GMOs on a Community Level
The debate on the safety of GMOs is very controversial. A number of sources suggest the use of transgenic crops, crops containing scientifically engineered organisms that had foreign genes transferred into their genome, is harmful to humans, other animals, and the environment. However, proponent sources are quick to state the opposite. Agriculture, whether it is organic, subsistence, or intensive, will have some sort of effect on the environment. Therefore, we can assume the use of transgenic crops will have an effect on their respective environments. The main question is whether the effects will be positive or negative. Evidence suggests that depending on how and where transgenic crops are used directly effects how negative or positive their presence will be in the environment.
Farming Community
One major reason cited for why GMOs are beneficial is that when they are used, there is a reduction in pesticide use and an application of conservation tillage (Traxler), which conserves soil by reducing erosion. Some sources argue transgenic crops have led to at least a 6.9% reduction in pesticide use since 1996, around the time GMOs were growing in production and distribution (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006). Transgenic crops have also been attributed to a reduction in fuel use due to less herbicide and insecticide applications and a reduction in the energy use in soil cultivation (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006), a process used to improve the condition of the soil before crops or plants are established. Some biotech varieties of transgenic crops can even make their own insecticide. They are able to do this because the crop was given a gene from a common soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt (Ackerman, 2002). Bt variety use is increasing in cotton crops, reducing the amount of pesticide applied. Proponents claim that transgenic crops give an "environmentally friendly" alternative to pesticides, which can pollute ground water or harm wildlife.
Another reason for why transgenic crops are favored is that they can help reduce production costs because of a reduction in chemical and mechanical use in planting maintenance, and harvesting (Dresbach, Flax, Sokolowski, and Allred). However, other sources claim transgenic crops are reliant on heavy, expensive chemical and machinery use ("Greenpeace"). Some sources claim an increase in crop output and others claim that GM agriculture exacerbates food insecurity. The problem here is that these sources are usually describing a specific farming community. Crop yield can increase for the intensive farming community, especially those in the first world. For subsistence farmers, in developing countries, low crop yield and poor soil health could arise, especially since they usually lack the funds to eradicate these problems. However, the following graphs (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006), suggest that developing countries have benefitted from the use of transgenic crops.
Farming Community
One major reason cited for why GMOs are beneficial is that when they are used, there is a reduction in pesticide use and an application of conservation tillage (Traxler), which conserves soil by reducing erosion. Some sources argue transgenic crops have led to at least a 6.9% reduction in pesticide use since 1996, around the time GMOs were growing in production and distribution (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006). Transgenic crops have also been attributed to a reduction in fuel use due to less herbicide and insecticide applications and a reduction in the energy use in soil cultivation (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006), a process used to improve the condition of the soil before crops or plants are established. Some biotech varieties of transgenic crops can even make their own insecticide. They are able to do this because the crop was given a gene from a common soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt (Ackerman, 2002). Bt variety use is increasing in cotton crops, reducing the amount of pesticide applied. Proponents claim that transgenic crops give an "environmentally friendly" alternative to pesticides, which can pollute ground water or harm wildlife.
Another reason for why transgenic crops are favored is that they can help reduce production costs because of a reduction in chemical and mechanical use in planting maintenance, and harvesting (Dresbach, Flax, Sokolowski, and Allred). However, other sources claim transgenic crops are reliant on heavy, expensive chemical and machinery use ("Greenpeace"). Some sources claim an increase in crop output and others claim that GM agriculture exacerbates food insecurity. The problem here is that these sources are usually describing a specific farming community. Crop yield can increase for the intensive farming community, especially those in the first world. For subsistence farmers, in developing countries, low crop yield and poor soil health could arise, especially since they usually lack the funds to eradicate these problems. However, the following graphs (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006), suggest that developing countries have benefitted from the use of transgenic crops.
According to Table 3, the majority of farmer income benefits in 2005, was acquired by farmers in developing countries. In the tables below (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006), there has been a reduction in pesticide use within certain countries that have adopted GMO production. Table 7 shows that the pesticide percentage reduction is greater within the developing countries sampled than the developed countries.
Animal Population
Some research suggests that some animals on farms refuse to eat transgenic foods, in particular, GM corn (Smith, 2007). This occurance has been seen in buffalo in Haryana, India, who refused cottonseed cakes made with GM cotton seeds: geese migrating through Illinois ate from non-GMO soybean fields (Smith, 2007). According to a 2009 statement given by the American Environmental Medicine (AAEM), in an experiment, when lab animals were given GM foods, the following heath effects were not good. The study conducted by AAEM cited infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, and changes in major organs, among other issues, as the impacts of consuming GMOs (Smith, 2007). After GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their offspring died--compared to a 10% deaths among controls fed natural soy. GM-fed babies were smaller and
possibly infertile. The GM soy-fed parent mice had changed DNA as well (Smith, 2007). As mentioned in the previous section on animals, the buffalo in Haryana, India who comsumed the GM cottonseed ended up with reproductive complications including premature deliveries and infertility. In the U.S., about two dozen farmers stated that thousands of pigs fed certain GM corn varieties became sterile (Smith, 2007).
Human Population
Even though several sources state that all humans are at risk, scholars have placed importance on children and pregnant women.
