GMO Arguments: Benefits and Risks Analysis

Introduction

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are controversial. There are many proponents that argue GMOs provide significant social and economic benefits, while those against the technology argue there are potential disadvantages, including risks to health and the environment. The aim of this paper is to explore the issue of GMOs, looking first at what they are, and then considering the advantages and disadvantages associated with GMO use.

What Are GMOs?

GMOs are organisms, including plants and animals, where there has been an alteration to the organism's DNA which did not take place naturally (Elena et al., 2013). The creation of GMOs is usually referred to as biotechnology, but it may also be called recombinant DNA technology or gene technology (Elena et al., 2013). The process of creating GMOs involves researchers identifying characteristics they would like to produce in their target organisms and introducing those characteristics through altering the genome by taking relevant characteristic genes from other species (Amofa, 2014; Elena et al., 2013).

GMOs that are used for human consumption are then referred to as GMO food. The first genetically modified plant was developed in 1983—a tobacco plant that was resistant to antibiotics (Elena et al., 2013). The Flavr Savr tomato, a GMO developed to extend shelf life by delaying the ripening process after harvest, was first approved by the FDA in 1994 (Whiteman, 2000). The following year, many other crops were approved, including canola, corn/maize, cotton, squash, and soybeans (Elena et al., 2013). By 2011, there were 25 different crops authorized to be grown commercially in the United States (Elena et al., 2013).

The adoption of GMOs has been rapid in both developed and developing countries. In 2012, it was estimated that more than 170 million hectares were being used to grow GM crops (United Nations, 2014). The practice is seen across the world: in addition to the United States, which is responsible for 45% of GM crop areas, other countries growing GM crops include Argentina, India, South Africa, Pakistan, China, and many European countries (United Nations, 2014). The rate of adoption is increasing, with many commercial interests perceiving the potential for major benefits. However, this has not reduced the controversy, and concerns remain regarding whether or not the benefits will outweigh the risks.

There are many potential benefits associated with GMOs and GM food. These benefits can include desirable characteristics such as resistance to pests or disease, increased yields, better nutrition, and potential benefits in pharmaceutical applications (Elena et al., 2013; Amofa, 2013; Gabol et al., 2012).

One of the major advantages has been the ability to develop crops resistant to pests. Every year, huge amounts of crops are lost as a result of pest damage, which has financial implications for farmers and can reduce available food supplies, particularly in developing countries where shortages may occur (United Nations, 2014; Anonymous, 2001). In many instances, it is some of the poorer areas that face the greatest disadvantages, as producers may have only limited resources to purchase insecticides and pesticides, which may result in under-treatment or selection of less effective options (United Nations, 2014; Whiteman, 2000).

Arguments Supporting GMO Development

In GM crops, resistance to pests is created by introducing toxins into the genetic makeup of plants to make them more resistant (Paoletti et al., 1998). For example, the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis has been introduced into crops such as cotton and corn, acting as a toxin that has been demonstrated to be highly effective at reducing damage from insects such as beetles and caterpillars (Paoletti et al., 1998). The benefit extends beyond the plants themselves; the development of genetically engineered crops may also improve the way in which insecticides are produced, with the potential to create more effective products where still needed (Paoletti et al., 1998). Therefore, the ability to develop crops with natural pest resistance may increase economic benefits for producers, provide higher food yields due to lower crop losses, and potentially reduce the amount of pesticides utilized.

GM crops have also been developed to increase tolerance to herbicides. The growth of crops may be hindered by the presence of weeds, which compete for nutrition and water from the soil and can crowd out the target crop. Therefore, eliminating or minimizing weeds helps increase yields. In many crops, manual weed removal is not viable due to labor requirements and practical access considerations (Amofa, 2014).

A common weed treatment method is herbicide application, but these are expensive and carry risks, as herbicide sprays may also damage the primary crop (Amofa, 2014). The development of GM crops with increased herbicide resistance allows them to compete more effectively against weeds, which has reduced the need for herbicide sprays (Anonymous, 1999). This is beneficial as it reduces direct and indirect costs associated with herbicide application (Amofa, 2014; Anonymous, 1999). These characteristics benefit producers by reducing costs and increasing yield, providing financial benefits, and creating greater crop supplies for food chains. This has already been demonstrated with crops such as soybeans (Amofa, 2014).

Resistance to disease can also be introduced through genetic modification, so that crops may have resistance to different potential ailments, such as bacteria, fungi, and viruses that may damage crops. Genetic engineering can increase potential resistance, and there is potential for future development of crops that remain completely disease-free (Scorza et al., 2001; Lynn et al., 2001). A good example is genetic alterations made to barley and wheat to overcome Fusarium Head Blight (Gabol et al., 2012). The benefit is the potential to reduce crop damage from disease, providing financial benefits for producers as well as increased yields for the food chain.

Increased resistance to difficult growing situations is also a major advantage facilitated through genetic engineering. The world already has numerous areas where significant food shortages result in famines, especially in difficult growing conditions, and with increasing population, these problems are likely to continue (Zhang and Blumwald, 2001). Increased development is also reducing the amount of prime agricultural land available for crop growth. Therefore, developing crops that can grow in difficult conditions—such as dry, arid, or high-salinity soil areas—could be extremely valuable.

