THE BENEFITS OF GENETIC MODIFICATION
The most strongest defence for GM foods is that it will help to feed the world’s growing population in the coming century by increasing yields (in the US, corn yields have increased by 6%) and fighting crop diseases.
The United Nations agree with GM foods and say that the world’s poor and hungry could benefit immensely with genetically modified crops and save millions of lives.
Approximately 30,000 children die under five die daily and 1.2 billion people worldwide live on less than 70p a day. GM crops could increase the poor farmers’ income and cut malnutrition in the developing world, which currently affects 800 million people.
Already improvements can be seen in parts of the developing world where rice is enriched with vitamin A (via genetic modification) making the rice significantly more nutritious, which will also reduce the annual death and blindness toll in children with vitamin A deficiency. This rice has been called ‘Golden Rice’. The people in the third world are also taught how to grow GM foods such as the Golden Rice, and crops that are salt and drought-resistant. It could enable farmers, for example, in Africa to grow crops in areas where it has previously been impossible to do so, making it easier for local agricultural schemes to flourish.
To an extent, GM is also environmentally friendly because the use of agricultural chemicals has reduced due to the built-in insecticides at the core of most GM products. US studies show chemical spraying for GM crops fell by 14% for corn and a massive 72% for cotton.
Mark Malloch Brown, the UN development programme administrator, said, “These varieties (GM crops) have 50% higher yields, mature 30-50 days earlier, are substantially richer in protein, are far more disease and drought tolerant, resist insect pests and can even out-compete weeds.
And they will be especially useful because they can be grown without fertiliser or herbicides, which many poor farmers can’t afford anyway.
This initiative shows the enormous potential of biotech to improve food security in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Genetically enhanced plants have saved the environment from millions of kilograms of pesticides and millions of litres of petrol burned to power farm tractors, all around the world. In the developing world, genetic modification provides a valuable tool to help produce more nutritious food faster and fibre, without cutting down valuable forests to make room for more farms, while reducing the use of chemicals. This therefore slows down global warming and prevents greater pollution to the atmosphere.
Future GM products that may be brought to market could include: -
- the elimination of a natural allergenic protein in milk that prevents many children from consuming the product;
- eggs with high levels of peptides to allow healthier weight reduction;
- increasing Vitamin A content in rice helping to prevent blindness;
- improved processing characteristics leading to reduced waste and lower food costs to the consumer;
- potatoes that will absorb less oil when fried;
- corn and soya beans with an increased protein content;
- Strawberries that retain their natural sweetness…
…The list is quite really endless.
More than 2 billion people have eaten foods made from genetically modified plants over the last 5 years – and not one person has been shown to become sick. According to 2 American experts on GM, C.S. Prakesh and Andrew Apel, GM foods are “even safer than water.”
CONCERNS ABOUT GM FOODS
One of the main concerns about GM foods is antibiotic resistance. This risk occurs from the transfer of antibiotic resistance from a marker gene contained in a GM plant to a microorganism normally present in the human gut. The potential risk of spreading resistance to therapeutic antibiotics could have serious health consequences and therefore should be avoided. The ACNFP in the UK has recommended that antibiotic resistance marker genes should be eliminated from GM food micro-organisms that have not been inactivated by processing or cooking, for example, live yoghurt.
Another worry about GM foods is that of allergies, where the possible introduction or amplification of allergies is a huge concern. A situation has already occurred where genetic material from a brazil nut was transferred into a soya bean, where the allergy of the brazil nut was also transferred to the soya bean. The resulting soya bean could have affected those allergic to soya, as well as those allergic to b razil nuts but the latter group wouldn’t have been aware of the risk. The product did not reach the market.
Scientists should take greater care in ensuring that allergies are not inadvertently introduced into the diet, by assessing the allergies of a new protein by predictive methods, experimental testing and a post-marketing surveillance based on traceability.
The possible production of toxic substances in GM foods from GM fermentation organisms is another concern. There have been 2 infamous cases: -
-
The EMS Syndrome
Between 1988-1989 in the USA, there were 37 deaths and over 1000 illnesses from a condition known as EMS syndrome. The investigations showed that the fermentation had been carried out using a genetically modified strain of Bacillus, but the problem also arose from impurities carried into the final product. It is still not 100% clear whether the deaths and illnesses were due to the introduction of genetically modified organisms, or from the impurities, yet this case does cause GM foods to be viewed even more suspiciously.
