GMOs stand for Genetically Modified Organisms. The modifications have been done by scientists with the goal to increase crop yields. While the jury is still out on whether or not they are in fact significantly increasing crop yields, one of the biggest questions being asked regarding GMO products being allowed to go unlabeled in the consumer market is are NGOs safe? Some studies as will be detailed in great depth in this essay explore data that seem to indicate they may indeed not be safe. The problem stems both from the perceived threat and the lack of labeling of GMOs which makes then difficult to avoid. GMOs, as will be developed throughout this essay, have serious health concerns, and have not been demonstrated to be safe enough for human consumption. (Smith, 47). There are, two sides to the argument, one that claims there are not negative side effects to GMOs and another that claims there either is, or that the data is not conclusive enough for it’s use in human consumption.
Those in support of genetically modified organisms. As Karen Wang points out in her article on the subject, “Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, can be engineered to resist disease, produce more vitamins, and even provide lifesaving vaccines.” Plants that produce their own pesticies, that mature faster, that provide higher nutrition and higher crop yields; these are all positive things and things that geneticist creating GMOs have in mind when their research introduces GM foods and other products into the market place. One big pro for GMOs is that it could lead to driving down food costs, something that could help alleviate hunger and help the economy.
Genetically modified organisms are what they sound like, plants or animals that have had their DNA altered for what while being benevolent intentions, could cause harm to people. Humans still have a lot to learn about DNA, and given that set of circumstances any alteration to DNA could have unintended and harmful consequences that current medical technologies do not have the knowledge to solve.
Melissa Diane Smith in her article “Say No to GMOs” lays the potential health risks some researchers have linked to the consumption of GMO food products. Animal research is often a good indicator in establishing a link between dietary choices and health. Smith cites a study by the American Academy or Environmental Medicine, which is composed of doctors from around the world, who all have seen from their research health issues linked to GMOs, ranging from infertility, accelerated aging, problems with hormones, and ill effects on organs. (Smith, 47).
They suspect that incidents of GMO related health problems could be widely underreported as many are giving diagnoses that miss the underlying GMO cause. Smith also cites incidents of livestock suffering health problems and even death do to eating GMO foods.
GMOs are ubiquitous in the marketplace with many staple crops containing them. 93 percent of soybeans, for instance, are grown using genetically modified seeds. This not only means that a lot of people are consuming GMOs, but it means a most people are consuming a lot of GMOs in their diet (Smith, 47).
Smith points out that the US is a country that has some of the least regulation when it comes to products containing GMOs. In other countries GM foods are banned or they are at least labeled.
Like the findings on animal testing, studies have also linked GM food. In rats organ damage of kidneys, livers, heart, adrenal, spleen have been observed linked to having a diet high in GM food for 90 days. (Smith, 48).
Soy allergies have been observed to go up under the introduction of GM soy to the market. Smith introduces one study that has some alarming information. The study showed that in some people “herbicide-resistant genes from soybeans transfer to the DNA of bacteria living inside the intestines—and continue to function” (Smith, 48).
The implications are upsetting because this leads to the gray area of GMO use, in which since genetically modified organisms are not natural, that they could lead to perhaps new unnatural diseases or viruses that health sciences are ill-equipped to combat.
Smith concludes by pointing out that the risks outweigh the benefits of GMO use. She cites a 2009 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists which said that GMO use has neither reduced pesticide use nor significantly increased crop yields.
The history of GMOs does not go back very far due to the fact that genetic research has only until relatively very recently been applied systematically to benefit humankind. The intentions behind GMOs are not in and of themselves negative. Scientists who advocate them envision the creating of better breeds o livestock that mature more quickly, are resistant to disease and provide greater nutrition.
Karen Wang in her article “Should we promote widespread consumption of biotech foods” points out that the question of weather or not to shield consumers from GM food is an ethical question, and also one that has to do with consideration of the environment.
1972 was the first time researchers had every even spliced DNA from a virus and a bacterium creating a “recombinant” molecule used in GMO organisms. Not until the 1990s were GM food available to consumers when the agriculture industry began offering genetically modified crops to farmers who were connected to the food chain. (Wang, 3)
The question that must be asked is are GMOs safe for human consumption. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that that FDA might have rushed too quickly to allow them to end up on the shelves.
Though studies have been done indicating that biologically altered food might be no worse off than conventional, there is still much to learn and many unanswered questions and cases of contamination involving GMOs.
