Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
Biotechnology has developed to be an extremely significant aspect of contemporary culture. One of the most important achievements of this technology is the advancement of engineered organisms. GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are being used in human culture. In reality, GMOs are now being used for commercial purposes. This has sparked debate, with people questioning the ability of these modified species to affect both human and non-human life. People are concerned that these GMOs are unsafe and unfit for both human and animal consumption because they are toxic, a source of allergens, likely to spread antibiotic resistance genes to animals and human beings, and other unexpected health consequences.
What are Genetically Modified Organisms?
Despite the controversial nature of GMOs, researchers have reached a consensus when it comes to defining GMOs. According to Khan, Muafia, Nasreen and Salariya (2012, p.85), the term "genetically modified organism" refers to any plant, animal, and bacteria whose overall genetic information has been altered using biotechnology. In this manner, GMOs are living organisms that have been designed by human beings (Maghari and Ardekani, 2011, p.109). The genetic modification process often involves taking either a single or multiple pieces of DNA from a bacteria or virus, and adding it to an organism. This allows scientists to create living organisms that have all the desired traits, such as disease and drought resistance. The term "genetically modified organism" is commonly used to refer to plants, particularly those used for animal and human consumption, which have been created through gene modification processes (Whitman, 2000, p.1).
Genetically Modified Organisms are Unsafe
Anti-biotic Resistance
Numerous studies and publications promote the conviction that GMOs are unsafe. One common theme evident in these studies is that GMOs have the potential to promote antibiotic resistance to both animals and human beings who consume GM crops (Maghari and Ardekani, 2011, p.111; Khan et.al. 2012, p.86). In Maghari and Ardekani's study, three main explanations are offered to show how this happens. First, when the GM crop is being created, a gene is inserted into a plant with the help of a vector. In some cases, this vector often contains numerous markers and identifiers, some of which could be the antibiotic resistance gene. Secondly, the genes that are inserted into an organism could create mutations. Furthermore, they can also rearrange themselves either in the host genome or in other generations, creating unprecedented changes in the new organism's overall genetic makeup. One of these changes could be a resistance to antibiotics. Finally, DNA cannot be processed fully in the human digestive system. In fact, the various microflora that reside in the human gut could also adopt some of these antibiotic resistance qualities, giving rise to diseases that are resistant to antibiotics (Maghari and Ardekani, 2011, p.111-2).
A common example used to strengthen this claim is the injection of rBGH in cows to help boost production. The injection of this gene has been linked to an increased occurrence of infections in their udders. Owing to this, the cows are often treated with antibiotics. The resulting effect is the production of milk with high amounts of antibiotic residue. Scientists are concerned that this may worsen the problem of antibiotic resistance already observed in human beings. Besides milk, the consumption of plants that have the ampicillin resistant gene is also said to raise the risk of bacterial infections resistant to antibiotics in human beings (Khan et.al., 2012, p.86-7).
On the same note, there is a lot of concern surrounding GMOs' ability to expose human beings to viral diseases. In the same way that a vector can carry the anti-biotic resistant gene, scientists claim that it can also contain foreign genes that may place people at an increased risk of contracting viral diseases. For example, the Mosaic Virus common in Cauliflowers is often injected into cotton, corn, and soya plants to promote trans-genes (Maghari and Ardekani, 2011, p.112). Researchers are worried that this virus could become active when inside the human body and cause diseases.
Allergenic Properties of GMOs
Several studies have explored the potential GMOs have in causing allergies in people. When new DNA is introduced in an organism, there is a high likelihood that it will result in the rearrangement of chromosomes. This paves the way for the production of proteins that could be fatally allergic to some people (Maghari and Ardekani, 2011, p.111). Owing to this, there is immense concern that the traits inserted in plants and other organisms may be allergic to human beings (Kuiper et.al. 2011, p.504). In fact, GMOs have been blamed for the increase in allergies observed in children all across the United States and Europe (Whitman, 2000, p.7; Maghari and Ardekani, 2011, p.112).
To add weight to their conviction that GMOs are allergenic, studies have cited previous cases, in which adverse reactions were observed in people after consuming genetically modified food. In 1989, a few dozen people in the United States died after consuming the food supplement L-Tryptophan that had been genetically altered. Thousands more faced serious impairments as a result (Khan et.al., 2012, p.86). Almost a decade later, the Brazilian nuts were used to modify soya beans. However, these products were pulled off the market when it was determined that the Brazilian nut had the potential to cause fatal allergies in some individuals (Society of Toxicology, 2003, p.5).
