The Issue of Genetically Modified Organisms (gmos) Negative Effects

Since food is essential to keep human beings alive, genetically modified of organisms in food has been researched extensively. Article 2 of the European Directive 2001/18/EC defines a genetically modified organism (GMO) as an organism (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (i.e. DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. Moreover, genetic modifications are prepared by adding genetic constructs, which when incorporated into the plants or animals genome, create a GM event (result variety) (EFSA; Joint, F. A. O. 2000). The global level of consumption to GMO food is growing rapidly. For example, between 1996 and 2003, the land planted with GM crops increased approximately from 3 million to 70 million hectares globally (Marabelli R., 2005). However there are identified risks involved with using GMOs which centre around three main categories: whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food are harmful to health, the environment and world economics.

First, genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) have risks to human health. GMOs increase cancer rates and ultimately lead to death. According to Christou (2013), Fumonisins, fungal toxins produced by Fusarium moulds when colonizing grains, are toxic to humans, mainly causing liver and kidney failure, Esophageal cancer, and increasing HIV transmission rates. (M. Buiatti, P. Christou and G. Pastore). Moreover, GM crops contain extraordinary pesticide residues, and the main component of some pesticides is glyphosate—a substance that stimulates breast cancer cells in humans. Several studies have shown that such a substance disrupts the endocrine system by sorting out a chemical that interferes with the system of hormones in mammals. These imbalances can lead to cancer as well as many diseases such as developmental disorders and congenital malformations according to a study published in the National Library of Medicine. Glyphosate has also been linked to an increase in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma which is one of the sources leading to an increased risk of cancer (Hardell, L. 1999). Similarly, the US National Academy of Sciences concluded that pesticide residues in US food could cause a high percentage of premature and serious cancers in the next 75 years (National Research Council, 1996).

It is proven that DL-tryptophan supplements, which are produced by genetically modified bacteria, caused deaths and disabilities (Love, L. A., et al., 1993). Moreover, GM food is regarded as one of the main reasons that leads to immune system malfunction. According to Dr. Árpád Pusztai at the Rowett Research Institute in 1998, a rat, fed on a GM food, suffered from malfunction of its immune system (Pusztai 2001). More research published in New Scientist at Purdue University, showed that releasing a transgenic fish into its habitat could lead to an extinction to its population (Somerville 2000). There is evidence that some food allergies are caused by the consumption of GM foods. Studies conducted by ASCIA (Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy Limited) in Australia and New Zealand have shown that food allergy affects 10% of children up to 1 year of age; between 4-8% of children aged up to 5 years of age and approximately 2% of adults. Also, hospital admissions for severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) have doubled over the last decade in Australia, USA and UK. (ASCIA, 2018).

Peanut and tree nut allergy is most common reasons that make infants and young children allergic. Peanut allergy which is common (3% of infants) has a considerable attention, and around 20% of cases can become worse with time. Likewise, Cow's milk is also regarded as a common cause of food allergy especially in infants. In Australia and New Zealand around 2 per cent (1 in 50) infants are allergic to dairy products particularly cow's milk. Despite the fact that children get well by the age of 3-5 years, other people keep suffering from cow’s milk allergy for a long time (ASCIA, 2018). It is believed that allergenicity, caused directly by the new proteins or by their interaction with the original ones, creates a new allergen (Bertoni G, 2005). In this respect, Rowland IR (2002) states that “it is obviously advisable to avoid using plants containing known allergens, e.g. peanuts and Brazil nuts, as sources of genes for GM plants” (27). It is feared that GM food may cause liver damage. After analysing them microscopically, the livers of mice fed on soybeans showed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes (Karawya, 2016). Many of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit (Malatesta, et al., 2002).

Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist concludes his research by saying that his findings “are not random and must reflect some ‘insult’ on the liver by the GM soy.” He continues concluding that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it “could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia” (Smith, 2007). In addition, many studies speculated that GM food is responsible for infertility development. GM food could be potential hazard on reproduction. It also influences the endocrine metabolism, endometriosis (GAO, et al., 2014). Some evidence exposed that GM food could be linked to infertility related diseases (A. A., Lanzone, A., & Goverde, A. J., 2013).‏

Finally, an Austrian government study showed that mice fed GM corn (Bt and Roundup Ready) had fewer babies and smaller babies (Velimirov, A., Binter, C., & Zentek, J., 2008).‏Secondly, GMOs have potential risks on the environment. GMO’s have plant and animal toxicity due to the use chemical pesticides and herbicides. GMOs may be toxic to bees, butterflies and birds indirectly (Nicolopoulou-Stamati, et al., 2016). That is why the use of GM crops requires the provision of special facilities that at least restrict the spread of seed and pollen (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2004). The widespread cultivation of GM crops has increased the use of herbicides such as glyphosate as more herbicide needs to be used to kill the near weeds.

