Introduction
Until recently, genetic foods have become popular for their ability to address many production and quality issues faced by natural/organic farming methods. Genetically modified crops are those whose genetic makeup has been improved to enhance the level of nutrients, resistance to diseases, increase yields, adaptability to climatic factors, and reduce the time of production (Ronald & Adamchak, 2008). It is different from the conventional breeding because genetic modification allows introduction of genes from any organism (animal and plants) in altering crops whereas breeding allows transfer of genes across related species only.
On the other hand, organic farming is a natural method of agriculture that prohibits the use of any scientific modifications (Biotechnology) or interventions in crop farming. As such, this includes genetically modified seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, and growth hormones. Instead, the farmer uses natural methods of controlling pests, insects, weeds, and improving production such as compost manure, crop rotation, mechanical cultivation, and cover crops (Ronald & Adamchak, 2008). It is the opposite of the conventional agriculture that employs all scientific interventions to maximize output while being conscious of ecological biodiversity and maintenance of the environment. Organic products are considered to have superior nutritional quality as compared to GMOs and as such, are preferred by those who are conscious of their health. Studies show that genetically engineered foods pose a substantial risk to the health of the consumer and conservation of the ecosystem. Although many people would prefer not to consume GMO foods, there is little evidence of their long-term effect on consumers.
Pros for GMOs
The primary objective of genetic modification technology is to improve the quality of agricultural products, in what can be described as “speeding up evolution” of the organism. Genetic modification improves production by altering the life cycle of an organism and the size of the yields (Ronald & Adamchak, 2008). Farmers, therefore, make more income and are an important tool to address poverty and hunger by improving the production of subsistent farmers. Engineered crops have improved capabilities to withstand extreme weather, fluctuations in rainfall and temperatures, and unfavorable soils such as salt content (Celec et al., 2005). As such, land that was previously rendered useless can now be productive. This helps increase production of food to feed the increasing world population. Conversely, it discourages deforestation because fewer people will seek fertile lands in forest climates.
Some GMO crops have been engineered to increase the level of nutrients in terms of minerals and vitamins. For example, rice has been enhanced to increase the level of vitamin A. Researchers at Federal Institute of Technology in Switzerland have created a strain of rice that have a high standard of beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A (Zegeye, 2014). This can help prevent blindness resulting from a diet lacking Vitamin A. Genetic foods have improved flavor and texture. Beans, for example, have been enhanced to have essential amino acids. GM soybean on the other hand, has higher protein content, whereas GM potatoes have more amino acid content and nutritionally available starch (Zegeye, 2014). Foods with more nutritional content are critical in addressing malnutrition around the world.
Some GMOs are designed to resist pests, insects, and diseases, such as the introduction of toxic bacteria to repel insects (Phipps & Park, 2002). The farmer uses fewer pesticides to control, hence reducing costs, and improving the health quality of the produce. Some of the genetically engineered foods can go for longer periods before going bad. GMOs also play an important function in the protection and conservation of the environment (Phipps & Park, 2002). The use of less chemical, less water, and less land reduces the release of harmful chemical substances into the soil and emission of greenhouse gasses. Equally, farming on barren lands increases the release of oxygen into the atmosphere, hence reducing global warming.
Cons for GMOs
Despite many positive aspects of GMOs, they do not come without adverse negative concerns for the consumers and the environment at large. The common concerns for many revolve around health outcomes of long-term consumption of these foods. A research commissioned by Brown University (2000) observed that GMOs could cause allergy risks to consumers. It reveals that mixing of proteins that were not indigenous to a plant or animal cause new allergic reactions to the human body. Individuals who are allergic to the proteins added to the original organisms are most affected because they cannot consume a large range of products (Whitman, 2000). Another major concern for scientists is the role played by GMO in reducing the efficiency of antibiotic medication. Some GMOs have built-in antibiotic features that make them immune or resistant to viruses and diseases. These antibiotic markers persist in the human body after consumption, hence making medications less effective (Zegeye, 2014). Although the risk is less threatening than the natural transfer between bacteria and people, a prolonged consumption would eventually yield resistance.
Studies show that the use of insulin to increase growth in animals such as chicken indicates the risk elevation of the development of different types of cancer (Grimberg, 2003). Insulin growth contributes to malignant transformation, tumor growth, and cancer progression. Scientific evidence also shows that modified products lead to alterations in hematology, reproduction, affects pancreas functioning, and genotoxicity (Dona & Arvanitoyannis, 2009). GMO foods also result in the death of some species due to the substances added in their genome structure. In a study conducted by Pusztai et al. (2003), seven out of forty rats died in two weeks of consuming GM tomatoes (Pusztai, Bardocz, & Ewen, 2003). GMO foods, therefore, pose a potential risk to the existence of various organisms and human beings as well. Conversely, there are other socio-political and economic concerns of the use of GMO organisms. For example, governments might use GMO as a biological weapon by integrating toxic substances in seeds and breeds to target a country. Similarly, patent rights issues may encourage exploitation of the farmer in the implementation of high tariffs.
Pros for Organic Foods
Environmentalist champion for organic farming primarily because of its ability to conserve the environment and produce healthy products that help reverse the development of chronic diseases such as cancer (Kristiansen, Taji, & Reganold, 2006). Organic farming does not threaten the natural habitats of important organisms in the ecosystem. Conversely, use of compost manure promotes better soils that are devoid of harmful chemicals. This increases biodiversity because fewer chemicals are used, hence does not interfere with the natural activities of insects such as bees in pollination and lady beetles in pest control (aphids) (Forman & Silverstein, 2012). Most importantly, the consumer is not exposed to harmful nitrates and pesticides that are associated with diseases such as asthma.
