November 13, 2011
Genetic Modification: An unlabeled hazard or fruitful technology
Let’s face it. Genetic modification of plants and animals has been taking place for thousands of years. In order to generate a fruitful harvest or breed larger stock, farmers would selectively breed their best with their best, thus creating a superior breed.
So what’s all controversy about?
Modern genetic modification is no longer as simple as taking two large plants and breeding them with each other. The role of technology and science has become more and more reliant and nature no longer is allowed to take its course. This is not necessarily a bad thing but has provided a basis for controversy.
Genetic modification has proven as a benefit to society in many ways. Through altering certain genes, crop yield and quality have greatly increased and improved. Through scientific breakthroughs one crops’ distinct gene, such as an ability to create a vitamin beneficial to humans can now be transferred to a completely different crop. This same concept has now created crops that require less pesticides. By identifying bacteria that are resistant to certain diseases, DNA can be extracted, altered, and implanted into a crop. This modified crop is overall easier on the environment and of a higher quality to that of traditional farming methods. Due to the removed cost of pesticides to treat plant disease and the ability to create larger and healthier harvests, farmers have been able to generate larger profits.
While there are many positives for a society to adopt genetically modified organisms, many people question the effects engineered agriculture can have on the human body. Produce is not the only type of genetically modified organism. Many of the animals we currently eat are engineered to grow quicker and be larger than those found in nature. This unhealthy growth has been the concern of many people across the United States who feel as though ingesting such engineered meats can be carcinogenic and unhealthy. While there currently has been little scientific proof of such accusations, many people feel strongly that any agriculture genetically modified should be labeled when up for sale. Stemming from this concern, organic agriculture has been thriving and providing people with certainty their food has not been scientifically tampered with. Every store bought organic item is labeled and guarantees nothing through its growing process has been engineered or modified.
Along with health concerns, GMO’s have massive potential to dominate in nature. Through their engineering process, GMO’s tend to be superior in many ways to a wild version of the same plant. There currently is a large concern for GMO’s to cause a loss of genetic diversity and variety among certain species of plants. This lack of variety can eventually lead to a loss of a prized trait that may have a certain use in the future.
The GMO debate is not one that will end soon. Still relatively new to the market, the positives of GMOs currently outweigh the negatives. Though future analysis, science will be able to analyze and decipher the negative effects engineering organisms can have on the human body. In the mean time, I believe the people should have the option to choose whether or not they want to eat these organisms. Stores should be forced to label produce that has been engineered and shoppers should decide what they currently want in their diet.
About the authors: Lucas Biging and Nick Leonard are working towards their bachelor degrees in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
With the global human population reaching 7 billion, the amount of food required to sustain the population is increasing dramatically while the amount of food actually being produced is not being increased to match these needs, leading to an impending food crisis. Because of this, I think research and experimentation with genetically modified organisms is extremely important, but the debate over GMOs is a difficult one to resolve because of both its beneficial effects on food production and the unknown consequences within the human body. I think both sides to the argument are well presented, but in regards to the negative consequences of GMOs, the blog states, “Still relatively new to the market, the positives of GMOs currently outweigh the negatives”. However I would like to raise the point that if in fact, GMOs are detrimental, harmful, or even toxic to our health, the effects may not show up for years, maybe even decades, and by then it may be too late. Even the effects of GMOs on plant diversity and species diversity may seem inconsequential now, but could become a real problem in the future when certain traits or species die out, losing valuable traits to a genetically modified trait constant amongst all the organisms. Therefore, while genetically modified organisms are a valuable commodity to food production all over the world, it is imperative that we remain cautious towards the future effects of GMOs upon plants, animals, and even ourselves.
Although some valid points were brought up concerning the positive and negative aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s), I feel the consequences of the loss of genetic diversity was touched on too lightly. A loss of genetic diversity could have disastrous impacts on people and the economy. For example, let’s say farmers around the world grow the same species of genetically modified corn because it can be grown easily and in mass quantities, has boosted nutrient levels, and is weed and weather resistance. This is great for increasing food production; however, if this corn species is vulnerable to a specific disease and this species gets decimated, then corn production in all countries could be virtually stopped. People all over the world would go hungry, economically it would be a disaster, and new seed would have to be obtained and planted. Genetic diversity is important for ensuring survival rates among crops when unplanned events like a pest, weed, or disease occur. Therefore, the risk of having a homogenous crop all over the world is huge and the issue should be addressed further when taking a stance in the promotion or regulation of GMO’s.
This article touches upon a very important factor in the GMO debate; the consumer and their perceived risks of GMO’s. More importantly, the authors mention organic certifications as a means in which consumers may avoid GMO containing products as well as the need for further labeling to address GMO concerns.
However, in April of 1993 the FDA attempted to provide such labeling by collecting over 50,000 written comments in hopes to formulate a labeling system that addresses health and safety concerns. According to the public meetings that were held to review these comments, “most of the comments that addressed labeling requested products contain statements of longterm consequences from consuming bioengineered foods”(FDA). However, because there is no data to support such claims “the FDA does not feel…that a food or its ingredients produced using bioengineering is a material fact that must be disclosed under sections 403(a) and 201 (n) of the [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic] Act” (FDA).
Thus, until other reasoning for labels arises or longterm negative affects of GMOs are proven it looks like a mandatory GMO labeling system will not come to be anytime soon.