Some research suggests that some animals on farms refuse to eat transgenic foods, in particular, GM corn (Smith, 2007). This occurance has been seen in buffalo in Haryana, India, who refused cottonseed cakes made with GM cotton seeds: geese migrating through Illinois ate from non-GMO soybean fields (Smith, 2007). According to a 2009 statement given by the American Environmental Medicine (AAEM), in an experiment, when lab animals were given GM foods, the following heath effects were not good. The study conducted by AAEM cited infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, and changes in major organs, among other issues, as the impacts of consuming GMOs (Smith, 2007). After GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their offspring died--compared to a 10% deaths among controls fed natural soy. GM-fed babies were smaller and
possibly infertile. The GM soy-fed parent mice had changed DNA as well (Smith, 2007). As mentioned in the previous section on animals, the buffalo in Haryana, India who comsumed the GM cottonseed ended up with reproductive complications including premature deliveries and infertility. In the U.S., about two dozen farmers stated that thousands of pigs fed certain GM corn varieties became sterile (Smith, 2007).
Human Population
Even though several sources state that all humans are at risk, scholars have placed importance on children and pregnant women.
There is reason to believe that the fetuses of pregnant women are exposed to the toxins of GMOs. Toxins within the transgenic crops are making their way into the bloodstreams of pregnant women and fetuses. This is based of the study "Maternal and Fetal Exposure to Pesticides Associated to Genetically Modified Foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec," published in the journal Reproductive Toxicity (Stevenson, 2012). This counters the GM industry's claim that such toxins are destroyed by the digestive tract. The researchers of the study looked for 3-MPPA and Cry1Ab, among other substances, in the maternal and fetal bloodstreams and found:
Toxin
3-MPPA Cry1Ab |
Maternal
100% 93% |
Fetal Cord
100% 80% |
3-MPPA is a propionic acid and is classified as a Bad Actor Chemical. Issues associated with it include a burning sensation and shortness of breath when ingested. Cry1Ab, classified under "no toxicity" in the PAN Pesticides Database, has been studied and results show that the chemical causes an immune response upon exposure, either through injection or eating it. It contains a gene for the resistance to the antibiotic streptomycin, which is used for different illnesses and diseases, and along with this antibiotic could heighten the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Children are more susceptible to the dangerous threats posed by GMOs than adults are. In general, children's bodies can withstand smaller amounts of toxins than adult bodies. Kids who are prone to infection may be at the greatest risk if antibiotics lose their effectiveness becasue of increases to antibiotic resistant genes in GM foods (Smith, 2010). Children consume large amounts of transgenic foods, including corn, soy and milk. These foods are usually consumed in larger proportion than adults and could negatively effect children's growth and development (Smith, 2010).
Children are more susceptible to the dangerous threats posed by GMOs than adults are. In general, children's bodies can withstand smaller amounts of toxins than adult bodies. Kids who are prone to infection may be at the greatest risk if antibiotics lose their effectiveness becasue of increases to antibiotic resistant genes in GM foods (Smith, 2010). Children consume large amounts of transgenic foods, including corn, soy and milk. These foods are usually consumed in larger proportion than adults and could negatively effect children's growth and development (Smith, 2010).
So, what can we take from this?
The important thing to take away from this survey is that there is a lot of hearsay concerning GMOs. They could be beneficial on some levels and dangerous on others. It is important to remember that with continued research, our society might be able to reach a concensus on the effects of GMOs; until then, we must take all the information we gather with a grain of salt.
References
1.) Traxler, G. The gmo experience in north & south america-where to from here?
Retrieved from: http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/stconf/event5/GTraxler.pdf
2.) Ackerman, J. (2002, May). Altered food, GMOs, genetically modified food
Retrieved from: http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/food
how-altered.html
3.)Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2006). Global impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic and environmental
effects in the first ten years of commercial use.
Retrieved from: http://www.agbioforum.org/v9n3/v9n3a02-brookes.htm
4.) Emory, U. (n.d.). Gmo and environment: Once a gene's in where does it go?
Retrieved from: http://www.scienceandsociety.emory.edu/GMO/Environment.htm
5.) What effects could genetically modified crops have on the environment?.
Retrieved from: http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/3-genetically-engineered-food/5-gene-flow.htm
6.) Smith, J. (2007, May) Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies
Retrieved from:http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5296.cfm
7.) Genetically modified or sustainable agriculture? GREENPEACE. Retrieved from:
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/campaigns/EU-farmers-ditch-GM-crops/
8.) Hails, Rosemary. (2009, Sept). Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMOs). Wiley Online Library. Retrieved from:
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0003255.html
9.) Genetically Modified Organisms-Harmful Effects. Retrieved from:
http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html
10.) Dresbach, S. H., Flax, H., Sokolowski, A., & Allred, J. The Impact of genetically modified organisms
on human health. Ohio State University Extension. Retrieved from:
http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5058.html
11.) Gillam, Carey. (2012, Oct 1). Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires-study.
Reuters. Retrieved from:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/usa-study-pesticides-idUSL1E8L202I20121002
12.) Smith, Jeffrey. Genetically modified food. Vaccine Liberation Army. Retrieved from:
http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/gmo-feed-and-food-for-animals-and-people-bibliography-of-research/
13.) Stevenson, Heidi. (2012, Sept 1). GMO toxins are in nearly all pregnant woman and fetuses. GALA
HEALTH. Retrieved from:
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-09-17/gmo-toxins-are-in-nearly-all-pregnant-women-fetuses/
14.) Smith, Jeffrey. (2010, Oct 7). GM foods more dangerous for children than adults. Mercola.com.
Retrieved from:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/07/gm-foods-more-dangerous-for-children-than-adults.aspx