Products created from genetically modified food
Products created from genetically modified food have rapidly gained popularity in recent years in the global food industry. Although Singapore does not produce these goods, it is a significant importer, a fact that has sparked intense political and ethical discussion about the products' safety as well as other concerns like consumer choice. Since the government and its representatives frequently believe GMOs to be just as safe as food made using conventional and natural agricultural methods, it may be said that the national position is typically liberal. Such an assumption, however, seriously jeopardizes consumer protection and rights. Studies on GMOs have shown considerable concerns about their impact on the environment, animals, and most importantly the human population. Scientists have identified various adverse health outcomes among consumers of such products including abnormal developments and creation of new allergenic which could be fatal to vulnerable people. The lack of proper consumer protection legislation such as mandatory labeling schemes has heightened these risks. As proved by various studies, concentrating on assuring the quality and safety of GM products does not have an impact on consumer behavior. As such, having labeling legislation remains the most viable mechanism for consumer protection.
Problem Background
Genetically modified organisms commonly referred to as GMOs describes organisms whose genetic material and composition have been altered. Genetic engineering or modification refers to the technology that allows scientists to locate individual genetic substances that are responsible for specific traits, extract them from their source, and implant them directly in animal, plant, virus, or bacterial cells (Prakash, Verma, Bhatia, and Tiwary 1). Studies indicate that almost every food can be genetically modified. The technology was first discovered in 1964 when scientists found that genetic materials can be transferred from one organism to another. Fast forward to the contemporary society; this technique has significantly advanced to allow for different ways of moving DNA which mostly occurs naturally on a large scale. For example, DNA transfer has been known to be a natural mechanism for building antibiotic resistance against pathogenic bacteria (Bawa and Anilakumar 1035).
The maiden GM plant and approval
The maiden GM plant was fashioned in the 1980s through the usage of antibiotic-resistant tobacco crop. It was the Chinese that came first in commercializing the modified crop in the 90s when they introduced a strain that resisted viruses. By 1994, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of flavor saver tomato in the United States Market. The strand made tomatoes have a delayed ripening season that helped reduce farm waste. The following year, various genetically modified foods and crops were approved including corn, modified oil compositions, cotton resistant to herbicide, potatoes herbicide-resistant soybeans, and virus-resistant squash among others (Bawa and Anilakumar 1035). The trend has continued over the years, and with the gradual improvement of the technology, most foods in the contemporary market have or can be genetically modified.
The implications of genetically modified food
The implications of the mass introduction of genetically modified food in the local and global market are mixed. The primary purpose of venturing into genetic engineering in the agricultural field was to improve the global food security. Studies have shown that such austerity can only be achieved in situations where everyone has economic and physical access to safe, sufficient, and nutritious food. Unfortunately, this is not the reality in many parts of the world. Approximately nine hundred million individuals are malnourished with many more suffering from experiencing nutritional deficiencies often associated with inadequate intake of micronutrients (Qaim and Kouser). The introduction of GMOs has shown significant promise in solving this problem. The technology has mainly focused on producing crops that can survive in harsh weather conditions in Africa and Asia and can fight off bacteria, pesticides, and viral attacks while at the same time improving their nutritional quality. The technology enables the increase in production in crops, confrontation to frost and pests, and mechanical characteristics in fruits. Additionally, their chemical and physical profiles have been modified with the aim of enhancing their psychological, nutritional, and biochemical value.
Concerns and risks
However, this does not mean that the technology is considered safe. The primary point of concern among opponents of the technology touches on the formation of super weds as a result of the gene flow of herbicide-resistant traits, the advent of superbugs that are resistant to widely used antibiotics, the loss of biodiversity due to unintended gene transfers, development of cross-resistance, the gradual decline of non-GM food products, and farmers losing the freedom as a result of the increased dominance of multinational seed organizations (Bhullar, and Bhullar 281).
Lack of consumer protection
By analyzing these concerns, it appears that much of the priorities are placed on the environment and the impact of the introduction of genetically engineered products on food producers. Little or no effort is being put on the protection of the consumers. Despite the fact that Singapore does not produce its GMO food, it is a major importer of the products. The nation is receptive to genetically modified organisms imports, but the process is not without its checks. National policy dictates that anyone wishing to introduce the products into the local market needs first to submit a convincing proposal detailing the product and its history to the subcommittee responsible for the release of GMOs related to agriculture. The subcommittee is tasked with scrutinizing each application under the principle of substantial equivalence. The dogma is based on the supposition that if the food qualifies to be substantially equivalent to its counterparts that are produced naturally, the two can be viewed as equals in regards to safety. This way of reasoning resulted from the declarations by the World Food Organizations that majority of the genetically modified products are safe for human consumption. Though this statement holds some truths, many both in Singapore and other major consumers of such foods do not agree with it (Olivia).
Health risks and adverse effects
These policies are limited especially when one considers the potential impact of these products on the consumer. Research on this topic has yielded data that indicate that animals that are fed GMO products have developed significant health deficient and many have succumbed as a result of these practices. Rats exposed to transgenic soy and potatoes produced young and abnormally constructed sperms. Likewise, goats, cows, pigs, buffalo, and other livestock fed GM cottonseeds, Bt-maize among different biotechnological feeds developed complications during their first pregnancies with much-experiencing infertility, abortions, and complicated deliveries (Maghari and Ardekani 112). Given the sensitivity of this subject, many bio-producing companies conducted similar studies, but theirs did not show analogous implications. Although these organizations and other stakeholders benefiting from the GMO technology deny the existence of any adverse health effects on humans, various tangible evidence exists to prove them wrong. Several reports in Europe and the United States have shown that a substantial number of children have developed life-threatening conditions such as allergies to peanuts and other types of foods. These reports also associated such outcomes to the incorporation of individual genes in the plants that result in the creation of new allergens that could result in severe allergic reactions to vulnerable individuals (Mishra and Singh 21). According to Maghri and Ardekani, other studies have linked the substantial increase in soy allergies in both the UK and USA in the past ten years to the use of genetically engineered food products. There also reports that hundreds of villagers and cotton farmers in India have developed skin allergies (112). In addition to this, other research shows that Bacillus thurigiensis corn contains allergenic protein that alters the general immunological reactions in the human body.
