Genetically Modified Foods: Does GM foods affect Human Health, Culture and Biological Diversity?

The development of genetically modified (GM) food has been a matter of considerable interest worldwide but at the same time stirred public controversy. The uncertainties, risks and benefits of genetically modified (GM) technologies have been widely disseminated to the food industry and consumers (Costa-Font et al., 2008). A number of commercialized, genetically engineered (GE) varieties, most notably canola, cotton, maize and soybean, are created using Genetic engineering technology. This technology provides a means to introduce genes into plants via mechanisms that are different in some respects from classical breeding (Lemaux, 2009). GM foods are typically products that are consumed daily e.g., GM milk, and tomato (Costa-Font, et al., 2008). Crop-loss, which can threaten food security of poor subsistence farmers, can be averted to a large degree by cultivating GM crops, but at the same time, it is equally important to look at whether these foods have negative social and environmental impacts. In terms of GM crops impact on biological diversity, there is a concern that the introduction of non-native plant species and the release of genetically modified (GM) crops can induce environmental changes at gene to ecosystem levels (Bartz, et al., 2010). Studies vary from having inconclusive findings (Dunfield and Germida, 2004) to having no negative impacts (Sanvido et al., 2007) to GM crops having severe negative impact on biodiversity (Watkinson et al., 2000). Watkinson et al. (2000) simulated the effects of the introduction of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops on weed populations and the consequences for seed-eating birds. They predict that weed populations might be reduced to low levels or practically eradicated, depending on the exact form of management. Likewise, effects on the local use of fields by birds might also be severe, because such reductions represent a major loss of food resources. On contrary, review of substantial scientific data from the last ten years on the environmental effects of the currently

commercialized GM by Sanvido et al. (2007) reveal that the cultivation of the presently commercialized GM crops has caused environmental harm. Hence, the jury is still out on the impact of GM crops on biological diversity. When it comes to health impacts, although the vast majority of studies have shown no health concerns/risk of GE food products, there are few reports that have raised concerns regarding the potential horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance markers (ARMs), the ingestion of foreign DNA and the potential non-expected alterations in nutritional composition, allergenicity and toxicity of the new GE food products (Batista et al., 2009). Animal toxicity studies have revealed that certain GM foods may have toxic effects on several organs and systems. It might cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters (Artemis et al., 2009). As far as impact of GM crops and foods on culture is concerned, it might be too early to conclude its long-term impact on culture. Even in relatively well educated western countries in Europe, people seem to be fairly ignorant about GM foods. Finucane et al. (2005) conducted a study to provide an overview of the socio-psychological and cultural factors that play an important role in public perceptions of the risk of GM food. They examined differences in the cultural values and circumstances of people in the US, European countries, and the developing world. Evidence of Europeans perception of their own lack of knowledge about GM products was apparent in the 1996 Eurobarometer. A large percentage answered Dont Know to questions about the applications of biotechnologies while fifty-one percent said they had never talked with anyone about biotechnology before. Around 80% of respondents to the 1999 Eurobarometer said they were insufficiently informed about biotechnology. Non-European surveys also point to unknown risk as an important element of perceptions of GM food. A Food

Market Institute survey conducted in 19951996 found US consumers less aware of biotechnology than in 1992. Awareness of biotechnology was also relatively low among Japanese consumers, with 21% answering no to a question about foods produced through biotechnology are in the grocery store now and 39% saying they did not know. Furthermore, compared with US consumers, Japanese consumers are less likely to have talked with anyone about biotechnology. Focus group research in the UK uncovered consumers use of rules of thumb where safety scales were based on geographical region. Foods of local origin were seen safer than those of more distant origin, with home or garden produced food was considered safest and imported food was considered most risky (Finucane et al., 2005). Hence, further research is needed to improve the understanding about the impact of GM foods on culture. Despite all controversies, concerns, and complains, the future of GM foods looks bright. It is bright for a very simple reason, and that is, with rapid increase in population and crop loss threat imposed by climate change, countries simply cannot take chances. They will be more than willing to adopt technology and crop varieties that ensure a certain level of agricultural productivity. Particularly in developing countries population expansion, is predicted to continue in the future. United Nations has stated that world population will increase from the current 6.5 billion people to 9.1 billion in 2050 (Lemaux, 2009). Insufficient food production and its equitable distribution, however, will not be possible. Therefore, the problem of food insufficiency will worsen in coming decades. The prevalence of malnutrition would worsen among poor in developing world. The deficiencies in vitamin A, iron, and iodine can lead to serious health problems globally. The aforementioned threats push the demand for GE crops, as the use of GE in agriculture is perceived to several distinct benefits like enhanced farming

