Category: Genetically Modified Food

According to an article on the Russian news site called RBC, the law on banning GMO in Russia entered into force on the 4th of July in 2016. Vladimir Putin signed the document that prohibits the importation of GMO into Russia and the cultivation of genetically modified plants and animals, except for cases when this is done during research. In my opinion, GMO technology is only beneficial for humanity and should not be banned.

Firstly, genetically modified food is healthier and has higher quality than usual food, because farmers started using crops that are resistant to insect pests. So, farmers need to use much less pesticides and the product becomes less dangerous for consumers. In the open access scientific journal called ‘PLOS ONE’ a meta-analysis of 147 original studies concerning the impact of GM crops on farming was made. According to its results, using transgenic plants lowers pesticide use by 37%. Besides, the Okanagan Specialty Fruits company developed new ‘Arctic’ apples that don’t get brown after slicing them. An article about this invention appeared on the National Public Radio site.

Secondly, GMO is very important for people’s health. For instance, in 1978 transgenic bacteria were invented that produced insulin, which is essential for people who have diabetes. This people require daily injections and just can’t survive without it. According to the report of American Diabetes Association, about 6 million people in America alone use insulin. Moreover, genetically modified microorganisms also produce blood clotting factors required to treat hemophilia.

Thirdly, GMO can help us to solve important ecological problems. For example, transgenic poplars cleanse groundwater much more effectively. An article in the journal called ‘Popular Mechanics’ says that GM poplars absorb up to 91% of trichloroethylene, which is the most common pollutant of ground water, whereas usual trees absorb only up to 3% of that substance.

In conclusion, there’s a popular belief that GMO is not healthy, it causes diseases, or it can escape into wild nature and thus harm the ecology, so GMO should be prohibited and we shouldn’t use genetic engineering technologies. This point of view was formed by television and the Russian state channel called ‘Russia-1’ played a big role in it. Nevertheless, I support genetic engineering and don’t fear it, because it’s very successful. GMO improves people’s health, the quality of food and ecology. That’s why I think some people should reconsider their current opinion about this topic and analyze it more deeply.

Genetically modified foods are genetically engineered foods. They are food items generally delivered for public utilization that have been adjusted with genetic material from other living organisms. GMO foods are genetically changed to build up valuable or wanted attributes. The organism that is giving its genetic material might be a creature, a plant, or a microorganism. Food was a lot fresher before than it is presently. We can tell that produce and what we eat have drastically changed since. New innovations and advancements have permitted modification to natural substances to upgrade and improve the food supply, however genetically modified foods can influence the environment, human well-being, and the economy.

Genetically modified foods can possibly influence the environment adequately in various manners. For example, some plant populations might be supplanted by genetically altered harvests, because of the genetically adjusted yield spreading outside the harvest field and connecting with modified plant weeds and gradually turning out to be genetically modified plants. Since genetically altered yields are delivered to be impervious to pesticides and herbicides, there is the chance that they could attack wild fields and different places and thrive due to these exceptional qualities. On the off chance that this occurred, the local grasses would not be able to compete, and biodiversity would be lost. Likewise, numerous genetically designed yields contain harsh viruses and there is the potential that these viruses could form new and perilous viruses, which could pulverize explicit harvests. The second manner by which the biodiversity of an area is possibly influenced is by the diminishing yields that are being planted. This is an issue that is happening today and results in the loss of genetic variety inside harvest societies. Ranchers being compelled to utilize just natural seeds is an example of a potential decline in biodiversity. On the off chance that natural seed is utilized, ranchers will be in financial difficulty because of better tasting, better-looking yields created by ranchers utilizing genetically changed seeds.

Human well-being can be viewed as the biggest factor when thinking about genetically modified foods. This is a direct result of a couple of viruses and infections that have been found using generic foods. Additionally, the potential for new illnesses and infections using genetically foods is expanding, and individuals don’t know about the dangers. The health dangers for people by eating GMO foods are intense, and the results that may come can possibly be hazardous.

Giving an adequate food supply to people in the future is a significant worry for most governments around the globe. Genetically modified foods give a guarantee of bigger yields and longer timeframes of realistic usability of food. This means a distinct increment in the world nourishment supply which will bring down the cost of food in many circumstances, making it increasingly open to more unfortunate and poor countries. This can’t be true in every case on the grounds that any viruses would influence all the plants present in the field. In addition, the cross-fertilization of such plants with different plants builds the danger of contamination. In genetically modified crops, there are a few chemical compounds that kill different types of insects like bees, beetles, ladybugs, butterflies, caterpillars, grasshoppers, and many more. Many helpful living organisms also are influenced by bugs.

Animals are also affected by genetic modifications in many ways. Genetic modification in living creatures is completed for the creation of drugs, prescriptions, human proteins, and treatments. The action of creature cloning prompts disfigurements at birth and a large number of animals die very at a young age. Genetic modifications are additionally utilized for making organs for humans as implants. For example, the heart of a pig could be transplanted into a human, in the event that the person is confronting a transplant failure, it could be very risky for the human. If an animal was genetically modified it could be very dangerous for the human because the pig’s heart could be contaminated with a disease and it may spread to the people.

 Hungry and want to pour yourself fresh milk into your cereal bowl? What if I told you that that milk probably came from a cow that was injected with RBGH, a type of hormone, that’s synthesized from genetically modified bacteria? It’s 2019 and I feel embarrassed to have to inform you that we have the right to know what’s in our food. The United States does not mandate labelling of genetically modified foods, which most of us know as GMOs. GMOS are plants or animals that have had their make-up altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally their own, which is accomplished by the transfer of genetic material from one species to another that cannot happen in nature (Harmon, 2018).

