GMO’s and the Hungry World 1
Genetically Modified Foods and the Hungry World:
A Solution With Problems
Rachel Lapidus
City College of New York
Abstract
Genetically modified (GM) foods have become commonplace in our world. They are present in many foods in the first world, from High Fructose Corn Syrup to the feed given to livestock. They came into common usage, seemingly overnight, without satisfactory study or scientific understanding. Many bio-tech companies (the companies who develop and produce genetically modified foods) and the advertising agencies they’ve hired have taken advantage of the confusion to promote the use of GM foods for their own profit. Governments have taken actions for and against GMOs (genetically modified organisms), often with very little information to guide them. In the hope of fostering more reasoned discussion, this paper will provide some background about the process of genetic modification, the following examples will discuss the process of genetic modification, its potential benefits, its potential risks, and the global effects of their use.
Keywords: GMO, GM food, genetically modified, bio-tech, agriculture, Monsanto
Genetically modified organisms, sometimes known as GMO’s, are plants or animals that are created through the process of genetic engineering. Genetically modified (or GM) foods are commonly offered as a solution to world hunger, because they take less time to produce larger crops. They have gained increased use because they can grow bigger and faster than regular crops in more difficult environments. They seem to defeat pests that have plagued farmers for generations. But their common use has reshaped the entire farming industry. Small farms that cannot afford the cost of genetically modified seed are forced out of business by larger companies. As large agricultural corporations plant across their giant farms with genetically modified seed, the local environment adapts and changes creating large portions of land that can only grow crops from genetically modified seed. This will eventually restrict the amount and type of food that can be grown. GMO’s have become the main ingredient in a hungrier world.
The most attractive quality of genetically modified, or GM, foods is the claim that they can provide a solution to the global hunger crisis. With genetic engineering, it seems suddenly possible to solve many of the problems that plague food production worldwide. “Most GM crops are either insect-resistant (that is, produce their own pesticide), herbicide-tolerant or sometimes both” (Cotter, 2011).
This seems an easy way to make life better for farmers across the world. The larvae European Corn Borer Moth can devastate a farmer’s entire crop. But by genetically engineering the crops, suddenly this pest is no longer a problem. In Hawaii, the Ring Spot virus attacks papaya trees, leaving them unable to produce fruit, if not killing them entirely. In 1999, they implemented a genetically engineered strain of papaya that resists the virus. It has remained in heavy use ever since (Hartl, 2011).
The theoretical usefulness of GM crops extends beyond resolving production issues to potentially solving malnutrition problems. In 2000, a biologist named Potrykus released news of a potentially life-saving genetically modified crop called golden rice. This quickly caught the attention of large corporations such as Monsanto, a leading GMO seller. Monsanto prides itself on advanced plant breeding and biotechnology that uses chemicals and genetic engineering to “enhance” plants. Many critics of Monsanto claim they are trying to push the genetically modified processes on the world and have long been looking for a seemingly beneficial plant to help push their agenda. Despite its initial success, golden rice, the poster child for GMO’s across the world, has begun to garner criticism. After over a decade, now that the first long-term studies are nearing completion, some researchers have come to the conclusion that golden rice is a far-fetched, glamorized idea. Besides the environmental and economic impacts of the grain, malnourished people are not able to absorb Vitamin A in this form; a young boy would have to eat close to thirty bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the vitamin (Taverne, 2007).
The marketing divisions of many biotech companies take advantage of the confusion about how GMO’s are made and limited studies. Confronting the major players of these groups will get unsure mixed answers as to the genetically modified organisms’ dangers, and that genetically modified organisms are the solution to world hunger, but very little information about the actual process (Vernon, 2007). It is therefore important to note that the process of genetic engineering is different from the more common practice of cross-breeding. The process of crossbreeding can only combine related organisms, has been used for centuries, and has few associated health risks. Genetic manipulation takes dominant genes from one organism to replace weaker, less-resistant genes in another and easily creates a genetic exchange that is completely impossible in nature. The purpose is to insert genes from a donor organism carrying a desired trait into an organism that does not have the trait (Hart, 2002).
Humans may make many improvements in the world through technology, but when humans start to tamper with the natural order of life and growth, such as changing and reconstructing the genetic layouts of plants and animals, it creates unpredictable chains of long and short term events. These events are potentially irreversible and are something not to be taken lightly when considering food is a major means to survival. “If Nature has spent millions of years building a structure with natural boundaries, it must be there on purpose. It is there to guide the evolution of life and to maintain its integrity. Using genetic engineering in agriculture is like trying to fix something that has nothing wrong with it in the first place,” said Dr. Antoniou of molecular genetics (Tyson, 2001).
Genetic engineers can pull a desired gene from virtually any living organism and insert it into virtually any other organism. Many labs use animal genes to enhance agricultural crops against weather conditions and disease factors. Scientists can put a rat gene into lettuce to make a plant that produces vitamin C (Hart, 2002). However, the DNA code inside every plant and animal cell is controlled by a complex chemical network that regulates how the cell interprets the DNA. Exactly how this happens is currently unknown. Inserting DNA via the genetic engineering process can cause dramatic and unexpected reactions within the cell. Many times scientists and genetic engineers are unable to predict exactly what will happen when they insert a new gene. Sometimes adding one piece of DNA will result in a cell destroying large portions of it DNA. Sometimes it results in the creation of entirely new genetic code (Cotter, 2011):
“Unexpected and unknown fragments of genetic material have been found in commercial GM crops (P. Windels, et al. European Food Research Technology, 2001). Examples include: Roundup Ready soya (A. Rang, et al. European Food Research Technology, 2004) and insect resistant maize, MON810 (M. Hernandez, et al. Transgenic Research, 2003)” (Cotter, 2011).