The Effects GMO Feeds have on Animals
GMOS are also thought to be unsafe because of the supposed impact genetically modified animal feed has on livestock. In an article published on the Forbes site, the author highlights some of the claims made by critics of GMO. According to them, animals fed on GMO often tend to exhibit abnormalities. For instance, these animals suffer from cancer and are prone to low life expectancy rates (Entine, 2014). These animals are also said to have a higher likelihood of experiencing false pregnancies and experiencing infertility. Other studies conducted on animals fed GMOs have also collaborated with the critics' claims, showing immense changes in the animal's various biological processes and organs.
In addition to their impact on animals feeding directly on them, these GMO feeds are also thought to afflict human beings in an indirect manner. Some studies, such as the one conducted by Seralini, consider GMOs to be toxic to human beings. According to Seralini, more than 80% of all food is poisonous to animals and human beings alike (cited in Entine, 2014). Individuals who eat animals fed on GMOs are at an increased risk for various disorders. This is because DNA and proteins are all a part of what they consume, in the form of eggs, milk, and meat (Entine, 2014). Some studies indicate that the continued consumption of cows whose genes have been modified by rBGH will result in birth defects and a significantly low life expectancy (Khan et.al., 2012, p.87).
Genetically Modified Organisms are Safe
GMO Practices and Organisms are Similar to Conventional Practices and Products
On the other hand, there are other studies that have demonstrated that GMOs are safe. The most common argument put forth by the authors behind these studies is that GMOs are not different from other non-GMO organisms. For instance, the Society of Toxicology argues that the common negative effects associated with GMOs are similar to the adverse effects generated by non-GMOs (2003, p.2). For example, common agricultural breeding techniques have also been associated with negative outcomes (Kuiper, 2001, p.505, 515). Other studies claim that the biotechnology behind the production of GMOs is not distinguishable from other traditional agricultural practices, such as cross-breeding and selective breeding (Maghari and Ardekani, 2011, p.112p.113-4). In essence, traditional breeding carries with it the same risks associated with GMOs.
Furthermore, studies have also used the concept of equivalence to prove that GMOs are safe. In fact, the United States and Europe also rely on the same concept when evaluating the overall safety of GMOs. From this perspective, any GMO that bears similar qualities to its non-GMO counterpart is considered to be relatively safe (Society of Toxicology, 2003, p.3; Entine, 2014). The qualities commonly put into consideration include the nutritional features and overall composition. Other features such as potential toxicities and the presence of allergens are also considered. In this case, a GMO that bears the same risk as its non-GMO counterparts is also considered relatively safe. All GMOs are similar to existing organisms, except for a few features, and hence considered to be generally safe.
Transgenes are Safe
While some studies, such as Seralini (cited in Entine, 2014), have alluded to the fact that the very presence of a transgene renders a food toxic, the truth is the transgene is not in itself a toxic substance. On an average day, an individual will eat at least 0.1 gram of DNA. In this regard, the transgene is not a new thing that is being introduced into the human diet. Furthermore, its presence in GMOs is so minimal. For instance, it accounts for a mere 0.0001% of the DNA of genetically modified corn. Moreover, the human system is immensely sophisticated, allowing it to silence, dispense of, and break down foreign DNA introduced in the body (Society of Toxicology, 2003, p.3-4).
Allergies in GMOs
As aforementioned, the probability of causing allergies is one of the main reasons GMOs are considered unsafe. It is worth noting that common non-GMO foods also present significant risks to human beings, particularly in the form of allergies. These allergies are commonly associated with organisms that are already in existence. For instance, the Kiwi fruit was introduced into the United States and Europe during the 1960s. At the time, there were no recorded allergies associated with the fruit. Today, there have been reports of allergic reactions to the Kiwi fruit (Society of Toxicology, 2003, p.4). In this regard, the risk of allergies is not enough to render GMOs unsafe for human beings.
Safety Checks in GMOs
Studies have acknowledged that the addition of a transgene into an organism presents its own set of risks. However, this is not enough to render the organism unsafe. In fact, the advent of biotechnology and other advances have made it possible to detect any unprecedented outcomes early enough to rectify them. For example, most GMOs are put through exhaustive tests to determine their safety. During these evaluations, the genetically modified organism is tested to not only determine its components but also compare it to its non-GMO variant (Society of Toxicology, 2003, p.5). In this regard, the allergic and toxic features of a GMO are most likely to be detected before it is made available to the general public. This was evident in the case of the Brazilian Soya, which had been modified with genes from the Brazilian nuts. Tests were able to reveal the presence of an allergen early enough to prevent actual threats to the human population (Society of Toxicology, 2003, p.5; Khan et.al. 2012, p.86). Up to date, there have been no proven cases of toxicity or nutrition deficiencies resulting from GMOs.