We, as consumers, should have the right to choose. According to Eric Schlosser, from Food Inc, 70 percent of processed food in the supermarkets has some genetically modified ingredient. Genetically modified crops in the U.S. include soy (94 %), cotton (90 %), canola (90 %), sugar beets (95 %), corn (88 %), Hawaiian papaya (more than 50 %) (Fergusson, 2019). Basically, what this means is that over 75 percent of the processed foods we’re eating now contains genetically modified materials. Gross.

GMO products should be labeled because we have the right to choose whether we want to eat genetically modified organisms or not. A 2003 ABC news survey showed that, ‘majorities of Americans favor mandatory labeling 92 percent for genetically modified foods, and 85 percent for food from farm animals that have been fed hormones or antibiotics.” In a 2007 University of Houston Survey, indicated that people want choice. ‘…More than 90 percent of those surveyed supported the labeling of genetically modified foods, 68 percent indicated that such labeling was needed, and 50 percent felt that not labeling genetically modified food products was a violation of the consumer’s rights (Fergusson, 2019).” The simple truth is that most people want the right to choose what they eat and what they feed their families. For consumers to make informed decisions, the public deserves a truthful marketplace.

Now that I’ve talked about the risks of not having GMO foods labeled, I have chosen a policy that will protect our health by having labeling requirements. This would make it possible for people to make smarter eating choices for themselves. I believe that the government should label Genetically modified products. If this policy is adopted, consumers will know what’s in what they are purchasing and it could help people begin to care about what they’re eating because the GMO labeling would involve producers to inform the consumers if plant-based ingredients were modified with animal DNA in some way. We need labeling because we’re introducing new bacteria, new genetic material, and new proteins in our foods that have never been before. Labeling which products have GMOS will allow consumers to have knowledge and be able to choose a product they feel is best for their lifestyle and values. GMO labeling will allow for a stronger relationship between producer and consumer. A stronger relationship will allow the trust of farmers by consumers.

Everyday shoppers may not notice genetically modified organisms exist and the negative impact it may inflict on them until we label them. And to achieve this goal, I urge you guys adopt this labeling policy. By adding labels to GM products, it will be easier for vegetarians, vegans, and those who practice certain religions to determine whether a product has been altered with animal DNA. After the problem is solved, consumers would determine what they would prefer to purchase and multiple countries around the world have some sort of labeling requirement when it comes to GM foods. In fact, 64 countries require labeling of GMO and 14 countries have even banned GMOS (Labeling around the world). With everyone’s cooperation, the FDA is required to the people, to make us aware of ingredients that change the food that is not obvious to us. Our federal government’s failure to mandate labeling is a complete breach of its responsibility to the people and I want to remind you that we have a role in making that happen. Now let’s work together and get our foods labeled. 

Genetically Modified Food and crops frequently raise questions amongst individuals. The topic has exponentially increased since the 90s and continues to do so to date. A genetically modified food/organism or GMO is defined by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) as an organism produced through genetic engineering. We are at an ever-changing diet spectrum that needs constant adaptation and improved technological skills in order to compete with the changing climate phases and people’s health. Hence the question raises itself when we include the topic of GMOs. Are we willing to adapt and finally accept GMO crops and foods in our staple diet? A GMO is a genetically modified organism. The biological makeup is manipulated into deliberate characteristics to achieve desired results. The term, ‘organisms’ also covers a wide variety of beings from animals to plants. Every plant and animal are products of genetic modification by mother nature. Living thing have been genetically modified from some predecessor. The theory is called evolution and Man has been modifying crops for thousands of years (Cowell, 2012).

Gene editing differs from older genetic modification technique, which often involves transferring genes from one species to another. Gene editing, on the other hand uses precise molecular tools to remove small fragments of DNA stretches or alter the single letters in genetic code. Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) occurs world-wide in most swine raising countries. There is no vaccine and hence no treatment. The Guardian journalist, Hannah Devlin reported that a trial, led by the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute, showed that the pigs were completely immune to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) due to enhancement in their DNA being gene edited. As per the study, infected pigs are safe to eat for human consumption, but the virus causes breathing problems within pigs, death of piglets, pregnant sows to lose their litter. This is an economical problem as it costs the European swine industry nearly 1.5 billion in pounds in pig deaths each year. Since there is no cure for this disease, the scientists deleted a certain section of the pig’s DNA that in turn made them immune to the disease. Even after the deletion of the gene trait, prolonged exposure did not cause any infection. “It is what we call complete immunity. The resulting pig is still 100 percent pig… or 99.99 percent” (Burkard, ‘Journal of Virology’, 2018)

The majority of the groceries one buys has transgenic properties or genetically modified organisms in some way or form. With the lack of information, marketed studies and biased opposers, people seem to not have full access to information about these foods and hence form negative opinions about them. We fear what we do not understand and hence the debate around GMOs is quite polarized.

As mentioned earlier, the information about genetically modified organisms is full of blanks which creates skepticism among the general public. Chelsea Gohd from Science Alert website, reviewed 6,000 articles on the opinion of GMOs wrote a 2018 meta-analysis of transgenic corn, where scientists went through real time data from 1996, the first transgenic corn planting, to 2016 in United States, Europe, South America, Asia, Africa and Australia. They learned that transgenic corn varietals increased in yield quantity from 5.6 to 24.5 % in all agricultural areas. They also had lower percentages of mycotoxins (-28.8 %), fumonisins (-30.6 %) and thricotecens (−36.5 %), which are carcinogenic chemical byproducts of crop colonization. This meta-analysis is quite a substantial discovery as more than half the world consumes corn as a staple. It also allowed for the reconfirmation of the scientific idea that transgenic corn was safe to consume. This can be seen as an agronomic benefit as agronomy is defined as a branch of agriculture dealing with field-crop production and soil management.