In Canada, herbicide sales rose by 130% between 1994 and 2011 (Benbrook, 2016). Consequently, the use of glyphosate has led to the rise and spread of “superweeds,” that can no longer be killed. For example, 37 weed species have technologically advanced resistance to the herbicide glyphosate within the past 20 years (Rastogi, 2013).‏ As Arcieri (2016) believes, reproducing GM plants or animals have unpredictable effects on the adjacent biodiversity. Genetic changes in plants may also create greater ecological shifts. This means there is a possibility that GMOs turn into weeds within agricultural conditions (Dale, 2002). As a result, the reduction in producing other plants results in a significant loss of biodiversity, and in an increase of using much more chemicals in agriculture (M. Buiatti, P. Christou and G. Pastore, 2013). Thirdly, the impact of GMOs on the world economics is really negative. The aim behind starting GMO technology in an agribusiness is financial. Farmers hope that GM crops will help them to get more benefit depending on the biotech industry. However, they are affected negatively. US experience, for example, proves that the economic achievements are inconsistent. Non-GM farmers’ autonomy could be threatened by the gene flow from fields GM crops fields (Whittaker, 2005‏).

For example, a field study conducted in Australia examined the transmission of herbicide tolerance from GM canola and found that the highest level of contamination in neighboring fields was 0.07% (Rieger, et al., 2002). This contamination level is well below the 0.9% threshold set by the EU as the limit above which labeling is required. Still, non-GM farmers have established a zero-tolerance rule for GM and their autonomy could be compromised and compensated financially (Riegr, et al., 2002). GM crops are considered unreachable for most of the citizens of developing countries. The monopoly on patents results in the differences in income specifically between the developed and developing countries (Spier, 2005). Developing countries might be unwilling to have GM crop varieties because of fears of exposing their current and future export markets to danger, and they may also not be able to afford the necessary infrastructure to enable fulfilling EU requirements for traceability and labeling (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2004).

Because of the enormous cost and time investment in developing GM products, patents exploited to protect the rights of companies in terms of unacceptable profits. Unfortunately, there are economic concerns around the use of patents. Consumers worry that by placing a patent on a new kind of GM plant, the price of the seeds and crops can be raised. In this case, farm operations, farmers and consumers in developing countries will not be able to afford these GM varieties of crops (Lalitha, N., 2004). In this way, the divide between wealthy and poor nations will be increased quite significantly. For example, by 1999, 12 companies, many with the US Department of Agriculture funding, had more than 25 patents to make genetically engineered seeds either sterile or chemically dependent, while annually a million children die from nutritional deficiencies and another 350 000 become blind from vitamin A deficiencies (Shrader-Frechette, 2005).

Having patent crops is challenging for non-GM farmers who are not free to plant whatever crops they want. Instead, they claim that their GM crops are the result of cross-pollination. To control the whole matter, biotechnology companies such as Monsanto can insert a 'suicide gene' into the modified plant. Then, the plant can only be sustained for one growing season and there would be the production of seeds that are unable to germinate (Strauss, 2009). ‏The end result is that farmers would be forced to purchase new seeds yearly and it would unaffordable. GMO labeling laws are the main concerns to many countries which care for protecting their citizens. More than 50 countries around the world require GMO labels. Some have banned GMOs outright, others are seeking for polls (Lucht, 2015). ‏According to Monsanto, a label for GMOs would confer that there was something wrong with GMOs, so they fight against the labels (Scoones, 2008).

Regardless, fighting labeling laws is expensive business, there are some campaigns for or against labeling. For example, the “No on 37” campaign spent over $50 million on fake advertising to defeat labeling GM food. Monsanto alone spent over $8 million. Advocates for the law spent less than $7 million total (Rondinelli and Michael A. Berry, 2000). ‏Such amounts of money could really be beneficial for curing a lot of diseases and feeding a lot of hungry people.

In conclusion, there is clear evidence of negative impacts of using GMO on human health, the environment and world economics. Not only do GMO have negative impact on health causing cancer, allergy, infertility and death but also on the environment in terms of toxicity to other plants, animals and birds. Besides, there are bad effects resulted from GMO on air, water, soil, irrigation and not to mention biodiversity in other non-GM plants and animals. There are many cons on the world economics caused by GMO too. Altogether, GM or non-GM farmers and citizens have to pay incredible amounts of money to have GM foods in a way or another. People also have to pay for the patent issues either for yearly bargains for farmers or additional taxes. Nowadays, an increasing number of scientific studies prove that GMOs are harmful to health and the environment and ultimately world economics. That is why GMO should be banned.