2016
Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
If powerful herbicide genes became merged with the bacteria within your stomach, you should be concerned. This is one of the demonstrated results of eating GMO foods, and among a long list of other dangers to the health of the world population and the environment. There is a vicious debate between GMO supporters and opponents, and it is often difficult to know who is right. However, when we explore below the surface of arguments about the millions of years of genetic modification in the history of life, we see that there are powerful interests in the agricultural business community and scientific community, and the two are wedded together. We find that much of the scientific community pays homage to companies like Monsanto precisely because Monsanto’s funding provides many scientists with the means to further their careers. While many scientists claim that GMOs have been proven safe and that they result in greater crop yield with less need for herbicides, there is evidence from ethically and scientifically reputable researchers and organizations showing that GMOs pose great danger to human and environmental health. By the end of this paper, it will be clear that the debate boils down to a choice between the ethically dubious position held by Monsanto and together with industry scientists, and the much more highly regarded and ethical position of scientists and organizations who have demonstrated much greater intelligence and integrity than the likes of big agribusiness.
The modern era of biotechnology began in 1972 when biochemists Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen figured out how to cut DNA and then splice particular pieces with the DNA of other organisms (Bushak). This is the beginning of human beings discovering their god-like powers to tinker with the building blocks of life. Inevitably, biotechnology was brought into the sphere of economy and commerce, and companies began to experiment with how to use different gene combinations toward their desired ends. In 1982, the United States Supreme Court decided that GMOs were patentable by law, and in so doing allowed Exxon to develop and use their oil-eating bacteria to clean up oil spills (Bushak). Monsanto was not far behind: In 1988, after five years of experimentation, Monsanto scientists created a GMO soybean that was resistant to herbicides (Bushak). Many other GMO seeds would follow, such as rice, cotton, sugar beets, and corn, all with genes that made them resistant to various threats to crops (Bushak). In the past thirty years, companies such as Monsanto have continued to innovate their GMOs, producing more crops which various forms of built in resiliencies.
One of the common arguments against GMOs is that the process is ‘unnatural,’ and this claim tends to invoke harsh response from GMO proponents. Proponents will often discuss how for thousands of years’ people have been selectively breeding crops, which is essentially a mixing and matching of different plant species. More recently, as briefly discussed above, sixty years ago scientists started using ‘metagenic’ techniques to more specifically alter mainstream agricultural products such as wheat, rice, peanuts and pears (Freedman). The only difference between those crops, which have not been proven to have caused any problems, and GMOs is that the latter involves a technique of inserting the gene into the plant genome. GMO proponents argue that this should be even safer than mutagenic processes because the scientist has more precision today creating GMOs (Freedman). Besides, as Alan McHugen, plant molecular geneticist at U.C. Riverside points out, viruses have inserted their DNA into other species for millions of years, and yet we have survived to the present (Freedman).
After concluding that genetically modifying organisms does not represent a break from the natural order of life, proponents of GMOs often continue their arguments to indicate that there have not been conclusive studies showing any dangers of GMOs. For instance, writing for Scientific American, David Freedman asserts that the European Union has funded 130 research projects consisting of over 500 independent research teams, and none of the results concluded special risks for GMOs. Even so, the European Union requires labeling on all GMO foods and eight countries have banned GMOs outright (Freedman). The United States has far and away remained the most tolerant country to GMO in the world, while most of the other countries in the world have looked to Europe’s example. This, to GMO proponents, is a tragedy because they insist that GMOs have been proven safe and that GMO foods increase crop yields, lower food prices, and diminish the need for pesticides (Freedman). With global populations booms expected in the next thirty-five years, Freedman claims that GMOs could prove pivotal in providing enough food for everyone, proponents of GMOs claim.
