GMOs: Addressing Environmental and Health Concerns

GMOs: Weighing the Risks and Rewards

Humans transitioned from a nomadic species to a sedentary one as the benefits of farming and pastoralism became recognized. Plants and livestock were selected for based on favorable traits and over generations the crops and animals changed significantly based on these continuous trait selections. Through recent technological advances, an organism’s traits can be modified by directly altering the actual genetic code.

I argue that artificial changes made in the genetic material of organisms today is not entirely different than the changes that have resulted from centuries of farming. Although it should be noted that certain alterations are only possible through genetic engineering, humans have been altering the evolutionary path of produce since 10,000 BC. People have introduced foreign species to new regions, altered land for farming, selected for favorable traits, and used countless methods such as pesticides to kill organisms that harm crops. The impacts are comparable between these techniques and the more recent genetic engineering techniques.

Consumers are concerned about the possible danger of GMO crops to human health as well as the environmental impacts that altering genetic material might have (Norris, 2015). Much of the worry stems from a lack of understanding about GMOs, and a spread of misinformation. The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which calls itself “the most comprehensive source of GMO health information on the web,” claims that GMOs are highly toxic, cause health problems such as “organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility,” are harmful to the environment, and “do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world” (Smith, 2016). These claims have been rigorously tested and disproven by many independent research institutions (see Norris, 2015). There is in fact, no evidence that GMOs cause organ failure, are selected over non-GMO counterparts in animal studies, and there are overwhelming results of increased yields and more efficient production (Gillis 2016). Many concerns over GMOs are very understandable and come from a place of good intention. While it might seem weird to eat a food that contains a gene from another organism, the vast majority of research suggests that there is no reason to think they are intrinsically unhealthy.

There are valid environmental risks of exposing the environment to GMO crops (Williamson, 1992); but these risks are similar to those that result from farming and selective breeding. The benefits of genetic engineering certainly can reduce the ecological damage done by traditional industry scale farming, as well as help the poor workers exploited by such an industry. In efforts funded for by the Gates Foundation, with the intention of reducing world hunger, researchers have genetically engineered test plants to be 20% more productive an believe that they could ultimately improve that figure to 50% (Gillis, 2016). Other GMO advances can fortify foods, adding important nutrients that are lacking from impoverished communities’ diets (such as golden rice). This can help us feed populations that have poor access to crops, as well as reduce the requisite resources for harvesting them. Furthermore, GMOs are well regulated and tested for possible ecological disturbances, contrary to what websites like the IRT may claim.

Combining genetic engineering with efficient growing strategies, such as the traditionally employed one mentioned earlier as well as more recent ones like vertical farming, could be the future of produce. The benefits of combining these techniques is fast growing, nutrient fortified, localized crops that would eliminate long shipping costs, reduce environmental impact, and bring nutrient rich foods to locations currently starved of them. Of course, steps must be taken to ensure that safe practices are met, but there is reason to claim that scientific advances in genetics and food-growing technologies will reshape food production for the better.

Skepticism is a critical aspect of the scientific method, and it is certainly important to rigorously test any concerns regarding human safety before allowing anything to reach the public. But there is danger in ignoring evidence and spreading false information. While people are free to believe whatever they do, it is important that they form their opinions on actual evidence, and know whether they are reading an opinion piece or an article citing peer reviewed studies. The most import factor in the ongoing GMO vs. non-GMO argument is access to valid information.

Thanks for reading. As always, feedback is greatly appreciated!

 Recent Articles:

• Neural Plasticity: Shaping How We View Ourselves
• PTSD: The Psychology and Neurology of Trauma and Psychedelic Treatments
• Attending to the Moment: The Difference Between Knowing and Understanding
• Why Quantum Mechanics can Elucidate the Nature of Consciousness
• How to Manifest your Intentions: The Philosophy and Neuroscience of Mindfulness Meditation

References:

• Costa-Font, Montserrat, Jose M. Gil, and W. Bruce Traill. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy." Food policy 33.2 (2008): 99-111.
• Gillis, Justin. "With an Eye on Hunger, Scientists See Promise in Genetic Tinkering of Plants." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Nov. 2016. Web. 03 Dec. 2016.
• Norris, Megan. "Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public's Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them - Science in the News." Science in the News. N.p., 24 Aug. 2015. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.
• Paarlberg, Robert. "GMO foods and crops: Africa's choice." New biotechnology 27.5 (2010): 609-613.
• Smith, Jeffrey. "10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs - Institute for Responsible Technology." Institute for Responsible Technology. N.p., 14 Mar. 2016. Web. 03 Dec. 2016.
• Williamson, M. "Environmental risks from the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOS)–the need for molecular ecology." Molecular Ecology 1.1 (1992): 3-8.

Images:

• First image
• Second image
• Third image