani, 2006). Thousands of schools across the country are increasingly feeding young children genetically engineered food, which could prove to be highly detrimental to their vulnerable immune systems and cause life threatening diseases. With increasing reports on the harmful effect of food on childrens growth and well-being such as obesity, mood swings, and behavioral issues it is increasingly crucial to ensure that GM foods be removed from their diets and replaced with healthier alternatives such as organic food which is much more beneficial and suitable for consumption for young and the old alike. Conclusion: “If nature has spent millions of years building a structure with natural boundaries, it must be there for a purpose. It is there to guide the evolution of life and to maintain its integrity. Using genetic engineering in agriculture is like trying to fix something that has nothing wrong with it in the first place” Dr. Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics This essay discussed and emphasised the significant impact of genetically engineered foods on human health and critically evaluated the debates concerning its safety. The opinions, like in every crucial issue, varied on two extremes with one side claiming immense benefits and absolutely no harm to human health to the other that questioned and challenged every aspect of the food science technology and raised concerns about the need for such food to be included in our everyday diets. The risks are many including mild allergies to life threatening diseases such as cancer, and the outcome indicates that either everything would be all right or everything could go wrong. This dilemma over the potential health risks associated with GM foods largely stems from the lack of knowledge surrounding it and hence more studies are required to emphasize and clearly articulate the actual implications of consumption of such food on our health and well being. Works Cited: Bakshi, A., (2003). Potential adverse health effects of genetically modified crops. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, vol. 6: p. 211 - 225. Cantani, A. (2006). Benefits and concerns associated with biotechnology - Derived foods: Can additional research reduce children health risks? European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences Journal, vol. 10: p. 197 – 206 Domingo, J. L. (2000). Health risks of GM foods: many opinions but few data. Science, Vol. 288: p. 1748 – 1749. ejnet.org (2015). Bovine growth hormone: Milk does nobody good [Online] Available at: [Accessed: May 3, 2015] GM Watch (2015). Healthy claims for GM soybean oil questioned by new study. [Online] Available at: [Accessed: May 2, 2015] GM Watch (2014). Why Marc Gunther cant be trusted on GMOs [Online] Available at: [Accessed: May 2, 2015] Gunther, M., (2014a). GMO 2.0: Genetically modified foods [Online] Available at: [Accessed: May 2, 2015] Gunther, M., (2014b) Why NGOs cant be trusted on GMOs [Online] Available at: [Accessed: May 3, 2015] Gunther, M., (2013). McDonalds GMO dilemma: Why fries are causing such a fuss [Online] Available at: [Accessed:May 3, 2015] Gurain-Sherman, D., (2009). Failure to yield: Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. Kuiper, H. A., Kleter, G. A., Noteborn, H. P., and Kok, E. J. (2002). Substantial equivalence – An appropriate paradigm for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods?. Toxicology, 181–182 :p. 427–431. Lofstedt, R., (2002). The precautionary principle: Risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. Newton, D. E., (2009). Food chemistry. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing. Organic Consumers Association (2015) Give rBGH the boot from our schools [Online] Available at: [Accessed: May 3, 2015] PBS (2015). Should we grow GM crops? [Online] Available at: [Accessed: May 3, 2015] Wallace, H., (2011). Consumers acceptance (and resistance) to genetically modified foods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. WHO (2015). Food, genetically modified [Online] Available at: [Accessed: May 2, 2015] World Allergy (2015). Food Allergy [Online] Available at: [Accessed: May 2, 2015] Read More