The number of people on the planet continues to increase and with them, the need for more and more nutritious food grows. For that reason, scientists seek research to genetically change plants and animals to provide medicine, good, and organisms not for consumption. As the public is exposed to information on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), strong opinions are forged concerning the safety of eating them. Questions arise over the risks presented to human beings and the environment, if GMOs are really necessary to supply the world with adequate amounts of food, if there are alternatives, and what surrounding ethical concerns exist. This paper will present a brief overview of the facts and discussions surrounding the use of genetically altered organisms and argue that with adequate monitoring and regulation of the resulting products, people around the globe benefit from consuming improved organisms for food and medicine.
Every living plant and animal contains genetic material for transmission of physical properties to the next generation. Despite the current wave of media attention on GMOs, people have been consuming improved food products for years. The term “genetically modified foods” is the common term, although it is misleading. Traditional techniques for improving animals, plants, and microbes have also used manipulation of genetics on a less technical scale. Last year, researchers from The University of Haifa, Bar-Ilan University, Harvard University, and Tel-Aviv University worked together to demonstrate that formal agriculture began more than 23,000 years ago close to the Sea of Galilee (Snir et al, 2015). It is evident that from the onset of intentional growing of food plants, farmers chose wild specimens that were most resistant to insects, disease, and harsh weather conditions and cultivated their growth (McLean, 2005). From that time to today, plants and animals have been intentionally cross-bred to provide the best end products for consumption. Modern technology has enable scientists to use molecular tools to more efficiently select the best genes by insertion or deletion to obtain the results that previously took generations of effort.
Maize cobs uncovered by archaeologists show the evolution of modern maize over thousands of years of selective breeding (Doebley, Stec, & Hubbard, 1997)
Starting in 2011, the United States led the world in the most crops produced with genetic modification (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2012). Foods on the market that have genetically modified versions are lettuce, carrots, corn, soybeans, eggplants, cotton, potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries, cantaloupe, canola, and others. Tobacco was the first plant to become a GMO; in 1983, a version was created from a type that had become resistant to antibiotics in China. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in America introduced a modified tomato for general use in 1994 that allowed ripening after harvesting. In Africa, a sweet potato is used that is resistant to a crop-devastating virus and Asia feeds enhanced rice to address chronic malnutrition in children. Other GMOs include rapidly maturing fish, human vaccines against hepatitis B from bananas, and new types of plastics created from plants.
The most favorite banana is the Cavendish, grown from a corm, shown here next to a wild banana (Quora, 2016)
Approximately 4 million tons of bananas are imported into the European Union every year, but a fungal disease threatens the plantations where they are cultivated (GMO-compass.org, 2006). The most common variety of banana, Gros Michel, was obliterated in the 1950s by another fungus infestation and the Cavendish variety from southern China replaced it. The current scourge, Black Sigatoka, is becoming resistant to fungicides used against it. The environment is threatened and worker health placed at risk as plantations spray up to 50 times a year and yields produce less than half the amount as before. Cultivation changes and traditional breeding methods have failed to produce strains resistant to the fungus and genetic engineering holds the only hope for saving world crops by completely re-sequencing the genome of wild banana and introducing it into cultivated bananas.
Domestic animals are genetically modified through the use of cloning, a process of splitting embryos and transfer of the cell nucleus to identically replicate individual creatures (Keefer, 2015). Sterile animals such as geldings and steers may be used to product fertile animals genetically identical to the originals and are primarily used for breeding. It is advancement in the process that has contributed to the ability to rescue valuable genetics. In addition, direct reprogramming of cells has promoted increased understanding of the regulatory systems of embryos as they develop (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2012). Approval for the consumption of genetically modified animals has not been granted, although the FDA is considering approval for altered salmon.
There has been some controversy in the debate over the safety of consuming GMOs. For instance, the Monsanto Corporation is the leading producer of seeds that have been genetically modified and has been accused of promoting ecological damage related to its cotton seeds (Shiva, 2016). While no accusations have been made against the safety of food seeds by Monsanto, claims have been made against GM cotton seeds that aggressive dominate other types of cotton crops. Monsanto Corporations claims its products are submitted to agencies in each country for approval before sales. The result is a dependency on Monsanto cotton seeds and the power of the company to dictate prices for planting. As far as the safety of human consumption of GMOs, Monsanto Corporation cites four major health organizations as supporters of the products, including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association (PBS.org, 2016).
