Genetically Modified Food for Human Consumption - Essay Example

GMO Food: Name: Name of institution: Introduction Genetically modified foods are produced by crops whose genes have been altered. Gene modification allows for new traits to be introduced in the food that is subject to gene engineering (Rainer, 2010). Gene modification of crops is nothing new as scientists have modified the genes of plants for thousands of years. However, rapid advance in genetic engineering has led to availability of many genetically modified food crops. This increase in genetically modified foods have been a source of controversy as one group of people opposes the widespread usage of genetically modified (GM) food over public safety and environmental safety concerns. However, the fear of genetically modified food may be unfounded as they are few documented cases of actual harm to consumers or to the environment. According to Stewart, Harold and Halfhill (2000), very few people can distinguish between the perceived harm of GM food and the actual harm of the foods. It has similarly been posited that public policy on GM food is driven by the perceived harm rather than scientifically proved harm. Unfortunately, many of the benefits of genetically modified food cannot be realized in an environment of hostility towards genetic engineering. This paper discusses some of the benefits of genetically modified fruits and vegetables. It also discusses the perceived harm of GM vegetables and fruits and the extents to which such risk are scientifically proved. It also discusses effects of GM food crops on the environment. Benefits of GM vegetables and Fruits According to Rainer (2010), the cultivation of pest-resistant GM crops is helping to reduce consumer exposure to residual pesticides. While most countries have put in place residual pesticide levels for both fruits and vegetables they are often exceeded. The risk of residual pesticide on the health of consumers is well documented. In contrast, GM crops that are pest resistant do not require spraying of pesticides and thus the pesticide residual levels are significantly reduced (Roitner-Schobesberger, 2008). Protecting consumers from the risk of residual pesticides is one of the benefits of genetic engineering that are missed due to our unfounded fear of gene modified fruits and vegetables. Genetic modification of vegetables and fruits has the ability to improve the availability of fruits and vegetables. According to Brown (2002), Genetic modification enables early maturity of fruits and vegetables. Early maturity means that fruits and vegetables take less time to reach the market. In addition, genetic modification has been seen to enhance the yields of many food crops including fruits and vegetables (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). The increased supply of fruits and vegetables in the market will mean the prices of fruits and vegetables will decrease drastically. Gene modification would also see fruit and vegetable shortages reduce significantly. A novel genetic modification was shown to delay the ripening of tomatoes (Mata et al, 2009). It is obvious that tomatoes with the delayed ripening trait can be stored for a longer time than ordinary tomatoes. Fruits that stay ripe for longer can also be transported over longer distances. Therefore, gene modification has the potential to deliver economic benefits to consumers in the form of reduced prices as a consequence of increased supply. Genetic modification of vegetables and fruits has also been shown to deliver food with enhanced health benefits. Many fruits and vegetable contain beneficial nutrients albeit in minimal contents. Genetic modification can enhance the percentage of vitamin A contained in certain fruits or vegetable (Farre et al, 2011). Genetic modification can also enhance the taste of fruit and vegetables by changing some of their characteristics. Arguably, humanity can get great tasting and nutritionally superior fruits and vegetables by the using of genetic modification. However, GM modified food have been associated with a number of serious health implications. Genetically modified foods are being closely linked with increasing cases of food allergies. According to Goodman et al (2005), the combination of allergenic properties of two different species could lead to the formation of new food allergies. Concerns about toxicity and allergies led to the removal of GE foods from supermarket shelves by European agencies. As early as 1996, mutated soybean was found to contain the allergic properties inherited when the gene of Brazil nut was introduced (Goodman et al, 2005). Potatoes that produce Bt insecticide have also been found associated with the development of allergies in some of the people who came in contact with them. A 1999, Science News article reported that crop pickers and handlers had developed allergies as a consequence of contact with Bt (Jack, 2000). Affected workers either developed asthma and other allergic reactions. From these reports it can be conclude that the risk of GM food causing new food allergies is very high. Therefore, comprehensive research and tests on the possibility of GM food causing allergies needs to be conducted before they are approved for human consumption. According to EFSA and Panel Working Group (2008) studies in animals have shown the negative effects of consuming GM food. Among the negative impacts include immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, infertility, dysregulation of insulin and cholesterol synthesis (EFSA and Panel Working Group, 2008). Other impacts included changes in the kidney, liver, spleen and gastrointestinal system. Unfortunately GM crops continue to be approved for human consumption without undergoing adequate evaluation. According to Bruck and Coward (2009), Bt potatoes are widely available in the United States despite concern about its safety. Regulators are accused of allowing genetically modified food to be introduced in the market without ensuring that they undergo the necessary test and are safe for human consumptions. In