The Role of Genetically Modified Food
By David Kern,
Introduction
Genetically modified (GM) food has been around for a
number of years and is being sold at most typical food markets. Though few may
realize it, many people consume genetically modified foods as a regular part of
their diet. The debate on whether these foods and their future are safe has
recently gained steam and has become a hot topic among groups such as
scientists and philosophers. In this paper I will show that although there are
risks involved, as there are with any technology, the genetic modification of
foods is beneficial and necessary for the world and our future. There are two
main categories in which I will explain the major benefits of GM crops. These
categories include the health benefits and the role of GM crops in solving the
problem of world hunger. There are counter arguments to each of these benefits
will also be addressed. The major criticism of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) is that there is a major gap between the promise of GMOs and the reality
of the corporatization of GMOs. This is a problem that will be addressed and
shown that GMOs can, in fact, live up to what is promised and that, although
there is a threat of corporate problems, including the implementation of
Terminator Genes, these problems are currently being dealt with and solutions
are being created. The first section to be looked at is on the health benefits
of GM foods.
Health Issues
One of the major benefits to come out of genetically
modifying food is the health benefits. Along with these benefits also come
concerns. I will start with the concerns of the health effects of GMOs and then
provide the argument in favor of GMOs. The major health issue dealing with GM
foods is the potential of allergies. Besides allergies there is little
scientific work that points to any other specific health problems with any of
the GM foods currently approved for human consumption (Cutberto 2003). Food allergies
are adverse reactions to a food or food component that involve abnormal immune
responses in humans or animals; such responses range from mild intestinal
discomfort to anaphylactic shock. The prevalence of food allergy in the
American population is approximately 2–3% and is mostly found in foods such as
peanuts, soybeans, milk, eggs, fish, crustaceans, wheat and tree nuts (Kuiper
2003).
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health
Organization (FAO/WHO) have researched the causes of allergies in these foods
and the over 160 others to find out what causes the allergies. The FAO/WHO has
proposed decision trees and integrated stepwise, case-by-case
approaches for the assessment of the possible allergenicity of newly expressed
proteins (Guria-Sherman 2001). These approaches are a way to analyze and
predict what types of proteins could lead to allergies. By doing this it makes
it possible to avoid creating these types of proteins through genetic
modification. Some of the biggest misconceptions are that scientists are
creating these foods with no concerns for their effects on those who are going
to eat them. Why would a company want to put out a product that would harm
their consumer? It wouldn’t take long before people stopped buying the product.
That is why these companies are going to great lengths to research what causes
these allergies and reduce the risk of allergens as much as possible in GM
foods. Through all the research and development GM foods will be no more
harmful, due to allergies, than “natural” foods.
In fact, genetically modified foods are healthier than
non-GM foods. There are two major categories for the health benefits of
genetically modified foods. These categories are that they provide people with
nutritional security and it causes a reduction in diet related diseases. The
first benefit I will talk about briefly now and revisit shortly when talking
about GM foods and their effect on world hunger. Foods, grains especially, can
be modified to contain an abundance of nutrients and vitamins to produce a more
enriched crop. These nutritionally saturated crops lead to healthier diets and
healthier people. Such modification of foods can produce higher concentrations
of Vitamin C in citrus fruits, more Vitamin A and iron in grains, and more of
the same type of improvements in many other foods. Many countries in the world
rely on rice as their primary food source. Unfortunately, rice is missing many
essential vitamins and minerals, so people whose diet is based on rice are
often malnourished. The genetic modification of foods can fix this problem to
give rice the nutrients that it is missing.
The
other main health benefit is the reduction in diet related diseases. This
benefit is achieved by manipulating certain targeted parts of the food content.
For example, fat content can be targeted and reduced in certain foods in an
attempt to reduce the number of cases of obesity. Another example of how GM
foods can improve diets is with the genetic modification of salmon. The
marketing of GM salmon will lead to lower costing salmon and an increase of
salmon consumption. This will happen because, through genetic modification,
fish farmers will be able to raise the salmon year round and at a reduced cost.
