Introduction
The use of genetically engineering in agriculture and food production has an impact, not
only on the environment and biodiversity, but also on human health. Therefore, thorough
biosafety assessment requires, not only an evaluation of environmental impacts of
genetically engineered organisms, but also an assessment of the risks that genetically
engineered food pose for the health of consumers. Let us take deeper look at some of the
aspects related to genetically engineered foods.
What is Genetic Engineering?
Genetic engineering is a laboratory technique used by scientists to change the DNA of
living organisms. DNA is the blueprint for the individuality of an organism. The
organism relies upon the information stored in tits DNA for the management of every
biochemical process. The life, growth and unique features of the organism depend on its
DNA. The segments of DNA, which have been associated with specific features or
functions of an organism, are called genes.
Molecular biologists have discovered many enzymes, which change the structure of
DNA in living organisms. Some of these enzymes can cut and join strands of DNA.
Using such enzymes, scientists learned to cut specific genes from DNA and to build
customized DNA using these genes. They also learned about vectors, strands of DNA
like viruses, which can infect a cell and insert themselves into its DNA. Scientists started
to build vectors, which incorporated genes of their choosing and used vectors to insert
these genes into the DNA of living organisms. Genetic engineers believe that they can
improve the foods we eat by doing this. At first glance, this might look exciting to some
people. Deeper consideration reveals some advantages and serious dangers.
What are the advantages of Genetically Engineered Food?
Genetic engineering gives today’s researchers considerable advantages in
plant breeding programs.
·Predictability
Scientist can identify the specific gene for a given trait, make a copy of that gene for
insertion into a plant, and be certain that only the new gene is added to the plant. This
eliminates the “backcrossing”, traditional plant breeders must
do to eliminate extraneous undesired genes that are frequently introduced when using
cross-hybridization.
·Significant acceleration of the development timetable.
New technique takes about 5 years to remove the undesirable traits compared to 12 years
of process with the traditional techniques. Plant breeders do not use recombinant DNA
techniques exclusively. Instead they use a combination of new and traditional methods to
provide a plant with quality, yield, weather and pest resistance and other desirable traits.
·Improved quality with more choices for the customers.
Genetically engineered food especially fruits and vegetables allow to have plenty of time
for shipping and sale and it helps to keep the them stay ripe without getting rotten. Some
of the fruits and vegetables need warm climates to grow, so most off-season store them
must travel a long way after they are picked.
One example is the Flavr Savr tomatoes. To survive their journey intact, tomatoes are
picked while they are green, which is a food which is a good way to avoid bruising, but
which results in a tomato that is often described as having the consistency and mouth-feel
of a tennis ball. In the case of Flavr Savr tomatoes, the company solved the rotting
problem by inserting a reversed copy- an “antisense” gene of
the gene that encodes the enzyme that results in tomato spoilage. This suppresses the
enzyme that results in rotting, allowing the tomato to stay ripe, but not rot, up to 10
days—plenty of time for shipping and sale. Refrigeration is not necessary.
What are the dangers of Genetically Engineered Food?
·Is it safe to eat?
There has been no adequate testing to ensure that extracting genes that perform an
apparently useful function as part of that plant or animal is going to have the same effects
if inserted into a totally unrelated species. To consumers, most genetically engineered
foods are essentially foods with added substances, usually proteins. This is because
genes are “translated” into proteins by cells. Therefore, when a
genetic engineer adds, say, a bacterial gene to a tomato, he or she is essentially adding a
bacterial protein to that tomato. In most cases these added proteins would likely prove
safe for human consumption. Nevertheless, just as with conventional food additives,
substances added to foods via genetic engineering may in some instances prove
hazardous.
Unfortunately, food allergies are poorly understood, and in many cases scientists will not
be able to test potential allergenicity of genetically engineered foods. Even if there was
some testing, the long term affects to humans, animals, and the environment from these
modified genes “escaping” and mixing with unmodified ones
are unknown.
