How Dangerous Are GMOs?
The GMO Debate
The argument over genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, seems interminable as to whether they pose a threat for human consumption, let alone to the environment and animals. What is clear is that the issue is a cause for concern for most, to the point that the labelling of GMO foods is increasingly more common and affects consumer decisions at the supermarket.
One of the most recognized organizations in the battle to label GMO foods is The Non-GMO Project. The organization’s mission is to educate consumers by encouraging food suppliers to label all food products that contain GMOs. The end goal is to eventually change the way food is grown and eliminate GMO use by encouraging consumers to vote with their wallet.
For those who believe that GMOs are harmless, there are several arguments. One is that there is supposedly no definitive evidence of humans or animals having health issues directly caused by GMO foods. Another is that the FDA would ban GMO foods if it felt they were harmful. Others argue that there are numerous benefits to GMOs, such as higher crop yield and preventing the spread of disease.
The Institute for Responsible Technology
Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology and one of the biggest activists in the fight against GMOs, says he believes the consumption of genetically modified food is ostensibly dangerous. According to Smith, GMOs can lead to numerous health issues ranging from digestion issues and skin conditions to brain fog and anxiety.
Smith says that there is also evidence of an accumulation of GMO toxins that is retained in consumers that can be passed from pregnant mothers to their children, causing an array of health problems. He also attributes an increase in the rate of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease to be caused by GMOs.
World Health Organization
Studies by the World Health Organization have labeled Roundup, the pesticide sprayed on GMO crops that are herbicide resistant, as a likely carcinogen. In addition to Roundup, scientists have engineered GMO foods that are capable of producing pesticides in their growth. Smith touts a recent study that linked an increase in the growth of a protein in GMO corn that produces putracine and cadaverine, chemicals that are potentially toxic to humans.
While the WHO’s position that GM foods aren’t harmful is often cited by detractors of the anti-GMO movement, the organization doesn’t necessarily take a firm stance.
On its website regarding the safety of GM foods the WHO says, “individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis,” and that, “it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.”
The website also says that outcrossing, or the migration and mixing of genes from GM crops to wild or conventional crops, “may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security.” Where this has been recognized, countries have tried to clearly separate fields of GM crops from conventional crops, however it is not completely fail-safe.
Where the WHO does take a firm stance is that it has found no signs of GMOs linked to allergies and that, “no effects on human health have been shown as the result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
Another of Smith’s main arguments is that there is a transfer of genes from GM food to human cells after consumption. According to the WHO regarding gene transfer, the probability of transfer is low. This again does not take a stance eliminating the concern completely. Smith contends that studies have shown that GMOs that are bred with pesticides poke holes in the stomach of insects and that such effects are seen with human consumption as well.
Where do you stand?
Exposing GMO Agendas with Jeffrey Smith
Genetically modified foods have become such a pervasive part of the standard American diet that it is nearly impossible to avoid them. With major lobbyists holding sway over political opinion, it seems that the ever tightening grip of “Big Ag” is set to become unbreakable.
About the Author
Scientists Create Human-Sheep Hybrid; Are We Playing God?
A team of scientists successfully bred the first human-sheep hybrid, developing technology that could expand the availability of organs for transplant procedures. The embryo wasn’t allowed to develop past 28 days, but that hasn’t made this creation of chimeras any less controversial.
Human-Sheep Chimeras
The recent breakthrough is the second of its kind after scientists successfully crossbred human and pig cells last year. They initially chose pigs as an ideal candidate for hybridization due to similarities in organ structure, but their attempts yielded too low of a human cell count to effectively grow compatible organs.
With this latest chimera, scientists have increased the cell count ratio of human to sheep cells to one in ten thousand, a tenfold improvement from the human-pig hybrid. But in order to grow a human organ, the team thinks it would need to improve that ratio to one in a hundred.
The demand for healthy organs continues to rise globally, with over 115,000 people on a waiting list for a lifesaving organ in the U.S. alone. On average, there are nearly 100 transplants that take place in the U.S. every day.
With the demand for certain organs outpacing supply, some countries have used questionable practices to appease those shortages. The development of hybrids through genome editing and stem cell research has presented a potential opportunity to solve the problem without the need for a human donor. Though it hasn’t been met with universal acceptance.
Scientists use the CRISPR and Cas9 gene editing tools to isolate specific strands of animal DNA and replace them with human DNA, essentially hacking into the evolutionary process. In addition to sheep and pigs, the technology was used to cure disease and implant human brain cells in rodents, inevitably begging the question of whether this could result in humanlike consciousness in animals or any number of other horrifying possibilities one might imagine.
Though the ostensible intentions of these project are benevolent, some feel as if scientists are playing god. It’s not hard to imagine countries with fewer ethical dilemmas acquiring access to the technology and creating deformed creatures with a greater capacity for consciousness.
But scientists working on the project have attempted to assuage those fears, saying their work could save the lives of thousands waiting for a transplant if research is continued further. In many countries, including the U.S. and U.K. there are laws preventing scientists from developing hybrid embryos past a certain stage, though this latest research has started to open up the possibility for approval on a case-by-case basis.