The increase in consumption of salmon is important because the fish is an
exceptionally good source of omega-3 fatty acids linked to lower
risk of heart disease. It is estimated that the resulting increase in omega-3
intake will prevent between 600 and 2600 deaths per year in the
World
Hunger
The
debate surrounding genetically modified foods much of the time comes down to
the subject of confronting world hunger. A main goal of GM foods is that they
make it possible to solve world hunger. Critics of this theory, though, believe
that the reality of GMOs is that they will become, or already are, a victim of
our corporate world, and that the world hunger issue will never be approached.
This, though, isn’t an accurate criticism and I will explain why shortly. First
I want to concentrate on how genetically modified foods can help alleviate
famine in third world countries.
As
stated before many countries depend on grains, specifically rice, as their main
source of food. Many of these countries, the ones we are concerned with here,
are poverty stricken third world countries. Because these people rely on rice
for such a big part of their diets, it is important that there is actually
nutritional value in the rice. The problem is that there naturally isn’t a
whole lot of nutritional nourishment in rice and other grains. The biggest
malnutrition problem in these countries is iron deficiency and lack of Vitamin
A. People may not feel hungry, because they are eating, but their bodies are
breaking down from anemia, which can lead to poor eye sight, impaired growth,
cognitive development, higher rate of sickness, and even high mortality. It’s
because of all this that the general problem of poor dietary quality has been
dubbed ‘hidden hunger’. Genetic modification can solve this problem. The
potential benefits of improving the nutritional quality of foods are higher for
low-income countries, where food budgets account for two-thirds or more of
total expenditures and where poor dietary quality and micronutrient
malnutrition are widespread (Shunker 2003). Most consumers in rich countries
have access to a relatively inexpensive supply of safe and healthy food.
Current Program and Costs
The
World Bank estimates that at the levels of micronutrient malnutrition existing
in
Proposed Program and Costs
Investments
in plant breeding research and dissemination are far lower and potentially long
lasting. Benefits of agricultural research at a central location can be spread
throughout the world and across time. Breeding for staple plants with high
micronutrient content in their seeds, referred to as ‘biofortification’, treats
the underlying cause of lack of nutrients. Although plant breeding can involve
relatively long lead times of 8–10 years before nutritious varieties can be
developed and their adoption by farmers can be initiated, such a strategy is
sustainable once breeding has been completed, and seeds have been dispersed and
adopted by farmers. During the research and development stage the
Development
of varieties of rice or wheat high in iron and zinc using conventional breeding
might cost as much as $42 million over 10 years, including the costs of
nutrition safety and efficacy tests, the costs of distribution in selected
regions, and the costs of an evaluation of nutritional and economic impact.
Such an investment is projected to have far reaching impacts if efficacy and
effectiveness are achieved. A large part of the costs will shrink over time as
the major research and development will occur in the very beginning and then as
time goes on less money needs to go into these processes as the GM foods are
fine tuned. The $42 million cost over 10 years is a $1.25 billion difference
compared to our current strategy. In one scientific model it was conservatively
estimated that in the long run (11-25 years) a total of 44 million cases of
anemia would be prevented if nutritionally improved varieties were to be
adopted on 10% of rice and wheat areas in
Criticisms and Rebuttals
Critics,
though, feel that this is all just a warped Utopian view on the issue, and that
it will just fall to the whim of capitalistic enterprises. The critics do have
a point about the capitalism of genetically modified seeds. There is a major
producer of GMO seeds that has become a major leader in the GMO industry. That
company is called Monsanto. Monsanto has gotten a bad rap for the way they have
controlled the industry almost single handedly. There is an anecdote about how
a farmer, Percy Schmeiser, was sued by Monsanto for using their Roundup Ready
seeds without purchasing a license to do so. Schmeiser claimed that the seeds
blew over from neighboring farms, but Monsanto believed that he stole or
obtained the seeds illegally. Monsanto took the farmer to court and was awarded
all of the farmer’s profits of the entire year of 1998 (Leahy 2004). Farmers
feel that the only way to compete with others is to have these GM seeds, but to
do that they have to purchase the seeds and the license from one of the major
GMO producers. This can become expensive, but it is necessary to stay afloat.
And with all the competitors using these seeds it becomes impossible for
farmers to not succumb to them themselves.