Whenever there are clear economic advantages in doing something, objectivity becomes difficult since behavior is from that point controlled by greed. An example presented by Wang in her article is the company Monsanto, which injected its dairy cows with a growth hormone known as (rBGH). This had a tangible benefit to milk yields, increasing production by up to fifteen percent. But one would have to look at whether or not there is a reason that this hormone is banned in 15 nations in Europe and also Canada. Canadian officials have banned it because of a link between the compound inducing tumors, as shown in lab rats an possible in humans. (Wang, 4)
Wang lists the worldwide benefits of GMO which go so far as to suggest an alleviation of world hunger by making plants more notorious, easier to grow and higher yielding. GMOs pave the way for the possibility of super foods, that have been specifically designed to suit mankind’s needs, could contain medicine, or even vaccines, and could help curb hunger in places with levels of high malnutrition.
As people warn of potential dangers, science continues to march on in the brave new world of GM products. Work is underway right now regarding producing cows and pigs who are disease resistant and offer leaner meat which would be a good thing for the farmers income and also have a nice effect on the weight of the consumers.
Aqua Bounty Technologies have used the genes from ocean pout fish and salmon to create a strain of the fish that grows twice as fast, which could lead to cheaper market prices for American consumers.
The environmental and economic benefits that GMOs claim are that GM plants will need less pesticides and fertilizers sine they produce their own insect repellents and growth hormones. The other side to the argument is that once a product has been introduced to the environment, there is little that can be done to completely remove it from there. Pesticide-producing plants could harm helpful insects. Also, they could encourage the development of super mutated viruses. Cross pollination between lab produced and natural plants could generate new unexpected strains of weeds which are nearly impossible to control. (Wang, 4)
This is not mere speculation, but rather is something that has been documented. In 1998 a GM canola from a Canadian farm spread into the wild, requiring four types of herbicides to finally render it under control. The doomsday scenario is that lab produced species could escape into the wild and out compete and replace the native species.
Consumers have a growing response that they are not okay with having GM foods in their house. One study, reported on PR Newswire found that one third when given the choice choose organic foods to be sure they are avoiding GMO products.
The study, conducted by U.S Families’ Organic Attitudes & Beliefs 2013 Tracking Study, found that when parents had been informed about GMOs on the news there were a third likelier to then go on to purchase organic food products for their kids to avoid GMOs.
As already touched upon, this is no easy task. An article written by Barbara Ruhs in Environmental Nutrition points to the ubiquitousness of GMOs in the food supply, with it being present in up to 80 percent of processed foods.
Ruhs asks the million dollar question, “Are GMOs safe?” and like many others who have looked into the issue, the answer is not as straightforward as a simple yes or no. She brings to the table another potential issue, that of it wiping out beneficial insects such as bees, who are crucial to the pollination of most plants. (Ruhs, 2)
While they are highly regulated by three different governmental agencies, less testing has been done than when it comes to prescription drugs hit the market. The best that can be done to assure consumers that NGOs are safe is basically to answer the question with, “We think so, but are not sure.”
Other developed countries such as Japan require that labels be present on GM food. This seems reasonable, and as consumers become more aware of GM products, hopefully they will appeal to their lawmakers to demand that manufacturers inform consumers what exactly composes their products. (Ruhs, 4)
GMOs have really only been on the market for two decades. In the scheme of things that is not a large amount of time for researchers to be able to observe the effects of it. As time goes on and we learn more about GMOs it will become more clear what health risks they pose or what harm they have/are causing. Because of the notable backlash against GMOs being sold, and sold without labeling, it is important to be open to the other side of the coin that postulates GMOs are not only harmful, but they are harming consumers in ways known and others merely speculated. The government has in the past unknowingly allowed harmful products to reach consumers and in the case of GMOs there has not been enough research down and they should in the very least be labeled, but ideally should be kept banned from the shelves.
Works Cited
Melissa Diane Smith. “Say No To GMOS” Better Nutrition. March 2011 46-50
"Parents are increasingly aware of unlabeled GMOs in food." PR Newswire 19 Mar. 2013. Academic OneFile. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Ruhs, Barbara. "Update: GMOs in foods: GMOs--ingredients that have been genetically altered--are everywhere, from fast food to frozen yogurt, but are they safe? EN answers your top questions." Environmental Nutrition Feb. 2013: 1+. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Apr. 2013.
Séralini, G.-E., et al. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2012),
Wang, Karen. "Should we promote the widespread consumption of biotech foods?." Young Scientists Journal July-Dec. 2012: 77. Academic OneFile. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Wang, Karen. "Should we promote the widespread consumption of biotech foods?." Young Scientists Journal July-Dec. 2012: 77. Academic OneFile. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