Opponents to the use of GMOs have several viable arguments. First, it is unclear whether or not the GM crops’ characteristic of resisting pests might not spread to the weeds invading fields (Louda, 1999). If a particular insect is destroyed, competitive pests may replace them as a secondary threat. The increase in the new pest population may endanger plants not previously at risk. Bt toxins have been found to deplete populations of beneficial insects that attack detrimental pests (Halweil, 1999). The microbial Bt toxins produced by GMOs have been shown to increase the mortality of A. bipunctata larvae (Hilbeck et al. 2012). Two studies have suggested that Bt toxins cross the placenta in pregnant women (Aris and Leblanc 2011; Mesnage et al. 2013); however, the conclusions did not point to the ingestion of GMOs as the cause. In response, research using cells from the intestines of pigs show there is no association between Bt toxins and detriments to unborn babies (Bondzio et al, 2013).; pig cells are used in research based on their strong similarities to human cells. Another argument is that wheat that has been genetically enhances promotes human sensitivity to gluten; The United States Department of Agriculture reports there is no scientific evidence to support this claim (Kasarda, 2013). It has been suggested that testing procedures have improved for detection of health problems that may be related to gluten and that increased incidences of allergies are due to the ability to detect the allergies rather than being attributed to gluten intake. In addition, some health problems tentatively blamed on gluten allergy may be caused by other digestive processes. At the present time, it is felt that only about 0.55 percent of the people living in America have true gluten allergies and that may in excessive (DiGiacomo, Tennyson, Green, & Demmer, 2013). As for other allergic reactions caused by GMOs, the FDA encourages tests when a new type of protein in introduced to a food product or when the food already causes allergies, such as wheat. In the case of a Brazil nut gene that was added to soybeans, it was found to illicit an allergic response and the research into that GMO was discontinued and the product was not marketed (Nordlee, Taylor, Townsend, Thomas, & Bush, 1996).
Based on the level of public concern and lack of definitive studies on the safety of ingesting GMOs, the product should be regulated and monitored and not the process that attains it (NASEM, 2016). Agencies assigned regulatory responsibilities should determine if the new characteristics of the organisms, whether they are intended or not, create a potential threat to humans or their environment and how severe the possible harm may be. Since the newest types of technical genetic engineering do not call into previously established categories, processes should not be examined as closely as the end products. Some techniques produce plants that are difficult to distinguish from those altered through conventional breeding practices. Regulatory agencies should determine the chemical composition, quality of nutrition, and the presence of toxins of both the altered product and those occurring naturally in order to make comparisons. Differences should be examined to determine levels of risk. It is through this process that established levels of safety and nutritional may be set as standards. It is also the duty of regulatory agencies to effectively educate the public about how genetic engineering takes place, how the products are regulated, and how regulations change to address advances in science. As GMOs continue to be introduced into the world of consumers, there are implications for science, society, and law. For this reason, regulatory agencies should evaluate regular input from numerous sources.
For individuals who remain concerned about the safety of ingesting genetically modified food, it has been proposed that manufacturers label products as having GMO contents. Due to the wide range of additives such as corn syrup that have been modified, it would be difficult for manufacturers to trace the origins for all their contents and evaluate the degree of modification. As report by the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine stated in 2016 that based their study of research on GMOs, it is not necessary to label products that have been engineered (NASEM, 2016). However, consumers may also look for brands bearing the labels advertising “certified organic” to avoid eating GMOs.
The primary issue with arguments by opponents and proponents of genetically modified organisms is that concerning human safety. Adequate research has not been conducted on large populations to answer the questions posed. For instance, the development of “Golden Rice” allows the grain to contain 23 times more beta carotene. The food was developed in response to massive numbers of children in undeveloped parts of the world suffering from blindness and death before the age of 5 due to lack of vitamin A in their diet. It is estimated that 670,000 children can be saved with only one cup of Golden Rice per day added to their diets (Reading, 2008; The Washington Times, 2006). The ethics of providing the rice to some children and not others have precluded any significant research results as all the parents want their children to have the rice. A review of 1783 papers published between 2002 and 2012 on the topic of GMOs found no proof of danger (Nicolia, Manzo, Veronesi, & Rosellini, 2013). In a response to claims of conflicts of interest by opponents of eating GMOs, an analysis of 94 studies that were peer-viewed demonstrated a study outcome of p = 0.631 against financial influence and strong support for lack of author bias with p < 0.001 (Diels, Cunha, Manaia, Sabugosa-Madeira, & Silva, 2011). Finally, the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted research in 2016 of more than 1000 studies on genetically modified crops. In addition, 700 written presentations were reviewed and 80 witnesses interviewed. The organization contains more than 300 scientists who have received Nobel prizes. At the present time, the changes made in plant genetics have been subtle; however, if more dramatic enhancements are planned for the future, regulatory agencies must studiously evaluate the differences and safety between GMOs and naturally occurring food. The conclusion of researchers are that farmers should address possible weed resistance has to ability to cause problems with agriculture and crops are of better quality, although not better quantity, but that genetically modified seeds offer no danger for human consumption (NASEM, 2016).
