Issues Related to GMOs Consumption - Essay Example

 Issues Related to GMOs Consumption Introduction One of the most currently discussed food topics relates to genetically modified organisms (GMO)and the safety of their consumption. The scale of the debate ranges from pure scientific arguments to anecdotal claims. Since the commercial introduction of the GMO, the amounts of arguments from both the proponents and opponents of their used have been mounting at an increasing level. The reason for such scrutiny can be explained by the commercial and environmental impact of the genetically modified food and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding their safety. Considering the ever present issues of starvation and malnutrition that plague millions of people around the world, GMO seems to be an invaluable solution. Scientists are now able to re-engineer existing crops for human and animal consumption making them resistant to infestations and other external factors. Crops can be made resilient and adapted to previously inhospitable conditions while producing more nutrients than the unmodified sorts. However, there are no universally acknowledged studies that can once and for all prove the safety of use of genetically modified organisms for human and animal consumption. References The information regarding the safety of use of GM food is present in abundance. There are various publications, blog posts, journals articles and reports that shed a light on the subject. Naturally, the opinions are split in half with supporters and opponents of genetic engineering presenting their arguments and claiming their superiority. Presented below are the references for both sides of the debate. Pro-GMO sources. The Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? by Debora Whitman is the general and detailed overview of the current state of affairs regarding genetic engineering of foods and general reaction to it. The author presumes that genetically modified crops may represent the most robust solutions to the current food crisis. Yet, it will pose numerous challenges both scientific and ethical when developing a proper systematic approach to GMO in food (Whitman, 2000). The main benefits and goals of genetic modification of crops are mentioned as well allowing the reader to develop a better understanding of a broader scope of the event (Whitman, 2000). Whitman concludes that genetically modified foods do represent a solution to many problems and that their safety should be evaluated in each case and not by the merits of general assumptions. The report The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology delivered by the Society of Toxicology and published in the Toxicological Science journal gradually explains academic standards and procedures used to examine genetically modified foods ('The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology', 2003). The paper provides the gradual explanation of different aspects of GMO consumption by humans and animals and examines existing evidence. In general, the paper finds no other reasonable claims against the use of genetically modified organisms except for a lack of comprehensive long-terms studies on the matter. Additionally, a recommendation to avoid generalization of assumption regarding the safety of GMA has been made. Article from the Forbes magazine by Jon Entine The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study gives a more bold statement claiming that debate is no longer necessary (Entine, 2015). The author sums up results of the existing studies that prove the safety of genetically modified foods for humans. Numerous excerpts from scientific papers are used to emphasize author’s point of view. Anti-GMO sources. The article Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada by Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc argues that pesticides from GMO can be found in women both pregnant and not (Aris & Leblanc, 2011). Additionally, specific pesticides can also affect fetuses. The study states that GMO-specific pesticides may circulate in the blood. Thus, maternal and fetal exposure to these substances should be identified (Aris & Leblanc, 2011). Though no convicting claims have been directly made the authors the overall message of the paper suggested caution toward genetically modified food consumption. A post on the Organic Consumer Association website Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks by Jeffrey Smith provides a list or health disorders that presumably associated with genetically modified foods and ingredients (Smith, 2015). The authors appeal to lack or reaction on behalf of the FDA and suggests that further damage will be done to the physical health of those consuming GMO (Smith, 2015). In general, the post strongly suggests avoiding GMO consumption. Another comprehensive overview of presumably adverse effects of genetically modified organisms on human health is delivered in Ten Scientific Studies Prove that Genetically Modified Food Can Be Harmful To Human Health by Arjun Walia in the article posted on Global Research website (Walia, 2015). The author claims that numerous studies identified GMOs as being responsible for damage done to internal organs in tested animals. There are a number of studies that author refers to which state different adverse effects caused by genetically modified organisms (Walia, 2015). The article concludes that GMOs may not be considered safe. Evaluation The amount of evidence and claims on each side of the debate provides enough basis to suggests that reasonable argument is provided by all. Emotional statements and exaggerated claims were also present. Considering the scientific and social nature of the subject of the debate, an adequate amount of conclusive examination results is necessary to arrive