A Review on the Literature Surrounding Genetically Modified Foods
Deavyn EdwardsThe concept of genetically modified organisms is at first immensely appealing. Imagine if scientists were able to create crops that were naturally resistant to insects, eliminating the need for potentially dangerous pesticides. Even more desirable is the potential to develop foods that could grow even in climactic and soil conditions far from ideal, which could greatly reduce the strain of hunger from millions of people. Unfortunately, though, the topic is not so cut and dry. Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, and specifically genetically modified foods, have created controversy in the scientific community. Although there are certainly “both positive and negative impacts of GMO foods” (Verma et. al. 1), many authors have raised objections to the contemporary production and consumption of genetically modified foods. Public opinion, which could be described as lukewarm at best toward GMO foods, has been another obstacle in their development (Frewer et. al. 1).
Before truly considering what consequences can be brought by genetically modified foods, it is important to clarify what exactly a GMO food is. Michael Pariza writes in A Scientific Perspective on Labeling Genetically Modified Food that even the Food and Drug Administration’s definition of “food” is so broad that “food is whatever consumers think it is” (3). He also points out that simple modification techniques like crossbreeding have been around for hundreds of years – even something as innocuous and accepted as chocolate milk could be considered a genetically modified food (2). However, much more advanced technologies have allowed foods to be “substantially changed” by scientists (Pariza 3); 83% of genetically modified foods today are pesticide-resistant strains of soybean and corn (Seralini, Cellier, and Spiroux de Vendemois 598).
Even after considering these semantic issues, there are numerous objections to the current use of genetically modified foods. One interesting argument is that GMOs can have unintended consequences for the rest of the environment (Buiatti, Christou, and Pastore 256). It has been suggested that some of the benefits bestowed upon GMOs, like resistance to “pests, diseases, and herbicides” could spread to weeds (Buiatti, Christou, and Pastore 256). There is also the broader risk that if plants like soybean, for example, are able to be planted in a more diverse climate, areas previously under government protection will be “converted to industrial soybean cultivation” with broad consequences for the ecosystem (Buiatti, Christou, and Pastore 257).
More pressing for most consumers, though, are the supposed ill heath effects of genetically modified foods. Although studies in this field are relatively rare, there is much documentation of potential consequences on people who choose to eat GMO foods. An article from Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition makes the connection between human consumption of milk from cows that hawith recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rbGH, and higher rates of breast, prostate, and colon cancers (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 171). Currently, the Food and Drug Administration describes dairy products from cows treated with rbGH as “safe for consumption by humans” (FDA). This simple statement does not begin to hint at the ocean of controversy that surrounds these foods. The average costumer may not even notice that their milk came from a cow that had been injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone. At least when it comes to this particular product, it would appear that consumers are not given enough information to make the choice they feel is healthiest.
Another group of scientists in an article called “New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity”found that the consumption of a certain kind of genetically modified corn led to increased levels of triglycerides and decreased levels of sodium excretion in rats (Seralini, Cellier, and Spiroux de Vendemois 596). These scientists were able to analyze newly-release data from several long-term (greater than 90 days) studies where genetically modified strains of corn and soybean were given to rats and mice (596). After going over the data, they concluded that liver and kidney problems are “end points of [a] GMO diet” (602). The scientists also made a strong argument suggesting that corporate bias is responsible for the lack of incriminating studies into genetically modified foods (597). For example, they point out that in the case of one GMO product called Bisphenol A, no industry-funded studies found adverse affects, while 90% of government studies did (598). Perhaps this is because corporations understand the power that consumer advocacy groups can wield over the successes of their products. The media is also an incredible tool. In the U.K., for instance, an airing of the television show “Panorama” about genetically modified foods sparked a frenzy of “press releases, publicity stunts, claims and counter claims from both sides of an increasingly-polarized debate” (Pariza 9). This led to a national movement protesting the then-budding development of GMOs for purchase by the public, including images of the Prime Minister dressed as Dr. Frankenstein’s monster (Pariza 9). As a result, a 2002 study found that there were almost no genetically modified foods available for purchase in the United Kingdom (Pariza 9).
The most common argument, though, is that simply not enough information about genetically modified foods is available for governments, scientists, and individuals to make responsible decisions about consuming them. Some information regarding GMO foods suggests they have mostly – or only – positive impacts (Buiatti, Christou, and Pastore 255). The stance of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration However, with the presence of such incriminating studies, such as the look into recombinant bovine growth hormone, most scientists take the position that any risk of widespread ill health effects is too much (Seralini, Cellier, and Spiroux de Vendemois 37). Labeling practices are also under scrutiny, with authors like Pariza questioning the lengths that companies, watchdog groups, and government organizations like the Food and Drug Administration should go to in order to keep consumers informed about the products they are buying and therefore the health decisions they are making (7). Without more information on, and an explanation for, the currently documented consequences of genetically modified foods, the emphasis should move off of promoting their consumption and toward fully understanding their existence.
Works Cited
Buiatti, M., P. Christou, and G. Pastore. “The Application of GMOs in Agriculture and in Food Production for a Better Nutrition: Two Different Scientific Points of View.” Genes & Nutrition 8.3 (2013): 255-270. Web. 2 Sept. 2014.
Dona, Artemis, and Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis. “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (2009): 164-175. Web. 2 Sept. 2014.
Frewer, L., J. Lassen, B. Kettlitz, J. Scholderer, V. Beekman, and K.G. Berdal. “Societal Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods.” Food and Chemical Toxicology (2004): 1181-1193. Web. 2 Sept. 2014.
Pariza, Michael. “A Scientific Perspecive on Labeling Genetically Modified Food.” Labeling Genetically Modified Food: The Philosphical and Legal Debate. Ed. Paul Weirich. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. N. pag. Web. 2 Sept. 2014.
Seralini, Gilles-Eric, Dominique Cellier, and Joel Spiroux De Vendomois. “New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity.” Environmental Contamination and Toxicity (2007): 596-602. Web. 9 Sept. 2014.
“Report on the Food and Drug Administration’s Review of the Safety of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin.” Product Safety Information. Food and Drug Administration, 23 Apr. 2009. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.