In conclusion, the end result of the argument for and against the ingestion of genetically modified plants and animals is not known. In the world of medicine, modified viruses and vaccines have been in use for decades to treat and prevent disease. Blending and changing genetic contents of cells have the ability to alter life in ways that do not occur naturally, but the end product has the potential of providing vast benefits. The discussion of whether man has the ethical right to do so is not the topic of this paper. Rather, whether man has the ethical obligation to do so in order to alleviate suffering, hunger, and malnutrition appears to be obvious. When a farmer uses pesticides to improve the quality and size of his crop, there are no protests. When a cattleman promotes breeding between superior cows and bulls, it is socially acceptable. Yet when scientists develop seeds and animal clones far better for consumption, there is public outcry. Governmental agencies have a responsibility to monitor the quality and research of genetically modified food products to guarantee to the best of their ability the safety of the public. Consumers have the option of avoiding these products by selecting organically produced food for their homes. For everyone else, eating genetically modified organisms specifically improved for humans is beneficial for their health.
References
Aris, A. & Leblanc, S. (2011). Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically
modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reproductive Toxicology,
31(4), 528-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004
Bawa, A. & Anilakumar, K. (2012). Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public
concerns—a review. Journal of Food Science Technology, 50(6), 1035-1046.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1
Bondzio, A., Lodemann, U., Weise, C., & Einspanier, R. (2013). Cry1Ab Treatment Has No
Effects on Viability of Cultured Porcine Intestinal Cells, but Triggers Hsp70 Expression.
Plos ONE, 8(7), e67079. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067079
Diels, J., Cunha, M., Manaia, C., Sabugosa-Madeira, B., & Silva, M. (2011). Association of
financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or
nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Food Policy, 36(2), 197-
203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.016
DiGiacomo, D., Tennyson, C., Green, P., & Demmer, R. (2013). Prevalence of gluten-free diet
adherence among individuals without celiac disease in the USA: results from the
Continuous National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2010. Scandinavian
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00365521.2013.809598
Doebley, J., Stec, A., & Hubbard, L. (1997). The evolution of apical dominance in maize.
Nature, 386(6624), 485-488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/386485a0
GMO-compass.org. (2006). Bananas: Using Genetic Engineering against Fungal Disease. Gmo-
compass.org. Retrieved 28 May 2016, from http://www.gmo- compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/17.bananas_using_genetic_engineeri ng_against_fungal_disease.html
Halweil, B. (1999). Unintended effects of Bt crops. World Watch, 12(1), 9-10. Retrieved from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/1446707/unintended-effects-bt-crops
Hilbeck, A., McMillan, J., Meier, M., Humbel, A., Schläpfer-Miller, J., & Trtikova, M. (2012).
A controversy re-visited: Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt
toxins?. Environmental Sciences Europe, 24(1), 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-
24-10
Keefer, C. (2015). Artificial cloning of domestic animals. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 112(29), 8874-8878. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501718112
Louda, S. (1999). Insect Limitation of weedy plants and its ecological implications (pp. 43-48).
Blacksburg, VA.: Information Systems for Biotechnology. Retrieved from
http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/1999/news99.oct.html
McLean, M. (2005). Genetically Modified Food - Resources - Bioethics - Focus Areas –
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics - Santa Clara University. Santa Clara University.
Retrieved 28 May 2016, from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus- areas/bioethics/resources/genetically-modified-food/.
Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., Then, C., Székács, A., & Séralini, G. (2012). Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate- based herbicide. Journal of Applied Toxicology., 33(7), 695-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jat.2712
NASEM. (2016). Home | The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine | National-Academies.org | Where the Nation Turns for Independent, Expert Advice. WWW8.nationalacademies.org. Retrieved 30 May 2016, from http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=23395
Nordlee, J., Taylor, S., Townsend, J., Thomas, L., & Bush, R. (1996). Identification of a Brazil-
Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(11), 688-
692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/nejm199603143341103
PBS.org. (2016). FRONTLINE/WORLD. Rough Cut . Seeds of Suicide | PBS. Pbs.org. Retrieved 28 May 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html
Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., & Rosellini, D. (2013). An overview of the last 10 years of
genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews In Biotechnology, 34(1),
77-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595
Quora. (2016). Why Don't Bananas have Seeds? Quora. Retrieved 28 May 2016, from
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-bananas-have-seeds-How-does-the-banana-tree- reproduce
Reading, Richard (2008). Lancet series on maternal and child undernutrition. Maternal and child
undernutrition 1: global and regional exposures and health consequences. Child: Care,
Health and Development, 34(3), 404-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2214.2008.00848_3.x
Shiva, V. (2016). The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming. Global Research.
Retrieved 29 May 2016, from http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how- monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947
Snir, A., Nadel, D., Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Melamed, Y., Sternberg, M., Bar-Yosef, O., &
Weiss, E. (2015). The Origin of Cultivation and Proto-Weeds, Long Before Neolithic
Farming. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0131422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131422
The Washington Times. (2006). The Green Hero. Washingtontimes.com. Retrieved 29 May
2016, from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/20/20061120-094716-87
