The Effects of Gmos on Humans

¶ … biotechnology and bioethics can be as controversial as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Reasons for the controversy include misinformation and mistrust of the existing data. One of the problems with existing data is the dearth of longitudinal studies. Longitudinal studies are especially important for studying the long-term effects of GMOs on either people or the ecosystem. Another problem with existing data is funding sources and conflict of interest, which is rarely recorded by researchers in any systematic way.

However, the vast majority of existing studies on GMOs show no cause for immediate alarm and do show promise for the potential of GMOs to promote social welfare. Klumper and Qaim conduct a meta-analysis of 147 original studies from around the world. The research contributes to a growing body of evidence substantiating the efficacy and safety of GMOs. This research takes into account the most recent evidence from a broader geographic area than prior research.

To be included in the meta-analysis, the studies needed to be based on primary source data (and thus, not be meta-analyses in their own right) or on direct field trials. Moreover, the researchers sought to investigate specifically the impact on GMOs on local pesticide use. Pesticide use has a number of known deleterious consequences that have been proven in empirical research, whereas the use of GMOs have no known deleterious consequences that have been elucidated in prior research.

Therefore, the authors set out to establish whether the benefits of GMOs outweigh the drawbacks, particularly in light of the fact that using GMOs might ostensibly reduce dependence on harmful pesticides. The consumer and the farmer both benefit from the use of GMOs if it means lessening the quantity of pesticides in the food chain and affected ecosystems. The focus for the Klumper & Qaim (2014) research includes herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybeans, maize/corn, and cotton. The research also addressed insect-resistant (IR) maize/corn and cotton.

Reasons for selecting these GMOs in particular is the wide range and availability of studies on these substances. The research questions include the impacts of the aforementioned GMOs on the following dependent variables: crop yield, pesticide quantity used, total costs of production, and profitability for the farmer. Intervening variables investigated include geographic location and the methodologies used in the studies. The researchers found "large and significant" agricultural and economic benefits of GMOs in terms of crop yields, profit gains (especially in developing countries), and reduced pesticide reliance.

In spite of the limitations in the studies and known biases, the conclusions generally support the use and promotion of GMOs. Future research should exclude obviously biased research. The Van Eenennaam and Young study focuses exclusively on GMOs used in livestock food, because livestock consume the largest quantity of these products. The research questions are on whether GMOs in animal feed have nutritional differences versus their non-GMO counterparts. Ancillary questions relate to the productivity of the livestock and the sustainability of the livestock industry in general.

Dependent variables include the health status of animals based on publically available data. It is not an experimental research design, and therefore suffers from similar methodological weaknesses as the Klumper and Qaim study. However, the researchers examine data that pertains to over 100 billion individual animals, making the overall data set robust and impressive. The researchers do not specify exactly how many empirical studies or experimental designs they surveyed, but instead focus on field data sets.

The Van Eenennaam and Young study suffers from a few other weaknesses including the narrow focus on livestock health, which is not a prevalent concern among those most concerned about the overall effects of GMOs on either ecosystems or human health. Nevertheless, the researchers conclude that not only are there no nutritional differences between GMO animal feed versus non-GMO animal feed.

The researchers conclude that GMOs have the potential to improve crop yield, which would in turn increase the sustainability and productivity of livestock, and also to make livestock more energy-efficient food sources in general. A great concern for Van Eenennam and Young seems to be facilitating the regulatory process and removing barriers to market entry for emerging GMO producers and the products they intend to sell.

In spite of the wealth of studies that either support the efficacy of GMOs or that deny the damages these items do, there will be a concerted resistance movement throughout the world. While many of the arguments against GMOs are emotional or uninformed, many correctly point to.