An example of economic benefit from GMOs is the aid of farmers in developing countries. The ISAA Brief (2017) talks about developing nations like India, Paraguay, Pakistan, Columbia, Chile, and Mexico, to name a few, account for 53 % of the globe’s genetically modified crops. Five developed nations heralded by the United States and forty-three other countries also grow these crops. This crop is said to be the fastest acquired crop of the twenty first century. This 2018 study by the Cornell Alliance for Science from the ISAA brief, talks about the widespread economic gains to the farmers, especially in developing countries. They noticed the recent production of next generation biotech crops — including apples and potatoes that are not likely to spoil or become damaged, anthocyanin-enriched super sweet pineapple, increased ear biomass and high amylose content maize, and soybeans with modified oil content, combined with the commercialization approval for an insect resistant sugarcane . This provided more diverse offerings to consumers and food producers” (Cornrow, 2018).

It can also be mentioned that the health benefits are also high as climate change can also affect the nutrient output of crops. Modifying the chemical composition to make sure the food has specific nutrients which the human body needs. Taking Amflora potatoes for example, an additional copy of granule-bound starch synthase was introduced to the parent product. An opposite effect is that the final product has less amylose but is rich in amylopectin. (Flemish Institute for Biotechnology, 2010)

One of the earliest achievements of GMOs has been the “Flavr Savr” tomatoes. These were created in 1992 by a Californian company named Calgene. This new type of vegetable consisted of an antisense gene (a method for silencing genes) which suppressed a specific enzyme. This created tomatoes with longer shelf lives (Zhang, Wohlhueter, Zhang, 2016). This type of alteration is not just for plants or crops but can be used in animal products. Transgenic fish, the objective was to improve the growth hormones and body mass. The FDA (Food and drug administration) approved the AquaAdvantagea to American consumers on November 19, 2015, a decision made after twenty years. This type of salmon is the first of its kind to be approved for human consumption. This also caused a decrease in pressure on wild fish populations.

In 2011, scientists in China had introduced a human gene into a group of three hundred cows which caused the production of ‘lysozyme’ which is a protein found in human milk but not in the cattle like variety. The main idea was to combat malnutrition in children as the modified milk contained antibodies and proteins to build up the immune system. Though it has not hit the market yet, scientists are hopeful to introduce it within three years as they need to conduct appropriate human trials. (Wolchover, 2011)

Transgenic foods can also be used in the stimulation of the immune system for the better, to produce antibodies. Many crops like rice, maize and soybean are being studied to be used as an option for carrying vaccines against different infections (Zhang, Wohlhueter, Zhang, 2016).

Though these genetically modified organisms have multiple benefits to them, there is still a lot that has not been tested. The main risks mentioned have been toxicity, allergens and genetic issues. The possible sources of these issues are the introduced gene and its proteins, the secondary products of the gene modification, the hypothetical disruption of the original genes.

Starlink maize is one major example. This particular crop had been introduced with the gene from Bacillus thuringinesis to make it resistant to insects. Many allergic reactions to these crops were reported after its consumption due to the creation of Cry9c, which had strong allergenic properties (Zhang, Wohlhueter, Zhang, 2016).

The biggest push of GM foods is for the purpose of creating pest and herbicide resistant crops (Brookes & Barfoot, 2018). Specific proteins are formed to protect against these issues which protect the plant and eliminate the pests. History speaks for itself as nature evolves with us and our creations so one cannot know what better adapted species may be born. In addition, getting rid of the major pests is great but the minor pests may shift to other species. A disruption is inevitable in the food chain which can cause irreversible changes (Brookes & Barfoot, 2018).

After mentioning some advantages and some disadvantages, it is clear that the world is still quite far off from introducing GMOs into full force. Creating heighted awareness about them is very important. It is true that plants can modify themselves on a daily basis, but transgenic organisms are very different. These breeds are engineered for purposes that naturally would not be possible.

There has not been serious evidence of the fact that GMOs cause health risks, but people are still concerned. The name itself “genetically modified” does create quite a stir (Norris, 2015). For the general public, it raises the question of what they are putting in their bodies. A consumer survey in Turkey which resulted in the understanding that they had a basic idea of what GM product was, but their main concern was the carcinogenic effect. They were satisfied if it was used in the health sector and prevented environmental pollution but did not like it being used in food (Tas, Balci, Yuksel & Yesilcubuk, 2015).

A blog through Harvard University spoke about the tests that different groups of scientists conducted in favor of GMOs. They spoke about a test that was conducted on rats in South Dakota University over a course of time to monitor if the toxicity that the modified organisms were claimed to have, actually have any adverse effects. They monitored the rats and up to three generations throughout the study. The final conclusion was that there was no relationship between GM foods and mutations, organ health and function, fertility, pregnancy and their offspring were unaffected with no evidence of gene transfer (Norris, 2015).

