The law of unintended consequences states that the “actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended,” as defined by professor at Columbia University, Rob Norton (2008). In other words, every deed done for an intended result will elicit some kind of inadvertent and unexpected influence elsewhere. What seems harmless or even beneficial can ultimately be destructive in some way or another. One such seemingly positive development is that of genetic engineering. This technology has made considerable progress in enhancing food crops, resulting in increased productivity in the hopes of providing more sustenance for living beings. However, though introducing genetically modified organisms—or GMOs—into the global ecosystem may or may not fulfill the expectations of feeding the growing human population, it also runs the risk of falling victim to the law of unintended consequences. Even though some altered products are already on the market, more studies need to be funded and published before these foods are made further available for human consumption.
A brochure outlining the matter issued in 2001 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines genetic engineering as “the manipulation of an organism’s genetic endowment by introducing or eliminating specific genes through modern molecular biology techniques” (1). Scientists have the ability to transform and engineer the DNA of organisms to suit an intended purpose by splicing DNA from one species into a targeted species, whether it be to make an organism bigger, tougher, fatter, or sweeter, etc. The technology has successfully altered cat DNA so that felines fluoresce, changed goat DNA so that they can produce spider web silk in their milk, and scientists have even produced venomous cabbage that expresses scorpion poison genes (Moss MNN). Though it sounds like the premise of a science fiction novel, or is redolent of the creation of Frankenstein’s monster, this science has taken off and a handful of genetically modified organisms are readily available to consumers, with many more GMOs currently in production.
Though it might seem like scientists are merely playing games in the laboratory, testing the limits of human ability as they stretch the bounds of genetic manipulation—almost as if they are playing god, in essence—this technology goes beyond basic human curiosity and fascination. The total world population has surpassed 7 billion people, and that number is projected to double in the next fifty years or so. With all those mouths to feed, supplying adequate nutrition will indubitably prove to be a major challenge. GM foods could theoretically be the answer to a potential worldwide food crisis. According to Deborah Whitman who attended an FDA open meeting that outlined the issues involved with GMO, the benefits of GM foods are such that they could meet the need of food in this growing population. She reports that some key advantages to GMO over normal crops are increased herbicide tolerance, pest and disease resistance, cold and drought tolerance, and tolerance to greater salinities (2). GMOs are being developed to survive and thrive in adverse conditions, so they could overcome inclement weather, pesky pests, and potentially even grow year round. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reaffirms the right that human beings have to adequate food, specifically that there be an “availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances” (qtd in FAO). In other words, as a basic necessity of life, all humans should have at least enough food and nutrients to sustain healthy living. Therein lies the overarching problem; the codicil that specifies that the food must be free from adverse substances amends the statement. Not only do all people deserve access to plenty of food, the food must be at a particular standard. As of yet, there are very few published studies done on animals pertaining to GMOs, and published research on human studies is virtually non-existent. In other words, there is absolutely no definitive way of knowing for sure what kinds of long-term or short-term effects GMOs have on humans. GM food will not be the answer for any food crisis problems if it causes mutations, disease, allergies, or other unfavorable effects. It may very well be an adverse substance that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights specifically mentions.
According to the FAO brochure, GM corn and soybeans that have been modified to resist insects and/or herbicides are available for public consumption (11). Today, 45 percent of U.S. corn and 85 percent of U.S. soybeans are genetically altered. Because of the enormous subsidies put on corn and soy, there is a huge surplus on these crops. In turn, some form of these foods can be found in almost any kind of processed food, from tomato sauce to cereal to fruit juice. Around 70 to 75 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients (Young). In other words, GMO foods are already prevalent in the public market.