The argument between pro-GMO and anti-GMO camps can be confounding because the claims often inversely mirror each other. Proponents claim there have been no studies indicating that GMOs harm health, yet protestors of GMOs cite tests and theories claiming the opposite. In this next section, we’ll look at the arguments put forth by protesters of GMOs indicating that there have been proven health and environmental problems with GMOs, discussing the problems of industry-biased research and political support as well as the wider problems of scientific voices being silenced or marginalized due to challenging the mainstream views.
Views of GMO Opponents
While the proponents of genetic modification claim that it is a precise process, Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, claims otherwise. The following is a summary based on his description of how the technique of genetic modification works: A gene from one species is forcibly inserted into the DNA of another species through the means of a gun-like mechanism (Smith). For example, corn has been genetically modified to produce the insecticide Bacillus Thuringiensis, which produces a toxin called BT Toxin, which breaks open the stomachs of mosquitos and other insects to kill them (Smith). The gene that produces this toxin is taken out of the bacterium, millions of copies of that gene are made, and then those genes are shot into a plate full of millions of corn cells (Smith). Next, those cells are cloned and become the genetically modified corn which produces the BT Toxin at an effective dose to kill the insects that try to consume them.
One concern that Smith has with the above described process is that two to four percent of the corn’s DNA winds up being different, which Smith says amounts to ‘massive collateral damage.’ Smith is so severe with his language here because he insists that there are hundreds or thousands of mutations in the DNA which could produce an endless array of unexpected effects. For example, a once silent gene in soybeans has been shown to have been switched on in this process and now produces an allergen (Smith). The effects of these allergens on the world population and on future generations is unknown which is why Smith and others who oppose GMOs are very concerned.
While advocates of GMOs argue that there have not been any proven health problems from the ‘trillions’ of GMO meals consumed over the past few decades, that claim may be shortsighted in light of the numerous chronic diseases and conditions that have appeared or increased in the same time period as GMOs being introduced to the market. One study has shown that when volunteers ate GMO soy beans (known as Roundup-ready soy beans), for three out of the seven volunteers, the genes from the beans were found in their intestinal bacteria, and remained there after they stopped eating the beans, suggesting that the insecticide continued to be produced within their intestines (Smith). This could be very dangerous for the health of the whole body, as the health of the intestinal bacteria has been found crucial for key functions of the body, such as immunity and the digestion and processing of food nutrients. Smith’s claim that health problems related to gut dysfunction and autoimmunity are correlated with the emergence of GMO foods in the public’s diet is supported by the evidence of the Round-up ready gene found in the intestines of the study’s volunteers. Further, deteriorating health conditions are most severe in the United States, which is the country with the most accepting attitudes toward GMOs.
Critics of GMOs point out that the health costs associated with GMOs are overlooked because of biased views from scientists in associated research fields. Indeed, bias among scientists due to industry funding is not new in the history of science, and very well could be why many scientists have been so adamantly in support of GMOs and so harshly critical of any oppositional voices. For instance, we would do well to cast a concerned eye to the fact that in 1992, Michael Taylor, a former attorney for Monsanto, held authority in the FDA to decide whether or not to label genetically modified foods (Flynn). Then, after another stint with Monsanto, Tayler took over the top food job at the FDA in 2010 (Flynn). This type of wedding between governmental institutes and industry stakeholders in GMOs not only affects the legislations passed, but also determines which studies are considered by the FDA. In the scientific sphere, Monsanto and other GMO industries often fund research as well, so it should come as little surprise that most mainstream scientists consistently report findings favorable to Monsanto and other agribusiness giants.
If GMOs do represent health risks to the public, and many physicians and scientists claim this is the case, then the fact that much of the scientific community in the United States either supports GMOs or is silent on the issue suggests a crisis within the institution of science (Hyman) Indeed, one may ask there could be widespread support for GMOs from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences, if there were legitimate findings suggesting dangers of GMOs. Unfortunately, this apparent consensus in views on GMOs does in fact represent a deep dysfunction within the community of science. In any scientific field, when there is a view held by a majority, or even just held by the power-holders, i.e., the chairs of scientific boards and organizations, the editors of journals, head researchers at universities, etc., then oppositional views are regularly marginalized without due consideration, and often with a certain emotional charge (Thacker & Furberg). Thus, the ones who claim that GMOs are dangerous find great difficulty in publishing their work in highly regarded journals, getting funding for their research, maintaining their positions in laboratories and universities, and maintaining respected professional reputations (Huber). With an open-minded scientific community and adequate funding and consideration of various studies offering a range of conclusions for GMOs, then we would find a much different picture than the scientific community in consensus for GMOs that we see today.