But on the other hand, certain false negative practice by big game corporations like Monsanto and Covance have led to further investigation and research that have led to people fighting the notion against GMOs and its biased testing. With only two weeks of testing of GMO products on lab rats, critics were unsure about the truth behind the significance of GMOs and question the long-term effect which none of the corporations are willing to comment on. For instance, an independent study conducted by Seralini with the statistics provided by Monsanto showed varying results and even damaging evidence. Analysis showed that there was significant increase in blood glucose of 10 percent in GM fed female rats, 24-40 percent overweight livers and enhanced liver/brain ratios and 3.7 percent gain in weight and disturbed kidney parameters.

Even though the study did not show proof of toxicity in the time period they performed the experiment, it is clearly undeniable. Scientist want to perform long term effects on different ages, sexes and with various pathologies but are not backed by these corporations and hence raise suspicion.

In conclusion, I would be open to continue in my consumption of genetically modified foods, but I do not support a lot of the practices involved in patenting the product and no long term studies have been granted full public transparency by major food corporation, specifically those of the Monsanto corporation. Coming from a third world country, having been witness to the economic advantage it has given the farmers and the people, it is very helpful in promoting their livelihood. These GMOs are the future of our diet and we need to be more accepting but also vigilant in the practices of handling and manufacturing of such modified being. Humanity needs to find a common base in order to build a secure and sustainable future.

References

1. Brookes, G. & Barfoot, P. Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2016. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2018.1464866
2. Clancy, K. A. (2016). The Politics of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ciachef.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1348817&site=ehost-live
3. Cowell, D. A. (2012, October 28). Letters: Labeling genetically modified food. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-oct-28-la-le-1028-sunday-gmo-prop37-20121028-story.html
4. Devlin, H. (2018, June 20). Scientists genetically engineer pigs immune to costly disease. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/20/scientists-genetically-engineer-pigs-immune-to-costly-disease
5. Fraley, Robert T. “GMOs Are a Necessity-for Farmers and the Environment.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 4 Oct. 2016, www.wsj.com/articles/gmos-are-a-necessityfor-farmers-and-the-environment-1475537025
6. Gohd, C.(2019). A Review of 6,000 Studies Over Two Decades Delivers Its Verdict on GMO Corn. Retrieved from https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-6000-studies-over-two-decades-delivers-its-verdict-on-GMO-corn-safety
7. Haspel, T. (n.d.). Scientists Say GMO Foods Are Safe, Public Skepticism Remains. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/05/17/scientists-say-gmo-foods-are-safe-public-skepticism-remains/
8. Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health. (2004). Safety of genetically engineered foods : Approaches to assessing unintended health effects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
9. Kaur A, Kohli R, Jaswal P. Genetically Modified Organisms: An Indian Ethical Dilemma. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics. 2013;26(3):621-628. doi:10.1007/s10806-012-9429-4
10. McDvitt, P.(2018). Does GMO corn increase crop yields? 21 years of data confirm it does—and provides substantial health benefits. Retrieved from https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/19/gmo-corns-yield-human-health-benefits-vindicated-21-years-studies/
11. Nestle, M., & Nestle (2010). Safe food : The politics of food safety. Retrieved from
12. Norris, M.L. (2015). Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them. Retrieved from http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/will-gmos-hurt-my-body/
13. Newton, D. E. (2014). GMO Food: A Reference Handbook : A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Retrieved from
14. Panchin, A. Y., & Tuzhikov, A. I. (2017). Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 37(2), 213–217. Retrieved from
15. Ruse, M., & Castle, D. (2002). Genetically modified foods : Debating biotechnology (Contemporary issues). Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books
16. Séralini, G.-E., Vendômois, J. S. D., Cellier, D., Sultan, C., Buiatti, M., Gallagher, L., … Dronamraju, K. R. (2009). How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 438–443. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.5.438
17. Slot, M. M., van de Wiel, C. C. M., Kleter, G. A., Visser, R. G. F., & Kok, E. J. (2018). The assessment of field trials in GMO research around the world and their possible integration in field trials for variety registration. Transgenic Research, 27(4), 321–329.
18. Tas, M. & Melek, B. & Yuksel, A. & Yesilcubuk, N. S.(2015) Consumer awareness, perception and attitudes towards genetically modified foods in Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/BFJ-01-2014-0047/full/html
19. Tizard, M., Hallerman, E., Fahrenkrug, S., Newell-mcgloughlin, M., Gibson, J., de Loos, F., . . . Doran, T. (2016). Strategies to enable the adoption of animal biotechnology to sustainably improve global food safety and security. Transgenic Research, 25(5), 575-595. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-016-9965-1
20. Vicini, J. (2017). GMO crops in animal nutrition. Animal Frontiers, 7(2), 9–14. doi: 10.2527/af.2017.0113
21. Wolchover, N. (2011). Cows Make Humanized Milk. But Is It Safe? Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/14538-cows-humanized-milk-safe.html
22. Zhang,C. & Wohlhueter, R. & Zhang H.(2016). Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453016300295

Genetically modified (often referred to as GM) food is usually grown for human or animal consumption and is altered by genetic engineering. The crop or plant is inserted with a gene from a different organism or species of plant with the purpose of giving the plant a desirable characteristic or trait. Desirable traits for crops include improved pest or herbicide resistance in order to increase crop yield, and increased tolerance to cold or drought, expanding the range in which plants can be grown. Plants may also be genetically modified to increase their nutrient content or to add specific vitamins to foods who naturally do not have them. GM food is wildly accepted in the United States where they do not even require labelling food as genetically modified. This technology is less accepted in Europe, where multiple countries in the EU have banned GM products from the food market. Genetically modified food is a debated topic. Even though research appears to indicate that GM food is safe, there exists concern that United States’ regulations is not strict enough. Genetically engineered food has many benefits but still raises questions about potential health and environmental risks. Although there is broad consensus that genetically modified food is safe, it should not continue to be integrated into the world’s food market because of the negative environmental impacts and the lack of studies of GMOs long term effects on human health.