One example is the development of tomatoes that can be cultivated on soil with high salinity, where genetic modifications result in plants accumulating salt in foliage but not in the tomatoes themselves (Gabol et al., 2012). Drought resistance and increased tolerance to salinity will be valuable in creating crops that can be grown on currently unproductive land, especially for developing countries experiencing food shortages (Zhang and Blumwald, 2001).

Genetic engineering may also create crops able to help overcome malnutrition, a characteristic particularly valuable for developing nations (Gabol et al., 2012). In 2000, the first crop modified to increase nutrient content was developed: golden rice (Elena et al., 2013). Rice is a staple crop in many developing areas, but it lacks many essential nutrients, particularly vitamin A. The lack of vitamin A can lead to blindness, with many cases reported in areas such as Africa (Gabol et al., 2012). The introduction of high levels of beta-carotene into golden rice increased its nutritional content, providing vitamin A to those who needed it (Gabol et al., 2012).

Genetic engineering may also be utilized within the biomedical industries, with plants and livestock engineered to provide pharmaceutical proteins (Murray et al., 2010; Houdebine, 2009). Genetic engineering can facilitate the development of GMOs that may provide human antibodies, tissues, organs for transplant, and other biomedical substances (Vázquez-Salat et al., 2012; Houdebine, 2009). The development of GMOs for medical uses is still in relatively early stages, but the benefits are apparent, providing significant human advantages.

A final potential benefit is GMOs' capacity to help mitigate global warming issues. The development of genetically engineered trees that can absorb high levels of carbon dioxide may be effectively used as a carbon sequestration tool and help address global warming problems (Asante-Owusu, 1999).

Concerns and Criticisms of GMOs

Just as there are many arguments in favor of GMOs, there are also strong arguments against their development and use. These include concerns about allergens, genetic mutations through spread of modified genes to unintended targets, health risks to humans, and potential disruption to ecosystem balance.

The concern for allergens is a major issue in the context of GMOs (Gabol et al., 2012). There are two main ways that allergies to GM food may manifest. The first is the way in which GMOs are created, using genes that may cause allergies. For example, in 1996, research involved splicing genes from Brazil nuts into soybeans (Batalion, 2000). The genes from Brazil nuts had desirable traits, but many people have allergies to Brazil nuts (Batalion, 2000). Had the crop been commercialized, those allergic to Brazil nuts might have suffered anaphylactic shock upon consuming soybeans with Brazil nut genes (Batalion, 2000). Although this crop did not proceed to commercialization, it is recognized that the level of tracing needed to avoid such issues is very complex and may not be viable given how food chains are created and ingredients used in many foods (Gabol et al., 2012; Batalion, 2000).

The second potential risk is that genetically engineered foods may result in new allergies through creation of new food variants to which humans have not been previously exposed (Gabol et al., 2012). This is a risk that may not become apparent until there is mass exposure to the new genetically modified foodstuffs.

The potential for harm to other organisms is also a major concern frequently cited (United Nations, 2014; Amofa, 2014; Gabol et al., 2012). John et al. (1999) found that pollen from Bt corn resulted in high mortality rates for monarch butterfly caterpillars. This is not an isolated case; other examples of potential harm to organisms exist. In research undertaken at the University of Jena in Germany, pollen from genetically modified rapeseed resulted in transfer of bacteria into the gut of bees that pollinated the crop (Batalion, 2000). Although the research found no negative impacts, it indicates that bacteria transfer can occur, and concerns were raised that the same process may occur with humans, with unknown health impacts (Batalion, 2000).

The potential impact extends beyond non-target organisms to unbalancing the ecosystem. There are already known problems with declining bee populations and their potential impact on crop pollination. The interaction with local species and potential cross-pollination resulting in cross-contamination could have wide-ranging impacts and destroy local ecosystems (Gabol et al., 2012).

In a particularly concerning study undertaken in Australia, GM peas were examined for food safety. However, instead of using standard food safety assessments, they were assessed using more stringent tests applied to pharmaceutical products (Smith, 2006). These tests found that the peas could create a dangerous immune response in humans, and an investment of $2 million was lost (Smith, 2006). This response was only identified due to more rigorous testing and may not have been detected with standard food testing processes (Smith, 2006). This raises the question of how many foods may be unsafe and produce similar responses but have not been identified as risks due to less robust testing performed on foodstuffs (Smith, 2006). This indicates there may be risks in foods already on the market.

There is also the potential for plants designed to resist viruses to cause mutations in viruses when new plant RNA encounters virus RNA (Paoletti et al., 1998). New mutations could have devastating impacts on crops (Paoletti et al., 1998).

Another risk is the way markets may be impacted by reliance on GM seeds, placing major seed suppliers such as Monsanto in a very strong position that may threaten food security, especially if they abuse their market position (Gabol et al., 2012). Reliance on only a few crop varieties, which reduces biodiversity, may also pose a risk to future food security, especially if mutations occur or risks affect the GM crops.

Conclusion

The question is whether the potential benefits are worth the risks. The potential of GMOs to reduce famine and create benefits with medical application is too great to ignore, but this does not mean concerns should not be considered. One may argue that the use of GMOs should continue, but the way in which it is controlled may need to be reconsidered; instead of GMOs being subject to standard food tests, the rigor should be increased to that associated with medicines. This helped identify problems with GM peas in Australia and would provide a higher level of safeguard. In addition, it should be ensured that biodiversity is maintained and firms controlling seeds are not allowed to gain a monopoly position so competition can be maintained and seed markets are protected. With increased protections, there may be a great future for GMOs, leveraging advantages while minimizing risks.