productivity, reduced pesticide use and run-off, tailored micronutrient enrichment of food, and reduced food costs. The spread of herbicide-resistant and pest-resistant GM crops may reduce pesticide runoff into surface and groundwater and reduce the need for tillage. Benefits to human health would result from availability of micronutrient rich crops (Finucane et al., 2005). The role of GE approaches can be beneficial in alleviating malnutrition by creating crops with higher levels of minerals and vitamins. Larger global demand for food, local weather-related production problems, increased transportation and on-farm costs, and increased use of some food commodities for bioenergy production results to higher food prices which exacerbate food sufficiency problems. To provide higher yields on the same amount of land in an environmentally friendly manner new methods and crop species are needed. In developing countries where disease and pests take a higher toll on production yields can be improved through GE crops. Sensible use of GE crops, along with other sustainable agricultural practices can increase food needs while respecting resources and the environment (Lemaux, 2009). The use of genetically modified foods should be allowed to the American public. As long as there is no hard scientific evidence on GM modified foods are harmful to human health, there is no reason why such foods should not be on the table. GM crops and foods are highly regulated in the US. They are under regulatory control of not one but three federal agencies: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), and the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Roe et al., 2007). These federal agencies have legal rights to demand immediate market removal of any product if valid scientific data show safety concerns for consumers or the environment (Lemaux, 2009). Hence, there is no reason to believe that GM foods are harmful to human health at this point in time. Plus, the US leads the world in acres planted with GE crops. GE crops and foods have been commercially available in the

United States since 1995 and their adoption around the world followed (Lemaux, 2009). If they are not consumed, export value would fall, drastically. Why should GE crops and foods importers have faith on products that are not consumed in the exporting countries? As far as consumers right to know if the food has been modified, in my view, it falls under the purview of the right to information. Consumers do have the right to know if or not the food has been modified. Some people may simply be unwilling to consume GM foods for ethical and religious reasons. In other words, acceptance of GM foods is not solely dependent on health impacts. Costa-Font et al. (2008) argue that the US consumers are more tolerant with GM products because they do not know in detail what they are consuming. They, however, have more trust regarding safety governmental policies, which allow products to be on the market (Costa-Font et al., 2008). But it is not quite clear how the public would react once food labels contain information about genetic modification. Genetic engineering is a very recent technology. It is understandable that consumers have doubts about potential health, environmental and ethical implications as every new technology raises fear. Nevertheless, the beneficial effects of genetic engineering are unquestionable, not only in developing crops, but also in developing new medical products. Looking back to human history, every new discovery has faced several similar situations. The discovery of electricity, antibiotics and the invention of cars and planes, despite the potential risks, humans have decided to move ahead in the name of progress. Thus, genetic engineering should also be accepted as a human made discovery that has tremendous potential not only for developing but also for developed countries (Batista, et al., 2009). Lemaux (2009) argues that, with the proper balance of caution and scrutiny, this technology is advantageous and does not compromise health of humans, animals, or the environment. Although no human activity can be guaranteed 100% safe. The

commercial GE crops and products available today are at least as safe as those produced by conventional methods. References: Artemis, D., Ioannis, S., A. (2009). Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1549-7852, 49 (2): 164 175 Bartz, R., Heink, U., Kowarik, I. (2010). Proposed Definition of Environmental Damage Illustrated by the Cases of Genetically Modified Crops and Invasive Species. Conservation Biology, 24: 675681. Batista, R., Oliveira, M., M. (2009). Facts and fiction of genetically engineered food. Trends in Biotechnology, 27 (5): 277-286 Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., Traill, W. B. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy Food Policy 33; 99111 Dunfield, K.E. and Germida, J.J. (2004). Impact of Genetically Modified Crops on Soil- and Plant-Associated Microbial Communities. Journal of environmental Quality, 33:806815. Finucane, M. L., Holup, J., L. (2005). Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. Social Science & Medicine 60; 16031612 Lemaux, P., G. (2009). Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist's analysis of the issues (part II). Annu Rev Plant Biol. 60:511-559. Roe, B., Teisl, M. F. (2007). Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products, Food Policy 32; 4966 Sanvido, O., Romeis, J. and Bigler, F. (2007). Ecological Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops: Ten Years of Field Research and Commercial Cultivation. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology, 107, 235-278. Watkinson, A. R., Freckleton, R. P., Robinson, R. A., and Sutherland, W. J. (2000). Predictions of Biodiversity Response to Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops. Science, 289, 5484, pp. 1554 1557.