·Health Hazards
There are several differences between the normal breeding process and the artificial
genetic manipulation process. One key difference is the use of highly infectious viruses
for artificial genetic manipulation as a promoter to witch on the introduced gene. Some
of the viruses used are highly infectious. Genetic manipulation can increase the risk that
the plant will develop toxic or allergy-causing compounds. Another possibility is that
regulate exposure to foreign DNA and RNA material inserted into these artificial foods
could cause allergic reactions or autoimmune disease.
Allergens
A number of molecular mechanisms have also been identified through which the genetic
manipulation of food producing organisms could generate new allergens or increase the
allergenicity of proteins normally present in food producing organisms. Because
allergen-carrying transgenic foods will in most cases maintain the appearance of their
natural, non-allergenic counterparts, they pose a serious hazard to the consumer.
Consumer will not be able to avoid these allergenic foods, because they will not be able
to distinguish them from the corresponding natural foods. The labeling of all genetically
engineered foods would, of course, solve this problem and would also make it possible
for health authorities to trace allergen problem that arise.
Toxins & Poisons
In addition to allergenicity, recombinant proteins could manifest a variety of other
biological activities, and in the case of recombinant enzymes, could catalyze the
production of other compounds with biologic activities not normally present in a
particular food. For instance such substances could act as toxins or irritants and could act
at the biochemical, cellular, tissue or organ levels to disrupt a range of physiological
functions. An example of a class of genetically engineered foods that are of particular
concern are those that have been modified to produce biological control agents such as
the family of insecticidal Bt enterotoxins. The Bt toxin, which has been used topically in
organic farming, has powerful biological activity. If consumed in larger amounts it can
become a toxin. Plants genetically-manipulated to produce Bt toxin produce at least 1000
times more Bt toxin per acre than does a heavy application of Bt directly on plants. There
was another case where one company genetically engineered a microorganism to produce
L-tryptophan at high levels killed almost 37 people and made 1500 permanently disabled
by using that product. This was due to the presence of traces of a toxic contaminant. This
contaminant was extremely powerful.
Damage to Nutrition quality
A 1999 study by Dr. Marc Lappe published in the Journal of Medicinal Food found that
concentrations of beneficial phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect against heart
disease and cancer were lower in genetically modified soybeans than in traditional
strains. These and other studies, including Dr. Pusztai’s, indicate that
genetically engineered food will likely result in foods lower in quality and nutrition. For
example the milk from cows injected with rBGH contains higher levels of pus, bacteria,
and fat.
Sources of risk
Unmodified Organism (UMO)
The genetic engineering of foods involves the introduction of new genetic
information into a food-producing organism. Some of the health risks associated with
genetically engineered foods can be anticipated on the basis of what we already know
about the characteristics of the organism in its unmodified state (called the unmodified
organism UMO) from which the genetically engineered organism is to be generated.
Gene Source (GS)
Other aspects of the risk associated with genetically engineered foods can be
deduced from the characteristic of the organism that is the source of the genetic
information introduced into the food producing organism (called the gene source or GS).
For instance, if a gene derived from peanuts is introduced into a tomato, food produced
from the resulting genetically engineered tomato might cause allergic reactions in people
that are allergic to tomatoes (the unmodified organism) or to peanuts (the gene source).
Procedure of Genetic Engineering
In addition to UMO and GS, there is another source of potential risks, which is
the procedure of genetic engineering itself. Current recombinant DNA methods and
those likely to be developed in the future are all capable of accidentally introducing
unintended changes in the function and structure of the food-producing organism. As a
result, the genetically engineered food may have characteristics that were not intended by
the genetic engineer, and that cannot be foreseen on the basis of the known characteristics
of the unmodified organism or gene source.
Labeling Issues
FDA requires labeling of genetically engineered foods under certain exceptional
circumstances. Since most genetically engineered foods will be indistinguishable in
appearance from non-engineered foods, consumers will generally not know what they are
buying. FDA ignores consumers’ right to know by ignoring longstanding
regulations that require in most circumstances that manufactures label foods to disclose
their ingredients. For example, researchers have genetically engineered vegetables to
produce a new protein sweetener. Existing FDA regulations mandate that companies
disclose sweeteners added to canned vegetables via conventional means. Yet, FDA will
not require that proteins sweeteners added to vegetables via genetic engineering be
labeled as ingredients.