The claim from GMO-critics regarding the collateral effects of GMOs, along with the unknown future effects for subsequent plant generations, has basis in hard evidence and should not be taken lightly. For instance, the Roundup-ready GMO crops can become susceptible to serious diseases due to the Roundup weakening the genetic resistance of the plant. Don Huber, professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University, says this is exactly what happened in 2012 with a Roundup-ready corn crop. One billion bushel of corn were lost due to a disease to which corn has historically been unaffected (Huber). Considering such cases of unknown dangers of GMOs, then it appears that claims about genetically modified food providing more food for the world, as well as GMOs being more resistant to disease and as needing less herbicides are all false.
Regarding the last point above, GMO-advocates insist that genetically modified plants require less herbicides and other poisonous chemicals to be sprayed on the crops because of the built in resistant genes. However, it was never Monsanto’s plan to diminish the number of herbicides used, but rather the opposite appears to be true (Smith). Most of the genetically modified crops are not modified so as to not need an herbicide, but rather most are modified to be able to withstand more herbicide (Smith). Regular crops usually die when a lot of Monsanto’s herbicides are sprayed on them, which is an indicator that we should not eat a large amount, or perhaps any, of those herbicides. However, for genetically modified crops that are herbicide tolerant, Monsanto’s herbicides are used in large quantities and cause abundant health and environmental issues.
The debate on GMOs is a farce. Under the illusion of scientific consensus, we come to a set of power interests which betrays any claim of GMO’s beneficence. In the GMO-advocating camp we have Monsanto and other large agri-business corporations that have track records that speak of no ethical standards for environmental and social health or justice. Siding with those powerful stakeholders are a great number of scientists who receive funding from those very corporations. In the other camp, the GMO-critical side, we see ethically esteemed individuals and organizations who have been critically vocal of GMOs for decades. Ralph Nader, Mark Hyman (chairman of the Institute of Functional Medicine), Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and much of Europe, which has surpassed the United States in several aspects of society, culture, and economy, all critically oppose GMOs. On one hand we have corporations like Monsanto who have been destroying the health of the world’s population and environment for decades, and on the other we have a large group of people who have proven reputable in matters of health and a greater understanding and respect of the holistic and very complex mechanisms of nature. In short, GMOs represent a dangerous form of hubris for humanity today. For the health of our and future populations, as well as for the greater environment, we should cease genetically modified production of food until we have developed a better understanding and control of the process.
Works Cited
Bushak, Lecia. "A Brief History Of GMOs." Medical Daily. Medical Daily, 22 July 2015. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
Flynn, Dan. "FDA's Mike Taylor Departing Agency." Food Safety News. Food Safety News, 09 Mar. 2016. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
Freedman, David H. "The Truth about Genetically Modified Food." Scientific American. Scientific American, 08 Aug. 2013. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
Huber, Don. "Why We Need to KO the GMO." Bulletproof. N.p., 01 June 2016. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
Hyman, Mark. "The New England Journal of Medicine Asks FDA to Reconsider Labeling GMO Foods."EcoWatch. EcoWatch, 24 Aug. 2015. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
Smith, Jeffrey. "GMOs: Their Impact on Health." (2014): n. pag. Bulletproof. 12 Aug. 2014. Web.
Thacker, Paul D., and Curt Furberg. "In Science, Follow the Money, If You Can." Los Angeles
Times. Los Angeles Times, 12 May 2016. Web.