at the point of the universally accepted conclusion. The scientific data presented in the papers that suggest safety of the GMOs is considered by the academic community as valid. However, it should be noted that save scientific validity is present in those papers that claim potential harmful effects of the GMOs to be real. When speaking about the scientific merits and unbiased attitude to the subject the article by Debora Whitman represents an excellent example of an accurate statement presented with regards to criticism. The author used peer-review and governmental sources of information when developing the paper. In addition to explaining what are the genetically modified organisms and what are their benefits, Whitman addresses all the main points of criticism. Moreover, instead of boldly rejecting critical claims, the author provided possible solutions for some issues. For example, there is concern over cross-pollination of conventional plants by their genetically modified counterparts (Whitman, 2000). Thought not considering it to be a reasonable issue Whitman still recommended to take necessary precautions. It also has to be noted that the section of the paper designated to human health risks does not provide enough coverage to include all potential hazards. The information provided in the toxicological science report is also evidence based. The report also focuses on the assessment procedures and those parameters that should be considered when evaluating GMOs’ safety of use. An interesting information on daily DNA intake states that humans consume up to 1 gram of DNA molecules on average every day. The percentage of transgenes in this intake may be considered minuscule. It was mentioned that though no concluding results have been made to suggest toxicological harm of GMOs, proper testing should be performed on every new modified crop. The article by Jon Entine represents a more informal and emotional approach to the subject of GMOs. While referring to authoritative scientific findings and results of numerous studies, Entine tends to generalize their conclusions in a way that may be considered as one-sided (Entine, 2015). The author also appeals to the emotional side of the debate by drawing attention to personalities of this opponents. Despite this remarks the article is a good starting point for further readings and research into the subject. The opponents of GMOs consumption often cite the article by Azis Aris and Samuel Leblanc as one of the most confirmative scientific evidence of direct harm to human health. The article is purely scientific and studies the correlation between GMOs consumption and biochemical changes that may result from it (Aris & Leblanc, 2011). In particular, the authors were looking into maternal and fetal exposure to glyphosate that is herbicide specific to GMOs (Aris & Leblanc, 2011). It was also concluded that though glyphosate was not found in all women participating in the study the vulnerability of fetuses to xenobiotics should be enough to reason against the uncontrolled consumption of genetically modified organisms. It has to be mentioned that in general opponents of GMOs tend to overlook or misinterpret scientific findings and appeal to emotions on a regular basis. For example Arjun Walia often expressed generalized interpretation of scientific data omitting contradictory parts. Though accumulation a vast database of arguments Walia still fails in proving the feasibility of his statements. Even the interpretation of valid sources was twisted to appeal to common public fears. Same criticism may be applied to Jeffrey Smith and his lists of arguments (Smith, 2015). Despite referring to academic sources and reputable findings Smith is quick with his conclusions and advocate for emirate federal ban on GMOs consumption. Reflection The research had allowed to developer a better understanding of nature, purposes and potential issues associated with genetically modified organisms. Though it is still hard to say whether it is safe or not to consume GMOs and use the products that include them as ingredients, it is obvious that emotional and biased approach is unnecessary. In my opinion, genetically modified organisms are here to stay, and it is only a matter of time and additional studies until their use will be standardized and properly regulated. The prevailing majority of the arguments against GMOs are not conclusive or misinterpreted. Some finding indicates potential links to harm. Thus, it would be wise to follow further findings into the subject. Currently, there are no alarming reasons to try to avoid GMOs consumptions entirely. However, those who have any health issues should be more conscious regarding their dietary preferences. References Aris, A., & Leblanc, S. (2011). Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reproductive Toxicology, 31(4), 528-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004 Entine, J. (2015). Forbes Welcome. Forbes.com. Retrieved 4 November 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/ Smith, J. (2015). Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks. Organicconsumers.org. Retrieved 1 November 2015, from https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/spilling-beans-unintended-gmo-health-risks The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology. (2003). Toxicological Sciences, 71(1), 2-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/71.1.2 Walia, A. (2015). Ten Scientific Studies Prove that Genetically Modified Food Can Be Harmful To Human Health. Global Research. Retrieved 4 November 2015, from http://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/5377054 Whitman, D. (2000). Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?. Retrieved from http://biomed.brown.edu/arise/resources/docs/GM%20foods%20review.pdf Read More