Antibiotic Resistance
Literature also shows that the claim that GMOs tend to increase the spread of antibiotic-resistance properties into other genes is nothing more but an unsubstantiated claim. The lack of evidence has been linked to the complete destruction of foreign DNA in the human gut. Research also shows that the bacteria found in the human digestive system cannot develop antibiotic resistance from GMOs because the transfer of genes between GMOs and human beings is also significantly low (Society of Toxicology, 2003, p.6). In fact, if the spread of this gene were possible, there are safeguards and technologies in place to help prevent this from taking place. Scientists can now identify the antibiotic resistant markers and refrain from incorporating them into GMOs.
Faults in Opposing Research Studies
Research also identifies two problems with claims made about the unsafe nature of GMOs. First, the assertion that genetically modified animal feed is unsafe for animals and human beings that feed on these animals is a baseless claim. If this was true, farms would be littered with dead animals. At the same time, there would be a noticeable rise in the number of people dying after consuming animals fed on genetically modified feed. Furthermore, commonly cited side effects of GMO feed, such as large tumors would be visible to farmers and there would be reports on these observations (Entine, 2014). The lack of supporting evidence is an indication that GMOs are safe.
Secondly, studies conducted to determine the safety of GMOs are problematic. They are rarely conducted on a case-by-case basis. The failure to compare the GMO with its non-GMO variant leads people to draw misleading conclusions about its effects. At the same time, most studies that claim GMOs are unsafe are often conducted for 90 days or less (see table 1). This period is considered by most scientists to be too short to deduce the actual toxicity of a substance (Seralini et.al. 2011, p.2-3). Furthermore, these works of research tend to be targeted, where only a single compound is measured (Kuiper et.al. 2001, p.523). For instance, scientists intentionally insert toxic sub-genes into crops to prove that GMOs are unsafe (Whitman, 2000, p.7). These studies often result in the generation of biased results.
Conclusion
The analysis conducted on literature has revealed that genetically modified organisms come with their own set of risks, just like those found in non-GMOs. These risks include aspects such as the potential for causing allergic reactions. However, this does not mean that GMOs are unsafe. Studies that seek to prove the unsafe nature of GMOs are flawed at best. At the same time, GMOs are put through stringent tests meant to guarantee their safety, and they do not differ significantly from non-GMOs. In this regard, genetically modified organisms are safe and a healthy choice for all individuals.
References
- Entine, J. (2014). "The debate about GMO safety is over, thanks to a new trillion-meal study." Forbes. [Online] (Updated 2014) [Accessed Aug.30, 2017]
- Khan, S.J., Muafia, S., Nasreen, Z., & Salariya, A.M. (2012). "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Food security or threat to food safety." Pakistan Journal of Science, 64(2), 85-91.
- Kuiper, H.A., Kleter, G.A., Noteborn, H.P., and Kok, E. (2001). "Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods." The Plant Journal, 27(6), 503-28.
- Maghari, B. M., and Ardekani, A.M. (2011). "Genetically modified foods and social concerns." Avicenna J Med Biotech, 3(3), 109-17.
- Seralini, G., Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., de Vendomois, J. S., and Cellier, D. (2011). "Genetically modified crops safety assessment: present limits and possible improvements." Environmental Sciences Europe (A Springer Open Journal), 23(10), 1-10.
- Society of Toxicology. (2003). "The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. [Position Paper]." Reston.
- Whitman, D.B. (2000). "Genetically modified foods: Harmful or helpful?" Discovery Guides. [Online] (Updated 2000) [Accessed Aug.30, 2017]
Appendix
Table 1. Chronic and Toxicity Studies. Adapted from "Genetically modified crops safety assessment: present limits and possible improvements" by Seralini, G., Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., de Vendomois, J. S., and Cellier, D., Environmental Sciences Europe (A Springer Open Journal), 23, 10:3. 2011.
Table 2. Studies on the composition of GMO crops adapted from "Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods," by Kuiper, H.A., Kleter, G.A., Noteborn, H.P., and Kok, E., The Plant Journal, 27, 6:6. 2001.