Labeling is vital to food allergic individuals, who need to know when their
purchases are potentially allergenic. FDA will require labeling of foods genetically
engineered to contain potential allergens from only the most commonly allergenic
foods—a requirement that threatens individuals with less common food
allergies.
FDA also will require labeling if a company uses genetic engineering techniques to
change a food’s composition significantly. For example, when one
manufacturer modified canola to produce increased levels of lauric and myristic acids in
the seed oil, FDA agreed that the common or usual name for this oil would be
“laurate canola oil” in order to distinguish it from traditional
canola oil. Some vegetarians and individuals who follow religious dietary laws have told
FDA that they want to know when animal genes are added to plants used as foods. FDA
has taken no steps to accommodate their dietary beliefs and restrictions.
What can you do as a consumer ?
Look for soy products and ingredients like tofu, tempeh, miso, soy sauce, soymilk that
are organic. All other soy ingredients are almost genetically manipulated and herbicidetreated. The same is true for canola, corn, dairy products and potatoes. Look for organic
corn, potato and dairy ingredients when you shop. It may be best to avoid canola
altogether because it is rarely organic and is usually chemically treated. A recent
experiment conducted by independent expert DR. Alpad Puszatai in the United Kingdom
has shown that genetically manipulated foods can, when fed to animals in reasonable
amounts, cause very gradual organ damage and immune system damage.
Conclusion
Reading the label is an important part of shopping for a consumer. If consumers do not
want to consume genetically manipulated foods, they can always contact the store
managers and ask them to carry more organic foods in the store. Most of the time the
food product manufacturers also pay attention to consumers feed back. Further, if one has
questions or concerns about such issues, one can always contact a nutritionist who is
aware and well informed of the pros and cons of Genetically Engineered Foods.
References
Bindslev-Jensen, C. (1998). Allergy risks of genetically engineered foods. Allergy 53:
58-61.
Cummins, R. & Lilliston, B. News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory
Farming & Organics. http://www.purefood.org/ge/cfs20.cfm
Cummins, R. Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why we need a
Global Moratorium. http://www.organicconsumers.org
Fagan, J.B. Assessing the Safety and Nutritional Quality of Genetically Engineered
Foods. http://www.netlink.de/gen/jfassess.htm
Malcom, A. D. (1999). Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Lancet 354: 69-72.
Keywords:
introduction genetically engineering agriculture food production impact only
environment biodiversity also human health therefore thorough biosafety assessment
requires only evaluation environmental impacts genetically engineered organisms also
assessment risks that genetically engineered food pose health consumers take deeper look
some aspects related engineered foods what genetic engineering genetic engineering
laboratory technique used scientists change living organisms blueprint individuality
organism organism relies upon information stored tits management every biochemical
process life growth unique features organism depend segments which have been
associated with specific features functions called genes molecular biologists have
discovered many enzymes which change structure living organisms some these enzymes
join strands using such enzymes scientists learned specific genes from build customized
using these genes they also learned about vectors strands like viruses which infect cell
insert themselves into scientists started build vectors incorporated their choosing used
vectors insert these into living genetic engineers believe that they improve foods doing
this first glance this might look exciting some people deeper consideration reveals
advantages serious dangers what advantages food gives today researchers considerable
advantages plant breeding programs middot predictability scientist identify specific gene
given trait make copy that gene insertion into plant certain only gene added plant this
eliminates backcrossing traditional breeders must eliminate extraneous undesired
frequently introduced when using cross hybridization middot significant acceleration
development timetable technique takes about years remove undesirable traits compared
years process with traditional techniques breeders recombinant techniques exclusively
instead they combination traditional methods provide with quality yield weather pest
resistance other desirable traits middot improved quality more choices customers
especially fruits vegetables allow have plenty time shipping sale helps keep them stay
ripe without getting rotten fruits vegetables need warm climates grow most season store
them must travel long after picked example flavr savr tomatoes survive their journey
intact tomatoes picked while green good avoid bruising results tomato often described
having consistency mouth feel tennis ball case flavr savr tomatoes company solved
rotting problem inserting reversed copy antisense encodes enzyme results tomato
spoilage suppresses enzyme results rotting allowing tomato stay ripe days plenty time