contrast, regulators in Europe have taken a more cautious approach and many varieties of GM crops available in the United States cannot be sold in Europe (Rao, 2014). According to Rao (2014), the European approach has greatly decelerated the spread of genetically modified plant globally. European agencies use more stringent methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods set to be introduced in their market. In effect, developing countries have not adopted genetic modified crops widely as they fear being locked out of the European market (Rao, 2014). However, many countries also desist from adopting farming of GM food crops partly due to food safety and environmental impacts. Environmental Impacts Many supporters of genetically modifies plants say that the crops have a positive impact on the environment. According to Brooks and Barfoot (2005), pest-resistant GM crops reduce the quantities of pesticides needed to grow crops. As a consequence, the quantity of pesticide left in the soil and the amount that runoff to water bodies is significantly reduced. Brooks and Barfoot (2005), shows that in a period of seven years, GM crops were able to reduce the environmental footprint of pesticide spraying by 18.7 per cent; a reduction of 503 million kg of pesticide was recorded. Furthermore, agricultural practices enabled by GM technology have led to a significant decrease of the amount of greenhouse gases reduced in agriculture. Secondly, GM crops have higher yields per care thus they reduce the amount of land that needs to be put under cultivation (Brooks and Barfoot, 2005). As a consequence farmers no longer need to clear natural vegetation to increase the output of their farms. Thirdly, some GM crops are designed to be drought resistant and thus need less water to grow. As a result, drought resistant crops may reduce the amount of water retrieved from water sources for purposes of irrigation. On the other hand, GM crops have been associated with serious negative impacts on the environment. GM crops may have many unanticipated impacts in the environment. Herbicide resistant crops have been linked to possible development of mutant weeds that are hard to control. GM pollen and gene outcrossing may lead to some unintended recipients developing undesired qualities (Brooks and Barfoot, 2005). However, some scientist argue that all methods of altering crop properties like mutagenesis, transgenic methods, and hybridization can lead to passing of undesired consequences to other plants (Stewart, Harold and Halfhill, 2000). In 1999, the deaths of the Monarch butterfly larvae were associated to crossover of genes from mutated corn to the Milkweed plant (Brooks and Barfoot, 2005). As a consequence, half the population of the monarch butterfly died. In addition, scientists are concerned that insects exposed to pesticide resistant crops may develop resistant to chemicals used to control them (Brooks and Barfoot, 2005). Conclusion Proponents of GM food argue that opportunities to enhance the quality of life for all humankind are being lost due to the inadequate exploitation of Genetic Engineering for food. However, this paper proves that public concerns about the safety of GM food and their environmental impacts are not unfounded. Studies in animals show some of the negative effects of consuming GM food on the body. Links have also been established between GM food and food allergies in society. In addition, cross pollination of GM plants with ordinary plants leads to unintended consequences as seen in the example of the Milkweed plant that became toxic to larvae of the Monarch butterfly after coming into contact with pollen from mutated corn. Thus, the approval of GM food for human consumption should be a stringent and comprehensive process that evaluates all the possible health, environmental and economic impacts of GM food. Works Cited Brookes, Graham, and Peter Barfoot. "GM crops: the global economic and environmental impact-the first nine years 1996-2004." AgbioForum 8, no. 2&3 (2005): 187-196. Brown, James KM. "Yield penalties of disease resistance in crops." Current opinion in plant biology 5, no. 4 (2002): 339-344. Brunk, Conrad, and Harold Coward, eds. Acceptable genes?: religious traditions and genetically modified foods. State University of New York Press, 2009. EFSA, GMO, and Panel Working Group. "Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials." Food and Chemical Toxicology 46 (2008): S2-70. Farre, Gemma, Richard M. Twyman, Changfu Zhu, Teresa Capell, and Paul Christou. "Nutritionally enhanced crops and food security: scientific achievements versus political expediency." Current opinion in biotechnology 22, no. 2 (2011): 245-251. Goodman, Richard E., Susan L. Hefle, Steve L. Taylor, and Ronald van Ree. "Assessing genetically modified crops to minimize the risk of increased food allergy: a review." International archives of allergy and immunology 137, no. 2 (2005): 153-166 Haas, Rainer, ed. Looking east, looking west: organic and quality food marketing in Asia and Europe. Wageningen Academic Pub, 2010. Jack, Alex. Imagine a World Without Monarch Butterflies: Awakening to the Hazards of Genetically Altered Foods. One Peaceful World Press, 2000. Matas, Antonio J., Nigel E. Gapper, Mi-Young Chung, James J. Giovannoni, and Jocelyn KC Rose. "Biology and genetic engineering of fruit maturation for enhanced quality and shelf-life." Current opinion in biotechnology 20, no. 2 (2009): 197-203. Nelson, Gerald C. Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: economics and politics. Academic press, 2001. Qaim, Matin, and David Zilberman. "Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries." Science 299, no. 5608 (2003): 900-902. Roitner-Schobesberger, Birgit, Ika Darnhofer, Suthichai Somsook, and Christian R. Vogl. "Consumer perceptions of organic foods in Bangkok, Thailand." Food policy 33, no. 2 (2008): 112-121. Stewart, C. Neal, Harold A. Richards, and Matthew D. Halfhill. "Transgenic plants and biosafety: science, misconceptions and public perceptions." Biotechniques 29, no. 4 (2000): 832-843. Read More