Bioengineered foods, often referred to as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), are created through a process where the DNA of an organism is altered in a laboratory setting. This modification typically involves inserting genes from one organism into another to achieve desired traits. A common example is corn engineered to resist herbicides like Roundup, allowing farmers to control weeds without harming the crop.
While proponents suggest bioengineered foods offer advantages in agriculture and food production, concerns linger about their potential impact on human health. The term GMO itself is broad, encompassing various genetic modification techniques and their resulting food ingredients. At its core, bioengineering involves using biotechnology, such as gene guns or bacteria, to introduce foreign genes and modify an organism’s DNA. This is distinct from traditional breeding, which involves crossing varieties within the same species to enhance specific traits. Genetic engineering, conversely, enables the transfer of DNA between unrelated species.
This difference is crucial. Traditional crossbreeding has been practiced for centuries, but genetic engineering introduces genes from entirely different species. For instance, a soybean plant engineered for herbicide tolerance might contain DNA from an unrelated plant species. This raises concerns about unpredictable and potentially harmful interactions within the modified organism and its interactions with other living beings, including humans and animals.
One of the primary health concerns associated with bioengineered foods is their potential to be unhealthy. By fundamentally altering an organism’s DNA, bioengineering can lead to unnatural changes in food. These modifications could introduce novel compounds into our diet that our bodies are not accustomed to, potentially leading to adverse health effects. Genetically engineered food products could introduce new organisms into our systems, the long-term effects of which are still largely unknown.
Genetic engineering can also introduce new proteins into common foods like fruits and vegetables. These novel proteins could trigger allergic reactions, particularly in individuals sensitive to them. A notable example is the FDA’s approval of genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. Despite internal reports indicating the fish had “significantly less firm” flesh and higher levels of an allergenic protein compared to wild salmon, it was approved. This decision was based on studies from the company that developed the salmon, without independent verification of its safety. FDA scientists themselves raised concerns about potential increased cancer risks and called for further long-term studies. Despite these warnings and lacking comprehensive human clinical trials, this genetically engineered fish was approved and is not currently labeled as such in the marketplace. This lack of mandatory human clinical trials before the introduction of novel food products is also a concern in other regions.
The initial drive behind bioengineered foods was largely economic. Agrochemical companies saw a lucrative opportunity in patented genetically modified seeds. The primary purpose of their development was, and continues to be, profit generation rather than nutritional improvement or health benefits for consumers. In the U.S., the most common genetic modifications in vegetables are for herbicide resistance, particularly to glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup. This allows farmers to use these herbicides extensively to control weeds without harming their crops. However, this has led to a significant increase in the use of glyphosate-based herbicides.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is a subject of intense debate regarding its safety. While some argue it is minimally toxic to humans, numerous scientists, including some within the EPA, express concerns about its potential link to serious health issues, such as cancer, birth defects, and gluten intolerance. Originally designed as a plant killer, glyphosate works by inhibiting an enzyme essential for plant growth. While it’s claimed that glyphosate is safe for humans because we lack this specific enzyme, growing scientific evidence suggests it can affect other biological processes in humans.
Studies have shown that glyphosate can harm beneficial gut bacteria and alter gene expression in human cells. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the WHO, has classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” based on animal studies linking it to cancer.
Beyond glyphosate and potential toxicity, there are broader concerns about bioengineered foods. The emergence of new diseases is a significant worry. The unpredictable nature of disease development and spread is amplified when radically different DNA are combined in bioengineered foods. The lack of comprehensive research on the long-term health effects of these novel combinations is particularly troubling.
Furthermore, genetic engineering may contribute to the resurgence of old diseases. The example of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, illustrates this point. BSE, transmitted to humans through contaminated beef, is caused by prions, misfolded proteins. Early cases of BSE in cows appeared after scientists introduced a gene coding for a prion from another species into cows to enhance milk nutrition.
The long-term consequences of consuming bioengineered foods remain largely unknown. Notably, there are no long-term human feeding studies for any bioengineered foods currently available on the market. However, some industry-funded studies have raised red flags. For instance, hamster studies showed reduced sperm production and abnormal embryos after only three generations of consuming bioengineered soybeans. Mice fed genetically engineered potatoes experienced pancreas cell shutdown within just 10 days. Other industry studies have indicated nutrient absorption issues in animals fed bioengineered corn and fatty, diseased livers in rats fed bioengineered canola oil.
According to experts like Jeffrey Smith, author of “Seeds of Deception,” genetic engineering can disrupt gene function, potentially altering nutritional content, creating new toxins, or causing unexpected allergic reactions. Beyond human health, genetic engineering also poses a threat to ecosystems. “Roundup Ready” canola, engineered by Monsanto to resist Roundup, has escaped cultivation and is now widespread across North America. This has detrimental effects on wild canola populations, which are vital to numerous species like bees, butterflies, moths, and birds, disrupting the delicate balance of ecosystems.
Fortunately, there are alternatives to bioengineered foods. Traditional crossbreeding methods, involving careful selection and crossing of plants with desirable traits over generations, offer a safer approach. This process avoids the introduction of foreign DNA and allows for thorough testing in real-world conditions before widespread use, minimizing environmental impact and promoting healthier food production.
For consumers seeking to avoid GMOs, purchasing organic products is the most reliable way. Regions like the European Union, Japan, and Australia mandate GMO labeling, but the U.S. and Canada do not have comprehensive labeling requirements. Organic certification from reputable third-party organizations like EcoCert or Quality Assurance International (QAI) guarantees that foods are GMO-free. Looking for the Non-GMO Project label is another helpful strategy. Staying informed and supporting organizations like the Canadian Organic Trade Association (COTA) can also empower consumers to make informed choices.
In conclusion, concerns surrounding bioengineered foods and their ingredients are multifaceted and warrant serious consideration. Potential health risks, including new allergies, increased cancer risks, and the unknown long-term effects, are significant. Furthermore, the environmental impacts and the focus on profit over health in the development of these foods raise ethical and sustainability questions. While further independent research is crucial to fully understand the implications of bioengineering, choosing organic and non-GMO options remains the most prudent approach for consumers concerned about their health and the environment.