Proponents of genetically modified food state that there is no evidence of GM food being harmful to human health, however lack of safety testing, unknown long term affects as well as other concerns discredits this claim. The World Health Organization claims that “GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health” (WHO website, cite). In the United States labeling of GM food is not a requirement because The American Medical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science claims that there is no scientific evidence that suggests that GM foods can be harmful to human health. The reason no harmful effects on human health has been found is because there is barely any testing for them. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the U.S. does not have a mandatory process for determining the safety of genetically modified food, it strictly relies on the biotech companies to voluntarily test their products. Genetically modified food has not been subjected to enough safety testing, neither is there any long-term tests to determine the possible effects on human health, or on fetal and child development. Even though farm animals have eaten GM food for generations without any known health effects, there is no way to know the long-term effect it might have on human health. In “Biotechnology: In Context” Susan Aldridge writes “In 1998 Arpad Pusztai (1930–) of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland, published research suggesting that GM potatoes were toxic to rats”, this research raised public awareness of the safety concerns regarding genetically modified foods. Some studies have since discovered potential problems for human health regarding GM food but were never followed up on. This includes a 2010 study by Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc with the Clinical Research Centre of Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre, that discovered a pesticide in genetically modified corn present in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses (Aris, Leblanc, 528-533). Other health concerns about genetically modified food includes the risk of resistance to antibiotics and allergic reactions. There is a need for more safety testing and long-term tests before determining that GM food poses no threat to human health. It is also necessary to follow up on research that shows potential risks of GM food consumption.

The most common concern with genetically modified food is that it poses a risk of allergic reactions. The technology might case plants to produce allergens, which causes allergic reactions in people who wouldn’t normally be allergic to the food. This risk comes from the potential for a protein from one allergenic food to be transferred to a different food that is not known to cause this allergic reaction. This means that if a person that has a known allergy to peanuts unknowingly consumes a genetically modified food that contain the allergenic protein from a peanut, this person could suffer an unexpected allergic reaction. This would make it dangerous for individuals with deadly food allergies to consume any GM foods with confidence. For individuals with allergies living in the U.S where labeling of GM food is not required, there is nothing they could do to feel safe when consuming food that is not labeled to be organic. In her book “Safe Food: the politics of food safety” Marion Nestle states “because methods to diagnose food allergies are unavailable or imprecise, the allergenic potential of most genetically modified foods is uncertain, unpredictable, and not easily tested” (Nestle 149), elucidating the impression that it is hard to know for sure if a GM food could contain an allergenic protein, and testing for this is also not easy. The industry is unable, or rarely tries to prove that a newly introduced protein is not an allergen. The FDA in the U.S. encourage, but does not require that biotechnology companies test for allergens. As a result, companies rarely do so because testing is difficult and not in their best interest. For these companies testing for allergens is risky: they might find one.

Genetically modified food poses the risk of increasing microbial resistance to antibiotics. GM food sometimes contains the antibiotic resistance genes used in the selection of the transformed cells, if these foods are consumed by humans so is the antibiotic resistance genes. Resistance to antibiotics is already an increasing human health issue, and exposure to these antibiotic resistant genes through GM food could make the issue even worse. MORE ON THIS TOPIC (counter argument?)

GM food and crops also poses environmental risks, including outcrossing, disrupting the balance in the ecosystem and loss of biodiversity. GM plants crossbreeding with wild relatives means that transgenes could escape from cultivated crops to wild plants and transfer genes in ways that are harmful or that can develop plants with undesirable traits that are hard to control. For example, if a GM plant that has a gene making it resistant to Roundup crossbreeds and this gene happens to get transferred to a wild weed. This would create a weed resistant to Roundup that would be able to out compete with crop plants for nutrients and sunlight. In addition to aggressive weeds, outcrossing creates the possibility for wild relatives with increased resistance to diseases or environmental stress, upsetting the balance of the ecosystem. Herbicide-resistant plants can transfer resistance to related weeds, sometimes over great distances through pollen drift. The reality of risks like these are still not fully understood. In addition to this, displacement of traditional cultivars by a small number of genetically modified cultivars is also an environmental problem that can lead to loss of biodiversity.

Supporters of genetically engineered food often bring up the argument that growing GM foods are beneficial to less developed countries, as this technology can increase food production, food quality and lower the food prices for the consumer. However, it could take some time for these beneficial changes to take place. Most of the GM crops in less developed countries are used as animal food. Furthermore, large amounts of GM food are exported, depriving the country of land for local food production. Many less developed countries lack the expertise to assess the safety of GM technology and the legal and regulatory framework to control them. Therefore, there is also a concern of a technology gap developing, where those who are not able to grow GM plants being left behind the ones partaking in the GM technology. Another issue for farmers in less developed countries in that the market is regulated by a few giant companies, Aldridge states “GM technology is currently in the hands of a few powerful multinational companies, such as Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer CropScience, who have control of the supply of GM seeds and methods of cultivation” (Aldridge 443), it is uncertain what this dominance can have on small farmers and traditional farming methods.

Works Cited

1. Aldridge, Susan. “Genetically Modified Crops.” Biotechnology: In Context. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner, editors. Vol. 1, 2012, pp. 442-445.
2. Aris, Aziz and Samuel Leblanc. “Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.” Reproductive Toxicology, vol. 31, no. 4, 2011, pp. 528-533.
3. World Health Organization, May 2014, https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
4. Nestle, Marion. Safe food: the politics of food safety. Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2010, pp. 144-157.