In addition, genes can be suppressed or overexpressed, causing a wide variety of results. One such consequence of overexpression is cancer. Nutritional problems can also result from the transfer of genes. Genetically modified crops have been linked to health problems as diverse as reproductive damage, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes (Dach, n.d.).
Genetic disruption and instability is one of two major ways that genetic modification may affect our food supply. “[It] may lead to new toxins being produced; the new protein produced by the foreign gene may cause allergies or toxicity” (Cotter, 2011). Allergic reactions typically are caused by proteins which trigger an immune-response in the body. This is no small concern, as during the genetic modification process, nearly every transfer of genetic material from one host into a new one results in the creation of new proteins. This can increase the levels of a naturally occurring allergen already present in a food, or insert allergenic properties into a food that did not previously contain them, or even result in brand new allergens never before known (Vernon, 2007).
And the potential risks of GMO’s merely begin with allergens. The majority of genetically modified crops in cultivation are engineered to contain a gene for pesticide resistance. Most are “Roundup Ready,” meaning they can be sprayed with Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide Roundup without being harmed. The idea is that if the crop itself is immune to Roundup, you can spray it to kill any weeds endangering the plant without worrying about harming your crop. But what about exposing the general population and the ecosystem to all of those chemicals? (Pringle, 2003).
Furthermore, genetic engineers rely heavily on the use of antibiotics during experiments. Not all host cells will take up foreign genes, so engineers attach a trait for a particular type of antibiotic resistance to the gene they introduce into host cells. After introducing the gene into the cells, the cells are then filled with the antibiotic to see which ones survive. The surviving cells are antibiotic-resistant, and therefore engineers know the seeds have taken up the foreign gene (Cotter, 2011). Although this may seem like a beneficial process that produces ideal genetically modified crops, one then has to think about the potentially fatal allergens and contaminants that consumers may now unknowingly consume to in their foods (Hart, 2002).
However, the overuse of antibiotics can potentially cause the development of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Several health organizations, including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, have addressed the need for the use of these antibiotics to be discontinued as part of the process of making genetically modified foods. Preexisting germs or bacteria within the antibiotic-resistant test subject can create a “superbug”; meaning previously unknown strains of diseases or viruses that are resistant to antibiotic or anti-viral treatment (Cotter, 2011). Sometimes the dangers antibiotic resistance can be caused by things the GMO was designed to do. In the Philippines, many people eat GM corn designed to produce an insecticide called Bt toxin.
“[T]heir body processed engineered traits and reacted to them. The same consumers of the GMO corn in the Philippines developed a resistance to ampicillin [a commonly prescribed antibiotic]. Antibiotic resistance is something that science hadn’t counted on, which is indicative of questionable experimentation” (Group, 2006).
These unexpected dangers of GM foods are well-illustrated by the work of a Scottish scientist named Arpad Pusztai, who had previously been awarded a research grant to create a testing procedure for GMO’s (which unfortunately seems to have never been put into effect). Pusztai found disastrous results within just a few days of giving genetically altered potatoes to lab rats. The rats experienced severe health issues including the complete failure of the immune system as well as other vital organs. Pusztai discovered that it is not the actual additives within the potatoes that were damaging but rather something inherent in the gene splicing process itself. (Cummins, 2000). He also found that the nutrient value from potato to potato varied significantly, even among plants of the same generation (Smith, 2003). Many GM foods are vastly reduced in nutritional value as a result of the genetic modification process, as well as the processing of the food itself, creating the risk of malnutrition among first world populations (Roberts, 2008).
Researchers and doctors continue to gain reasons to believe that genetic modification of food also causes health problems among those who eat it (Australian Government, 2001). Numerous health problems increased after genetically modified organisms were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from seven percent to thirteen percent in just nine years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders and digestive problems are on the rise (Dech, n.d.). And the linked percentage of obesity, diabetes and cancer has since increased by an amount that cannot be ignored (Australian Government, 2001).
Those against genetic modification often raise the issue that the industry is unable to, or rarely tries to prove that the new proteins in foods do not contain allergens, contaminants, or other dangerous health effects. The U. S. Government does not require biotechnology companies to test for allergens. Many new GMO’s are approved for public consumption without very much testing at all. For a company this makes sense. Reasons such as time, research expense, market control, and the fact that testing most often does not work in the companies favor provide them plenty of incentive to leave their products untested (Nestle, 2003). But for the world’s population, this is dangerous. When asked if genetically modified foods might pose health risks for certain people, Dr. Martha R. Herbert, a pediatric neurologist stated:
“Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufactures of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history” (Tyson, 2001).
Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that genetically modified organisms are a contributing factor, some medical groups, such as the American Academy of Doctors, state that if emergency medicine tells us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk, then we must begin immediately protecting ourselves from GMO’s. The potential hazards are too difficult to predict or identify immediately (Dech, n.d.).
Much of the current basis for labeling the use of GM crops as safe to use comes from an initial study done in 1975. The scientists reviewing potential risks of genetically modified foods considered their work to be of high importance and stated that if the foods did come with health risks, those risks would be small in comparison to the benefits of such crops. Their findings were especially valuable to the GMO industry, because at first glance, genetically modified crops seemed to pose no health risks at all. This initial study has many critics who disagree, stating genetic mutation and manipulations carried bacteria responsible for diseases in plants, antibiotic resistance, as well as a number of other factors unknown in the beginning of genetic transferring (Nestle, 2003).