shipping sale refrigeration necessary what dangers safe there been adequate testing
ensure extracting perform apparently useful function part animal going same effects
inserted totally unrelated species consumers most foods essentially added substances
usually proteins because translated proteins cells therefore when engineer adds bacterial
essentially adding bacterial protein most cases added proteins would likely prove safe
human consumption nevertheless just conventional additives substances instances prove
hazardous unfortunately allergies poorly understood many cases will able test potential
allergenicity even there testing long term affects humans animals environment from
modified escaping mixing unmodified ones unknown health hazards there several
differences between normal breeding process artificial manipulation difference highly
infectious viruses artificial manipulation promoter witch introduced viruses used highly
infectious manipulation increase risk will develop toxic allergy causing compounds
another possibility regulate exposure foreign material inserted artificial could cause
allergic reactions autoimmune disease allergens number molecular mechanisms been
identified through producing could generate allergens increase allergenicity normally
present producing because allergen carrying transgenic will cases maintain appearance
their natural allergenic counterparts pose serious hazard consumer consumer able avoid
allergenic because able distinguish them from corresponding natural labeling would
course solve problem would make possible authorities trace allergen problem arise toxins
poisons addition allergenicity recombinant could manifest variety other biological
activities case recombinant catalyze production other compounds biologic activities
normally present particular instance such substances toxins irritants biochemical cellular
tissue organ levels disrupt range physiological functions example class particular concern
those modified produce biological control agents such family insecticidal enterotoxins
toxin topically organic farming powerful biological activity consumed larger amounts
become toxin plants manipulated produce toxin produce least times more acre than does
heavy application directly plants another case where company microorganism tryptophan
high levels killed almost people made permanently disabled product presence traces toxic
contaminant contaminant extremely powerful damage nutrition quality study marc lappe
published journal medicinal found concentrations beneficial phytoestrogen compounds
thought protect against heart disease cancer were lower modified soybeans than strains
studies including pusztai indicate likely result lower nutrition example milk cows injected
rbgh contains higher levels bacteria sources risk unmodified involves introduction
information producing risks associated anticipated basis already know about
characteristics unmodified state called generated source aspects risk associated deduced
characteristic source information introduced called source instance derived peanuts
produced resulting might cause allergic reactions people allergic peanuts procedure
addition another potential risks procedure itself current methods those likely developed
future capable accidentally introducing unintended changes function structure result
characteristics were intended engineer cannot foreseen basis known characteristics
labeling issues requires labeling under certain exceptional circumstances since
indistinguishable appearance consumers generally know buying ignores right know
ignoring longstanding regulations require circumstances manufactures label disclose
ingredients researchers vegetables protein sweetener existing regulations mandate
companies disclose sweeteners canned conventional means require sweeteners labeled
ingredients vital individuals need when purchases potentially allergenic require contain
potential allergens commonly requirement threatens individuals less common allergies
company uses techniques change composition significantly manufacturer canola
increased lauric myristic acids seed agreed common usual name laurate canola order
distinguish canola vegetarians individuals follow religious dietary laws told want animal
plants taken steps accommodate dietary beliefs restrictions consumer look products
ingredients like tofu tempeh miso sauce soymilk organic almost manipulated herbicide
treated same true corn dairy products potatoes organic corn potato dairy shop best avoid
altogether rarely usually chemically treated recent experiment conducted independent
expert alpad puszatai united kingdom shown manipulated animals reasonable amounts
cause very gradual organ damage immune system damage conclusion reading label
important part shopping want consume always contact store managers carry more store
time product manufacturers attention feed back further questions concerns issues always
contact nutritionist aware well informed pros cons references bindslev jensen allergy
allergy cummins lilliston news analysis factory farming organics http purefood cummins
hazards crops need global moratorium http organicconsumers fagan assessing safety
nutritional http netlink jfassess malcom lancet
Keywords General:
Essay, essays, termpaper, term paper, termpapers, term papers, book reports, study,
college, thesis, dessertation, test answers, free research, book research, study help,
download essay, download term papers