The disadvantages of genetically modified foods outweigh the advantages.

Advantages of genetically modified foods

Environmental benefits

Genetically modified foods have high yields. Bawa and Anilakumar (2012) mentioned that biotech cotton can against pest since the Bacillus thuringiensis subsp are edited in the genes of cotton. According to graph 1, the peak of cotton production was 330 kilograms per hectare from 1950 to 2003 in India, but cotton production has risen sharply since 2014 because of the appearance of pest-resistant cotton and its production climbed to 550 kilograms in 2017. This shows that genetic engineering can reduce or inhibit the destruction of crops caused by insects. Hence, the yield of genetically engineered products is higher than natural crops.

Health benefits

Apart from increasing productivity, people can obtain more nutrients from genetically engineered foods. For example, the modified Golden Rice 2 contains high beta carotene contents which can convert into vitamin A in our body when people intake. According to Hefferon (2015), vitamin A is an important element for people because it brings benefits to our vision and immunity system. Hefferon also indicated that there are three million preschoolers who suffer from eye diseases, and even some of them died due to vitamin A deficiency. The Golden Rice is to supplement sufficient vitamin A to reduce diseases caused by lack of vitamin A. As a result, scientists can introduce specific genes into genes of plants that increase the nutritional value of crops through biotechnology. It means the nutrition contents of genetically modified foods is higher than that of organic food.

Disadvantages of genetically modified foods

Harm to the environment

Genetically modified foods violate the law of nature and harm to the environment. There is a considerable genetic variation between offspring during the pollination of species, but the genetic material will be identical when the species is undergoing genetic engineering. Wunderlich and Vechoine (2014) pointed out significant negative impacts that genetically modified foods would increase the risks of occupying a dominant position and reducing variations between species while they pollinate with nature crops. Declining in variation, leading to a decline in biodiversity and decrease the ability of genetically modified foods to adapt to the environment. It means when crop diseases break out, most of the same species are affected and damaged.

Moreover, genetically modified foods would make weeds resistant to herbicides. The effect of herbicides reduces while weed tolerance occurs and thus larger doses of herbicides are needed to inhibit the growth of weeds (Owen & Zelaya, 2005). Nevertheless, weeds grow faster and resistant to herbicides due to overusing herbicides. It causes environmental pollution and destroys the balance of the ecosystem.

Violate morality

Genetically modified foods post a barrier in integrity, including religion and morality. Mixing the genes of different species to create a new substance in which the genomes do not exist in nature through biotechnology. For those people with religions, especially Christians, recombinant DNA technology goes against God’s original intention in the creation and also interferes with gene sequences of species (Pascalev, 2003). Another reason why the religionists would oppose genetically modified foods as uncertain substances added. Hinduism and Buddhism cannot eat meat or products contain transgenic that illustrating many religious builds a relationship between diet and integrity (Pascalev). Therefore, religionists may intake some ingredients that they restricted to eat which against their morals.

Health risks

Genetically modified foods pose risks to the human body which include allergenicity and toxicity. Zhang, Wohlhueter and Zhang (2016) stated that a type of protein named Cry9C, which has the insect-resistant properties, is inserted into the gene of corn, but some consumers experienced an allergic reaction after eating that genetically modified corns. What this means is that people would suffer from allergies after taking those transgenic products, although they do not have any allergic reactions to naturally grown crops in origin. Furthermore, genetically modified substances may not be fully absorbed in the digestive system and toxins may stay in our body that causes intestinal problems (Maghari & Ardekani, 2011).

References

1. Bawa, A. S., & Anilakumar, K. R. (2012). Genetically modified foods: Safety, risks and public concerns–a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 50(6), 1035-1046. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/docview/1439577854?accountid=14548&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
2. Guruere, G. P., & Sun, Y. (2012). Measuring the contribution of Bt cotton adoption to India’s cotton yields leap. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01170. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/126840
3. Hefferon, K. L. (2015). Nutritionally enhanced food crops; Progress and perspectives. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 16(2), 3895-3914. doi: 10.3390/ijms16023895
4. Maghari, B. M., & Ardekani, A. M. (2011). Genetically modified foods and social concerns. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, 3(3), 109-117. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=0bb53a3b-849c-48ae-a1dd-b86bc06737c4%40pdc-v-sessmgr01
5. Owen, M. D., & Zelaya, I. A. (2005). Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Management Science, 61(3), 301–311. Retrieved from https://doi-org.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/10.1002/ps.1015
6. Pascalev, A. (2003). You are what you eat: Genetically modified foods, integrity, and society. Journal of Agricultural and Environment Ethics, 16(6), 583-594. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/docview/14687816?accountid=14548&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
7. Wunderlich, S., & Vecchione, M. (2014). Genetically modified food and its impact on the environment. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 181, 445–454. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/docview/2258202430?accountid=14548&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
8. Zhang, C., Wohlhueter, R., & Zhang, H. (2016). Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems. Food Science and Human Wellness, 5(3), 116-123. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453016300295?via%3Dihub

Genetically modified (often referred to as GM) food is usually grown for human or animal consumption and is altered by genetic engineering. The crop or plant is inserted with a gene from a different organism or species of plant with the purpose of giving the plant a desirable characteristic or trait. Desirable traits for crops include improved pest or herbicide resistance in order to increase crop yield, and increased tolerance to cold or drought, expanding the range in which plants can be grown. Plants may also be genetically modified to increase their nutrient content or to add specific vitamins to foods who naturally do not have them. GM food is wildly accepted in the United States where they do not even require labelling food as genetically modified. This technology is less accepted in Europe, where multiple countries in the EU have banned GM products from the food market. Genetically modified food is a debated topic. Even though research appears to indicate that GM food is safe, there exists concern that United States’ regulations is not strict enough. Genetically engineered food has many benefits but still raises questions about potential health and environmental risks. Although there is broad consensus that genetically modified food is safe, it should not continue to be integrated into the world’s food market because of the negative environmental impacts and the lack of studies of GMOs long term effects on human health.