This
corporatization of the GM seeds doesn’t concern the issue of world hunger,
though. This has more to do with the competitive nature of business within the
Another
one of the problems critics point out about GMOs is the development of
Terminator genes. What these genes do is make the crop infertile. That is, the
seeds coming from crops produced by seeds with the Terminator gene will not be
able to produce new crops. This creates a need to buy new seeds every time you
need to plant crops rather than saving part of the harvest to plant next year's
crop. There are a few things to note here. First, is that back in 1999 Monsanto
announced a decision to never to commercialize the Terminator gene technology for
crops (“Terminator…” 1999). This came in response to enormous criticism and
opposition to its original plans to implement the genes. To this day Monsanto
has stuck to their word, and though they are still internally testing and
working with the Terminator gene they are not commercializing them. And
besides, many non-genetically modified crops do not produce viable seeds
either. But, of course, it can’t be expected that Monsanto will forever remain
sitting on this technology that could make them billions of dollars. But, for
our purposes, what does it matter? As far as world hunger goes it doesn’t
matter at all. As stated before, to provide the countries every year with new
seeds is still cheaper then the way things are done now. And as far as domestic
purposes go: that’s capitalism. That’s what
Conclusion
Although, I was only able to touch base on a couple of issues it is easy to see that the debate about genetically modified food isn’t going away anytime soon. This is something that is going to gain more and more attention as time goes on. I have discussed the benefits and criticisms of genetically modified organisms in two categories: the health benefits, and the issue of world hunger. The major criticism dealt with is the gap between the promise of GM foods (ending world starvation) and what the critics believe the reality is (becoming a slave to capitalism). I have shown that the plan to alleviate world hunger is very feasible and that it can be done without having to surrender to capitalism. It is most likely that GM foods will (or already have) become a major business, but that doesn’t mean the technology can’t be used in poverty stricken countries through regulation of our government. Genetically modified organisms are the future of our food and agriculture industry, and they are something that needs to be accepted and trusted rather than something to be pushed away and frightened of.◦
© David Kern, 2006
References
Aumaitre,
A., et al. “New feeds from genetically modified plants substantial equivalence,
nutritional equivalence, digestibility, and safety for animals and the food
chain.” Livestock
Production Science. Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 223-238, April 2002.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.drexel.edu/science/journal/03016226
Bouis, Howarth E., Bruce M. Chassy, and James O. Ochanda. “Genetically
modified food crops and their contribution to human nutrition and food
quality.” Trends in Food Science
& Technology, Vol. 14, pp. 191-209, April 2003.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.drexel.edu/science/journal/09242244
Cutberto, Garz and Patrick Stover. “General introduction: the role
of science in identifying common ground in the debate on genetic modification
of foods.” Trends in Food Science &
Technology, Vol. 14, pp. 182-190, April 2003.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.drexel.edu/science/journal/09242244
Hunt,
J.M. “Reversing productivity losses from iron deficiency: the economic case.” Journal
of Nutrition 132, Vol. 4 (2002), pp. 794–801.
Guria-Sherman, Doug and Gregory Jaffe. “Genetically engineered foods:
Are they safe?” National
Action Health Letter. Vol.
28, No. 9, November 2001. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=85416081&sid=1&Fmt=4&clientId=18133&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Kuiper,
Harry A., et al. “Safety aspects of novel foods.” Food Research International. Vol. 35, Nos. 2-3, pp. 267-271, 2002.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.drexel.edu/science/journal/09639969
Leahy, Stephen.
“Monsanto ‘Seed Police’ Scrutinize Farmers.” CommonDreams News Center,
Lutter, Randall and Katherine Tucker. “Unacknowledged Health Benefits
of Genetically Modified Food: Salmon and Heart Disease Deaths.” The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management
and Economics, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2002),
http://www.agbioforum.org/v5n2/v5n2a04-lutter.htm
Shunker,
L. “Overall Conclusions.” Trends
in Food Science & Technology. Vol. 14, pp. 333-334, April 2003.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.drexel.edu/science/journal/09242244
“Terminator
Gene Halt a Major U-Turn,” BBCNews Online
Network,