Genetically modified foods, also known as genetically engineered foods or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are foods produced from organisms whose genetic material has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. While initially developed to increase crop yields and strengthen plants against diseases, insects, and environmental stresses, GMOs remain an extremely controversial topic worldwide. Proponents argue that GMOs increase global food supply, reduce crop losses from devastating insects and weeds, lowering food prices and helping end world hunger. Critics, Argue that that long-term impact of GMOs on both human health and the environment is unknown and pose serious risks. The use of GMOs also raises ethical issues regarding patents on seeds and foodstuffs as well as cultural issues involved in the use of native seeds and crops. While the debate between both sides rages on, independent long-term research on the risks and impacts of GMOs is still limited. This paper aims to explore both sides of the GMO debates, review current scientific literature on GMO health and environmental risks, and determine if conclusive evidence exists on the overall impacts – both positive and negative – of GMOs.
Genetic modification in agriculture began in the early 1980s, with the first releases of GMO crops taking place in the 1990s. Since then, the number of GM crops grown worldwide has increased dramatically. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), the global area of biotech crops reached more than 100 million hectares in 2010. The four principal GM crops are soybean, maize, cotton, and canola. As of 2012, the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Canada, India, China and South Africa grow the most biotech crops worldwide. While most GMO crops are engineered for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance, future applications are exploring nutrients, vaccines, biodegradable plastics, and even oral vaccines grown inside the plant for easy administration. The expansion of GMOs has also been accompanied by considerable controversy and conflicting scientific opinions on the associated risks.
On the pro-GMO side, supporters argue biotechnology can help solve some of the world’s most pressing agricultural and environmental problems. They claim GM crops as “superior” for several reasons, including higher yields from built-in pest and weed resistance, reduced use of chemical pesticides and herbicides from the plants’ internal protection, and broader nutritional benefits from fortified crops. Large seed and agricultural biotech corporations invested billions of dollars in GM crop research promote extensive economic benefits. GMO proponents emphasize the potential of biotechnology to engineer crops that are resistant to drought, temperature extremes, salty soils and other harsh environmental conditions. They argue this will allow for agriculture in more marginal lands and increasing global food production to meet rising world population demands. Supporters say GMOs promote sustainability by having built-in biopesticides, making external agrochemical applications unnecessary or greatly reduced compared to conventional crops, thus lessening environmental contamination. They also argue that strict pre-market safety testing and regulation ensure GMOs present no human health risks.
On the converse, anti-GMO groups argue that more scientific research is still required to evaluate the environmental and human health implications of GMOs over longer time periods. While no scientific consensus exists, independent research has raised serious concerns regarding horizontal gene transfer of transplanted genes to soil and water microbiota and other organisms, as well as selective pressures contributing to increased resistance in insect pests and the proliferation of herbicide-resistant superweeds. Some studies have even found possible toxic and allergic effects of GMOs on laboratory animal and human health. Critics question the validity and independence of safety research conducted by biotech firms and regulators due to strong corporate influence and conflicts of interest. They also warn of the potential “terminator” consequences of sterile seed technology reducing biodiversity as farmers become reliant on corporate seed patents. From an environmental justice perspective, critics argue multinational agricultural monopolies treat seeds and traditional farming practices in developing countries as proprietary intellectual property, undermining food security, rural livelihoods and indigenous cultures. Socioeconomic issues involve a transition to large-scale mono-cropping agriculture instead of diverse small farms and traditional agrarian societies.
Overall, the controversy stems from a lack of consensus within the international scientific community regarding both the risks and benefits of GMOs. While regulatory bodies worldwide have approved GMOs as substantially equivalent to non-GMO varieties, research results are mixed or inconclusive, and some leading scientific institutions remain cautious in their conclusions. Long-term independent studies on GMO impacts directly comparable to the multidecade research on tobacco are lacking, raising doubts about claims of their environmental and human safety. Agro-biotechnology promises advances but also entails unknowns; a balanced consideration of risks versus rewards is still evolving. Regarding human nutrition, no GM foods yet offer well-established additional benefits over existing conventionally grown alternatives. The polarization also involves political, economic and ethical issues extending beyond mere science alone. Clearly, more transparency and independence is needed to address concerns over corporate influence on research and regulation. Continued open debate and further research on all fronts will help determine if – and how – GMOs might develop sustainably to maximally benefit both farmers and consumers worldwide.
This research paper will further explore these complex issues through an in-depth literature review of the ongoing scientific GMO debates and existing research findings regarding both risks and benefits. The review will assess peer-reviewed studies on topics such as: any impacts on soil and water quality, influence on non-target organisms, development of pest resistance, effects on human and animal health as well as the validity and independence of safety testing conducted or funded by agribusiness. The paper aims to determine the current scientific consensus, or lack thereof, and identify pressing areas where more definitive research is still required. By presenting an objective analysis and balanced consideration of perspectives from all sides, this research paper seeks to further the discussion on one of today’s most controversial socio-scientific issues regarding our global food supply and agricultural systems. The ultimate goal is to ascertain whether available evidence suggests that GMOs should be regulated more stringently or deemed currently safe to consume and grow worldwide under the right conditions.
Andrew Stroud