Proponents of genetically modified food state that there is no evidence of GM food being harmful to human health, however lack of safety testing, unknown long term affects as well as other concerns discredits this claim. The World Health Organization claims that “GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health” (WHO website, cite). In the United States labeling of GM food is not a requirement because The American Medical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science claims that there is no scientific evidence that suggests that GM foods can be harmful to human health. The reason no harmful effects on human health has been found is because there is barely any testing for them. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the U.S. does not have a mandatory process for determining the safety of genetically modified food, it strictly relies on the biotech companies to voluntarily test their products. Genetically modified food has not been subjected to enough safety testing, neither is there any long-term tests to determine the possible effects on human health, or on fetal and child development. Even though farm animals have eaten GM food for generations without any known health effects, there is no way to know the long-term effect it might have on human health. In “Biotechnology: In Context” Susan Aldridge writes “In 1998 Arpad Pusztai (1930–) of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland, published research suggesting that GM potatoes were toxic to rats”, this research raised public awareness of the safety concerns regarding genetically modified foods. Some studies have since discovered potential problems for human health regarding GM food but were never followed up on. This includes a 2010 study by Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc with the Clinical Research Centre of Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre, that discovered a pesticide in genetically modified corn present in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses (Aris, Leblanc, 528-533). Other health concerns about genetically modified food includes the risk of resistance to antibiotics and allergic reactions. There is a need for more safety testing and long-term tests before determining that GM food poses no threat to human health. It is also necessary to follow up on research that shows potential risks of GM food consumption.

The most common concern with genetically modified food is that it poses a risk of allergic reactions. The technology might case plants to produce allergens, which causes allergic reactions in people who wouldn’t normally be allergic to the food. This risk comes from the potential for a protein from one allergenic food to be transferred to a different food that is not known to cause this allergic reaction. This means that if a person that has a known allergy to peanuts unknowingly consumes a genetically modified food that contain the allergenic protein from a peanut, this person could suffer an unexpected allergic reaction. This would make it dangerous for individuals with deadly food allergies to consume any GM foods with confidence. For individuals with allergies living in the U.S where labeling of GM food is not required, there is nothing they could do to feel safe when consuming food that is not labeled to be organic. In her book “Safe Food: the politics of food safety” Marion Nestle states “because methods to diagnose food allergies are unavailable or imprecise, the allergenic potential of most genetically modified foods is uncertain, unpredictable, and not easily tested” (Nestle 149), elucidating the impression that it is hard to know for sure if a GM food could contain an allergenic protein, and testing for this is also not easy. The industry is unable, or rarely tries to prove that a newly introduced protein is not an allergen. The FDA in the U.S. encourage, but does not require that biotechnology companies test for allergens. As a result, companies rarely do so because testing is difficult and not in their best interest. For these companies testing for allergens is risky: they might find one.

Genetically modified food poses the risk of increasing microbial resistance to antibiotics. GM food sometimes contains the antibiotic resistance genes used in the selection of the transformed cells, if these foods are consumed by humans so is the antibiotic resistance genes. Resistance to antibiotics is already an increasing human health issue, and exposure to these antibiotic resistant genes through GM food could make the issue even worse. MORE ON THIS TOPIC (counter argument?)

GM food and crops also poses environmental risks, including outcrossing, disrupting the balance in the ecosystem and loss of biodiversity. GM plants crossbreeding with wild relatives means that transgenes could escape from cultivated crops to wild plants and transfer genes in ways that are harmful or that can develop plants with undesirable traits that are hard to control. For example, if a GM plant that has a gene making it resistant to Roundup crossbreeds and this gene happens to get transferred to a wild weed. This would create a weed resistant to Roundup that would be able to out compete with crop plants for nutrients and sunlight. In addition to aggressive weeds, outcrossing creates the possibility for wild relatives with increased resistance to diseases or environmental stress, upsetting the balance of the ecosystem. Herbicide-resistant plants can transfer resistance to related weeds, sometimes over great distances through pollen drift. The reality of risks like these are still not fully understood. In addition to this, displacement of traditional cultivars by a small number of genetically modified cultivars is also an environmental problem that can lead to loss of biodiversity.

Supporters of genetically engineered food often bring up the argument that growing GM foods are beneficial to less developed countries, as this technology can increase food production, food quality and lower the food prices for the consumer. However, it could take some time for these beneficial changes to take place. Most of the GM crops in less developed countries are used as animal food. Furthermore, large amounts of GM food are exported, depriving the country of land for local food production. Many less developed countries lack the expertise to assess the safety of GM technology and the legal and regulatory framework to control them. Therefore, there is also a concern of a technology gap developing, where those who are not able to grow GM plants being left behind the ones partaking in the GM technology. Another issue for farmers in less developed countries in that the market is regulated by a few giant companies, Aldridge states “GM technology is currently in the hands of a few powerful multinational companies, such as Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer CropScience, who have control of the supply of GM seeds and methods of cultivation” (Aldridge 443), it is uncertain what this dominance can have on small farmers and traditional farming methods.