- The Pusztai Potato History
This is regarding the purported adverse effects on rats of GM potatoes in which lectins had been inserted. Lectins are complex plant proteins and act as pest deterrents in plants. There have been many contradictory reports regarding this case but there is a general agreement that adequate in vivo tests need to be developed before a new GM crop with a lectin insert is released for either human or animal consumption. Obviously a greater awareness of any possible areas of concern is needed when assessing the safety of GM foods.
Environmental Issues
The introduction of new species to environments where they would not naturally be present may take several generations to manifest themselves. The problem of cross-pollination from GM crops to non-GM crops also causes some concern for organic farmers, who feel their crops will become ‘contaminated’ and therefore not organic anymore.
There is also concern that traits such as herbicide resistance may be transferred to a weed, where it might evolve a ‘super-weed’ which would be resistant to control.
If farmers grow insect-resistant crops worldwide, certain insect species may become extinct, for example, Lepidopteron, thereby reducing the biodiversity of the planet.
Finally, environmental regulation is difficult to administer where no concise standards are set, against which the effectiveness of a product can calculated, for example, to what extent can a wildlife’s numbers be affected before the environment is harmed?
SAFETY AND REGULATION OF GM FOODS
Regulations in most countries, including the UK, include the concept of ‘substantial equivalence.’ This concept is based on the idea that existing food products can serve as a basis for comparison when assessing the safety for humans of modified foods. If a GM food is considered to be substantially equivalent to an existing food, then it can be considered quite safe.
In 1983/1984, was when the first GM plants were grown. From then on, research and development followed, including numerous evaluations to assess the performance, safety and suitability of potentially commercial products.
Detailed safety studies are conducted on the new genes, on each of the proteins and on the final genetically modified plant.
Proteins currently produced in GM plants have a long history of safe use.
INTEREST GROUPS
The most well known corporation that is in agreement with and practises GM is ‘Monsanto.’ Sometimes questions are raised as to their true intentions, for example, Monsanto manufacture a herbicide called “Round-Up,” which allows the company to sell farmers not just the genetically engineered seed (soya bean) but also the herbicide it is resistant to. Monsanto’s herbicide “Round-Up” could not previously have been used on soya plants, as it would have destroyed the crop as well as the weeds. By developing a soybean resistant to the herbicide the profitability of the chemical is extended. Is this innocent or simply another way to extend the company’s profit margins?
Friends of the Earth are against GM, as are Greenpeace.
Greenpeace/Gerry McIntyre 2001
Here is a picture of a Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner who said, “corporate food pollution has to stop before all our food is genetically contaminated,” after finding a crop producing human protein growing in an open field test in California.
Do these anti-GM organisations also have hidden agendas? GM cannot all be bad as GM products used in medicines have benefited people tremendously, for example, the drug used to combat hormone deficiency which previously resulted in premature deaths.
OTHER ARGUMENTS
Although organisations such as Monsanto claim that GM foods will feed the world, Friends of the Earth have a different idea: it is a “complex social, political and economic forces that affect how people have access to land, money and resources,” which determines the provision of food. Therefore, the answer to hunger and malnutrition is a fairer distribution of wealth so these people in the developing world can afford to buy their food. So it may not be a simple case of there being more people, so more food should be grown as Monsanto claims, but a fairer distribution of wealth.
Rather than adding Vitamin A to rice to alleviate the starvation, foods rich in Vitamin A naturally should be available for the people.
FROM AN ETHICAL AND MORAL VIEWPOINT
GM foods may sometimes contain genes the consumer is perhaps not aware of. For example, animal genes can be inserted into vegetables. This can cause a problem for vegans, vegetarians and certain religious groups who do not eat anything to do with animals. To overcome this problem, GM foods should be labelled adequately, yet it would be better for all concerned if animal genes were restricted to animals and vegetable genes to vegetables to avoid any bother.
There is an argument that GM interferes with nature and farmers should stick to the traditional methods of selective breeding and hybridisation (controlled pollination of plants) as scientists could be creating obscene ‘Frankenfoods.’
A group of independent scientists, who look at the moral implications of modern technology (The Nuffield Council of Bioethics) said, there was a “compelling moral imperative” to accept GM crops in order to combat world hunger and poverty. However, anyone who does believe GM food is unnatural and immoral should be able to avoid it.
CONCLUSION
GM foods are produced in great amounts by farmers, and will very likely continue to increase in production in the future. Concerns about GM foods will linger, until scientists are more than sure that there are no dangers, therefore a wider assessment of the environmental and safety risks are required to reduce public unease. With time and increased research, I feel GM foods will be hailed as a safe and a practical solution to third world problems such as hunger and malnutrition. Anyone who does not agree with GM foods can consume organic produce instead.