Solutions
The affirmation of these health risk concerns by independent GM researchers highlights the aforementioned concern that is often overlooked by local and international authorities. It also emphasizes the importance of the examination of the short and long-term effects of the products before their introduction to the food markets. The public should be provided with enough information that would enable them to make informed decisions concerning the consumption of GMO products. Unfortunately, this data and information are scarce and not readily availed to the consumer as a result of some factors. First, it is difficult to compare the nutritional characteristics of engineered food products to those that have been naturally produced. This is because the composition of crops grown in different regions of the world might significantly differ based on the agronomic and growth conditions (Maghari and Ardekani 112). Currently, there is minimal scholarly and expert research on the subject.
Second, and most importantly, there is a lack of adequate policies that govern the production, exportation, and sale of such products. These systems are vital since they would place restrictions that require the consumer to be well informed prior to the purchase or consumption of genetically modified products. Currently, Singapore has not put in place labeling policies for such products. The implication of this is that consumers have little to no mechanisms of distinguishing products that have resulted from scientific manipulations from those that have been produced naturally. According to the nation's Genetic Modification Advisory Committee, the labeling issue is significantly complicated and that the relevant local authorities would put considerable effort into ensuring the GM products in the country would be safe for consumption. A further look into the issue indicates that although it is essential to put in place up-to-date rules on food safety, labeling remains paramount (Olivia). To make it possible for the authorities to verify if people have been adversely affected by the consumption of genetically engineered food, especially in nations where the products compose a majority of the people's dietary practices, policies and laws requiring mandatory labeling are highly needed.
Importance of labeling
It is also vital to understand that labeling does not only touch on health concerns but is also about protecting consumer rights. It essentially gives the consumer a choice to buy GM products or naturally produced foods. Despite the significance of consensual systems on labeling, it appears that the international community is unlikely to agree on a unified system of labeling. However, research shows that various labeling schemes have been developed in different nations. These programs range from stringent to exceedingly lenient or to even non-existing legislations. For example, the European Union has put in place strict labeling requirements on all genetically modified products while other nations like Canada, the United States, and Argentina, who are recognized as the primary producers of such products, have legislated these laws but their governments do not implement them (Maghari and Ardekani 113).
When enacting such legislation, it is essential to consider a number of factors to ensure their effectiveness. Maghari and Ardekani suggest that a proper labeling system should have products containing labels with the word GM (113). In addition to this, manufacturers should include additional information that indicates the altered characteristics and the outside sources of the added genetic materials. For example, "GM soya beans with a gene from Y species." It is also crucial to avoid labels that suggest a product is free from genetic modifications. Such names have been known to give a negative impression to the consumers. The legislation for obligatory labeling of engineered food products has been established in approximately forty countries. Research on this has shown that individuals across the globe demand openness and consumer choice. The studies show that 92% of Americans, 88% of Canadians, and 93% of French citizens advocate for such policies (Maghari and Ardekani 113).
In conclusion
Genetic technologies have played a significant role in the improvement of food security around the world. However, the production and consumption of such products have raised various unignorable concerns, especially in the way they affect human health. Researchers and health experts have proved that these products result in abnormal development in both animals and humans. Moreover, reports from different regions of the world have provided physical evidence of these effects. In connection to this, experts have argued that consumers should be protected and given a chance to choose what they would consume. Although Singapore is not a producer of genetically engineered food, it is known to be a major importer of the products, and despite its import restrictions and legislation of food safety, the local consumer is ill-advised and unprotected. As such, it is critical for the government and relevant authorities to formulate labeling laws that would not only give the consumer a choice between different products but also inform them of the possible health outcomes that might result from the consumption of GM products.
Work Cited
Bawa, A. S., and K. R. Anilakumar. “Genetically Modified Foods: Safety, Risks and Public Concerns-a Review.” Journal of Food Science and Technology 50.6 (2013): 1035-1046.
Bhullar, Gurbir, S. and Navreet Bhullar K. “Acceptance of GMOs Worldwide: A Consumer and Producer Perspective.” Advances in Biotechnology. Ed Pankaj Bhowmik K., Ed. Saikat Basu K., Ed. Aakash Goyal. Bentham e-Books. 2009. 279-296
Maghari, Behrokh Mohajer, and Ali M. Ardekani. “Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns.” Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology 3.3 (2011): 109-117.
Mishra, Sanjay and R. B. Singh. “Physiological and Biochemical Significance of Genetically modified Foods: An Overview.” The Open Nutraceuticals Journal 6.1 (2012): 18-28.
Olivia. “The Biology of Food in Singapore.” Green Drinks Singapore, 28 Feb. 2013, sggreendrinks.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/the-biology-of-food-in-singapore/.
Qaim, Matin and Shahzad Kouser. “Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security.” PLOS One 6 (2013): e64879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064879
Prakash, Dhan, Sonoka Verma, Ranjana Ghatia, and B. N Tiwary. “Risks and Precautions of Genticall Modified Organism.” International Scholarly research Network 2011.369573 (2011): 1-13.