There are many nutritional benefits that organic foods have over genetically modified food. One obvious distinction between the two is that organic food tends to taste better than the GMOs. This is because organic plants spend more time on the ground hence absorbing and processing nutrients properly. The same applies to indigenous animals who’s meat is less fatty and sweater compared to modified breeds. Free-range meat, for example, is devoid of chemicals and antibiotics synonymous of the highly concentrated animal feeding. Research shows that organic foods have high levels of certain nutrients such as iron (21% more), phosphorus (13.6% more), magnesium (29% more), and vitamin C (27% more) as compared to GMOs (Crinnion, 2010). Conversely, organic foods have higher levels of salicylic acid at an average of 600% more than modified foods. Organic coriander and carrot soups contain about 1,040 Nano grams of salicylic acid compared to 20 nanograms only found in traditional soups.
Cons for Organic Farming
Unfortunately, organic farming is less efficient and therefore expensive, and the farmer produces less. The method is inefficient because it takes more time and resources to control weeds as a result of the use of mechanical methods (Forman & Silverstein, 2012). Conversely, organic farms use more water than conventional farming hence driving up costs. The yields of an organic farm are characteristically lower at about 20% less those non-organic farms (Ronald & Adamchak, 2008). Most importantly, some organic methods are detrimental to the environment. For example, organic pesticides such as copper remain in the soil longer, hence becoming harmful after accumulating over a long time. Additionally, dairy farms that employ organic methods produce more methane than non-organic farms (Ronald & Adamchak, 2008).
Advising Consumers
Consumers are faced with the dilemma of spending more money on healthy organic products or consuming GMO foods with long-term health risks. Bridges must be built between food production, quality control and agronomic practices, technology, research, health, and consumers. While choosing the type of food to consume, the public should consider the fundamental environmental, social and health factors. As a nutrional expert, a will advise consumers to consider foods that are healthy, nutritious, free from toxins, safe for farm workers, preserves the local community, does not destroy the environment, and provides producers with fair wages (CDC, 2012). I will scientific research data to settle beliefs and facts about nutritional benefits of GMO and organic foods. For example, organic foods seemed to have better and proven nutritional content compared to GMOs (Crinnion, 2010). As such, it is advisable to consume organic foods for those who have access and purchasing power. The health effects of GM foods have not been entirely settled and therefore, their consumption is relatively okay. One important factor to consider is that the current domestic animals and plants looked entirely different before humans started growing them for food (Lewis, 2015). As such, genetic modification of plants and animals is an improvement in the development of the quality and efficiency of food production. Relevant authorities are also trying to ensure that GM foods are safer for public consumption.
A study conducted by International Food Information Council shows that only 2 percent of consumers are concerned about biotech foods (Raymond, 2015). This indicates that the largest burden of protecting the public from harmful food rests on the government’s shoulders. In many countries, the state has stepped in to control the practices involved in food modification to protect the public (Albajes et al., 2013). FDA, for example, requires food developers not to use marker genes that have the potential to encode resistance to antibiotics (Zegeye, 2014). Conversely, some states require labeling of GMO foods to help the consumer make a choice when making a purchase. As a conclusion, the increased use of genetically modified foods has been met with increased resistance, but it has played a vital role in reducing the malnutrition levels across the globe. Although there have been concerns over the safety of some of the genetically modified foods the respective governments are ensuring that the products being produced and consumed in their countries are safe.
References
CDC. (2012, April 3). Environmental Impacts of our Food System. Retrieved from Centere for Diseas Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/sustainability/food/index.htm/
Celec, P., Kuku, M., Renczésová, V., Natarajan, S., Pálffy, R., Gardlík, R., . . . Behuliak, M. (2005). Biological and biomedical aspects of genetically modified food. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 531-540.
Crinnion, W. J. (2010). Organic Foods Contain Higher Levels of Certain Nutrients, Lower Levels of Pesticides, and May Provide Health Benefits for the Consumer. lternative Medicine Review, 1-9.
Dona, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2009). Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition,, 164–175.
Forman, J., & Silverstein, J. (2012). Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disdvantages. New york: American Academy of Pediatrics.
Grimberg, A. (2003). Mechanisms by which IGF-I May Promote Cancer. Cancer Biology and Therapy Journal, 630-635, 2(6).
Kristiansen, P., Taji, A., & Reganold, J. (2006). Organic Agriculture: A Global Perspective. Collingwood Victoria: CSIRO Publishing.
Lewis, T. (2015, August 25). Here's what your food would look like if it weren't genetically modified over millennia. Retrieved from Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/foods-before-genetic-modification-2015-8
Phipps, R., & Park, J. (2002). Enviromental Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops: Global and European Perspective on their Ability to Reduce Pesticide Use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 1-18.
Pusztai, A., Bardocz, S., & Ewen, S. W. (2003). Genetically Modified: Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. Wallingford Oxon: D’Mello JPF CAB International,Wallingford Oxon.
R. Albajes, C., Cantero-Martínez, T., Capell, P., Christou, A., Farre, J., Galceran, F., . . . Martín-Belloso. (2013). Building bridges: an integrated strategy for sustainable food production throughout the value chain. Journal of Molecular Breeding, 743-770, 32(4).
Raymond, M. (2015, March 24). Committee Hearing on Mandatory Biotechnology Labeling Laws U.S. House Committee on Agriculture. Retrieved from Food Insight: http://www.foodinsight.org/schmidt-house-ag-committee-biotechnology-testimony
Ronald, P. C., & Adamchak, R. W. (2008). Tomorrows Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food. New York: Oxford University Press.
Whitman, D. B. (2000). Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? CSA Discovery guides, 1-13.
Zegeye, W. A. (2014). Review on Concerns and Benefits of Genetically Modified Organisms. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences, 94-100, 1(6).