So why is the matter of genetically modified organisms even an issue? If people are already exposed to these products, why not continue advancing this technology, manipulating organisms to meet humans’ own needs and desires? To answer these questions, one must consider the law of unintended consequences. Not even bearing in mind the environmental, agricultural, or ethical implications that might possibly arise with the drastic manipulation of an organisms’ genetic code, there will in all likelihood be some kind of effect on the human body with exposure to these GMOs, at least if the few animal tests published are any indication. In an article titled “Genetically Modified Foods,” Doctor Steve Windley states that “there is research to say that GMO foods negatively affect the immune system and inflammation in animal studies” (1). One example of published research that supports the claim that GMO has proven to have ill effects on animal health was Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s study concerning GMO potatoes. His work showed that exposure to these modified potatoes led to a greater prevalence of damage to the intestinal tracts of rats with other changes to the liver, brain, and testicles compared to rats that were fed unmodified potatoes (Windley 2). The unintended consequence of the GM potatoes was the negative impact on the rats’ health; what was meant to be nourishment turned out to be quite toxic. If there is a definite correlation between GM foods with negative animal health, there is likely one between GMO and human health.
The validity of Dr. Pusztai’s study has been put into question and publicly attacked by critics. Supposedly, the potatoes in question were modified only to test the methodology and were never meant for human or animal consumption (Whitman 7). Still, the study should raise red flags in the scientific community and stimulate further research. Even if the results were inconclusive, the fact that a GM product triggered a negative response from a live specimen provides a clue that perhaps the technology is flawed. Doctor Windley appears to be very tentative about making GMOs available for human consumption. In his article, he poses a number of questions that scientists could explore and consumers might consider: “Can the bacteria and viruses used to alter the DNA in these plants also affect the bacteria in our gut? …. Will the bacteria our guts take in start making its own pesticide in our GI tract? Will these plants start making a totally new protein that is indigestible or harmful to us?” (1). The list of every possible effect is endless. There are so many conceivable concerns to reflect upon and ponder before genetically modified foods can possibly be considered as safe, with no adverse effects. In other words, many of these questions are testable and should therefore be investigated since it directly relates to individuals’ health.
People are basically acting as human guinea pigs on a worldwide experiment testing the effects of GMO on human health. In reality, this global experiment should actually be held in a science laboratory. If GMO is to be considered a viable solution for a potential hunger crisis, scientists must be funded in order that they can respond to the plentiful questions surrounding genetically modified organisms and human health. Altering the genetic material of any organism is no small affair; it is like changing the very identity of the phylogenetic kingdom it belongs to. Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein overstepped the bounds of science in becoming the creator of a being that never should have lived, and scientists must be weary not to overstep their bounds. This technology can never be justified if the GMOs become the equivalent to Frankenstein’s monster—though it desired to do good, it left a trail of horror and foreboding in its wake. Manipulating the natural biological laws of the world is risky, even if it is supposedly intended for a purpose of good. We must be wary of a technology that has effects not backed by scientific method. The law of unintended consequences will punish those who do not consider the whole picture, and it will even go further to punish those who do and those who are oblivious to the matter. Ignorance is no alibi in the court of the natural law. GM technology is a lucrative business and may appear to be a promising solution to the impending food crisis at hand, but without the backing of accredited scientific research, there is no justification in feeding genetically modified foods to the populace. Genetically altering foods and animals may seem like a brilliant idea now, but we should not turn a blind eye to the potential unintended consequences it could have.
Works Cited
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Genetically Modified Organisms, Consumers, Food Safety and the Environment. Rome, 2001. Online.
Moss, Laura. “12 Bizarre Examples of Genetic Engineering.” Mother Nature Network: Improve Your World. 2012. Green Technology Research and Innovations. 7 May 2012.
Rob Norton. "Unintended Consequences." The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 2008. Library of Economics and Liberty. 1 May 2012 .
Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful.” CSA Discovery Guides. April 2000. Community Sustained Agriculture.
Windley, Steve, MD. “Genetically Modified Foods.” Pure Health MD. 2008. Pure Health Corporation. < www.PureHealthMD.com>
Young, Saundra. “Safety of genetically engineered salmon debated.” CNNHealth. 2010. CNN. 15 May 2012
mon/index.html>
No comments:
Post a Comment