Works Cited

1. Aldridge, Susan. “Genetically Modified Crops.” Biotechnology: In Context. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner, editors. Vol. 1, 2012, pp. 442-445.
2. Aris, Aziz and Samuel Leblanc. “Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.” Reproductive Toxicology, vol. 31, no. 4, 2011, pp. 528-533.
3. World Health Organization, May 2014, https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
4. Nestle, Marion. Safe food: the politics of food safety. Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2010, pp. 144-157.

The disadvantages of genetically modified foods outweigh the advantages.

Advantages of genetically modified foods

Environmental benefits

Genetically modified foods have high yields. Bawa and Anilakumar (2012) mentioned that biotech cotton can against pest since the Bacillus thuringiensis subsp are edited in the genes of cotton. According to graph 1, the peak of cotton production was 330 kilograms per hectare from 1950 to 2003 in India, but cotton production has risen sharply since 2014 because of the appearance of pest-resistant cotton and its production climbed to 550 kilograms in 2017. This shows that genetic engineering can reduce or inhibit the destruction of crops caused by insects. Hence, the yield of genetically engineered products is higher than natural crops.

Health benefits

Apart from increasing productivity, people can obtain more nutrients from genetically engineered foods. For example, the modified Golden Rice 2 contains high beta carotene contents which can convert into vitamin A in our body when people intake. According to Hefferon (2015), vitamin A is an important element for people because it brings benefits to our vision and immunity system. Hefferon also indicated that there are three million preschoolers who suffer from eye diseases, and even some of them died due to vitamin A deficiency. The Golden Rice is to supplement sufficient vitamin A to reduce diseases caused by lack of vitamin A. As a result, scientists can introduce specific genes into genes of plants that increase the nutritional value of crops through biotechnology. It means the nutrition contents of genetically modified foods is higher than that of organic food.

Disadvantages of genetically modified foods

Harm to the environment

Genetically modified foods violate the law of nature and harm to the environment. There is a considerable genetic variation between offspring during the pollination of species, but the genetic material will be identical when the species is undergoing genetic engineering. Wunderlich and Vechoine (2014) pointed out significant negative impacts that genetically modified foods would increase the risks of occupying a dominant position and reducing variations between species while they pollinate with nature crops. Declining in variation, leading to a decline in biodiversity and decrease the ability of genetically modified foods to adapt to the environment. It means when crop diseases break out, most of the same species are affected and damaged.

Moreover, genetically modified foods would make weeds resistant to herbicides. The effect of herbicides reduces while weed tolerance occurs and thus larger doses of herbicides are needed to inhibit the growth of weeds (Owen & Zelaya, 2005). Nevertheless, weeds grow faster and resistant to herbicides due to overusing herbicides. It causes environmental pollution and destroys the balance of the ecosystem.

Violate morality

Genetically modified foods post a barrier in integrity, including religion and morality. Mixing the genes of different species to create a new substance in which the genomes do not exist in nature through biotechnology. For those people with religions, especially Christians, recombinant DNA technology goes against God’s original intention in the creation and also interferes with gene sequences of species (Pascalev, 2003). Another reason why the religionists would oppose genetically modified foods as uncertain substances added. Hinduism and Buddhism cannot eat meat or products contain transgenic that illustrating many religious builds a relationship between diet and integrity (Pascalev). Therefore, religionists may intake some ingredients that they restricted to eat which against their morals.

Health risks

Genetically modified foods pose risks to the human body which include allergenicity and toxicity. Zhang, Wohlhueter and Zhang (2016) stated that a type of protein named Cry9C, which has the insect-resistant properties, is inserted into the gene of corn, but some consumers experienced an allergic reaction after eating that genetically modified corns. What this means is that people would suffer from allergies after taking those transgenic products, although they do not have any allergic reactions to naturally grown crops in origin. Furthermore, genetically modified substances may not be fully absorbed in the digestive system and toxins may stay in our body that causes intestinal problems (Maghari & Ardekani, 2011).

References

1. Bawa, A. S., & Anilakumar, K. R. (2012). Genetically modified foods: Safety, risks and public concerns–a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 50(6), 1035-1046. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/docview/1439577854?accountid=14548&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
2. Guruere, G. P., & Sun, Y. (2012). Measuring the contribution of Bt cotton adoption to India’s cotton yields leap. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01170. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/126840
3. Hefferon, K. L. (2015). Nutritionally enhanced food crops; Progress and perspectives. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 16(2), 3895-3914. doi: 10.3390/ijms16023895
4. Maghari, B. M., & Ardekani, A. M. (2011). Genetically modified foods and social concerns. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, 3(3), 109-117. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=0bb53a3b-849c-48ae-a1dd-b86bc06737c4%40pdc-v-sessmgr01
5. Owen, M. D., & Zelaya, I. A. (2005). Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Management Science, 61(3), 301–311. Retrieved from https://doi-org.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/10.1002/ps.1015
6. Pascalev, A. (2003). You are what you eat: Genetically modified foods, integrity, and society. Journal of Agricultural and Environment Ethics, 16(6), 583-594. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/docview/14687816?accountid=14548&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
7. Wunderlich, S., & Vecchione, M. (2014). Genetically modified food and its impact on the environment. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 181, 445–454. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk/docview/2258202430?accountid=14548&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
8. Zhang, C., Wohlhueter, R., & Zhang, H. (2016). Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems. Food Science and Human Wellness, 5(3), 116-123. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453016300295?via%3Dihub