by The first use of GMFs and GMOs came in the 1930s and 40s when an American project in Mexico created a genetically modified wheat crop with higher yield. From that point on, GMFs have continued to have a bigger place in the world’s food production. At this moment in time, the human population would not be sustainable without the massive presence of genetic modification. The earth has met its projected carrying capacity multiple times, yet technological improvements continue to raise the capacity even higher. Technology like GMFs are the reasons for sustained population growth of humans on this earth, and despite the arguments against GMFs they are not removable at this point. Some of the main arguments against GMFs include their unknown long term health effects and their detrimental effects to the environment. In an ideal situation GMOs would not be necessary on such a large scale, but society would simply not function because of how overpopulated the world is in relation to available natural resources.
Although there has not been much evidence of the detrimental health effects of GMFs, the main opposition to genetic modification believe nothing beneficial can come from changing an organism artificially. The argument is that the genetic makeup of a plant or animal is perfected or at least shaped by natural selection, and altering the DNA pattern can cause serious issues. Some evidence of negative health effects include “steroidal glycoalkaloids in green potato skin, which can cause gastrointestinal discomfort or, more severely, vomiting and diarrhea” and “cyanogenic glycosides in almonds and cassava, which can cause cyanide poisoning” (1). In the study conducted by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, these were just some examples of harms caused by GMFs. These changes are set off because the DNA is altered. This ideology is outlined in the NCBI study: “Unintended effects of the targeted genetic changes on other characteristics of the food (for example, the intended presence of or increase in one compound in plant cells could result in changes in plant metabolism that affect the abundance of other compounds)” (1). The process inside of plants is continuously linked, and when one small strand is altered there is a possibility for the whole development of the organism to change. This argument against GMFs has been debated since the conception of genetic modification, but this evidence on its own is not enough against the positives which include the incredible amount of food production, longer shelf life, and pest resistance.
In addition to potential long term health effects, genetic engineered plants have shown capabilities to ruin the environment they are placed in. There are a variety of environmental impacts from GMOs, and they vary depending on the purpose for genetic modification. Some crops are genetically modified to have pesticide resistance or to have properties that repel certain pests. In the case of pesticide resistance, farmers have been able to apply more pesticide because their crops are not affected by it. Overuse of pesticides and herbicides can harm not only the environment they are applied in, but they can damage river ecosystems after rainfall. Other organisms are modified to repel harmful pests that damage the output. As a result of driving away normal pests, organisms labeled as “superweeds” or “superpests” arrive in the environment because of the genetically altered crop. These organisms often stay as invasive species and push out native species (2). A genetically modified organism can completely shift the balance of the ecosystem it is placed in, similar to how genetic modification can damage the organism itself.
The arguments against GMOs make it difficult to believe the enormous presence it has in today’s society. As the carrying capacity of the human population increases, the necessity for this unnatural practice will only increase with it. There are many pros and cons to the use of GMFs, but the current presence of GMFs makes it difficult to see a future in food production without them. If the production of GMOs continues at this rate, they will continue to raise difficult questions to scientists and consumers alike because of the polarized nature of genetic modification.
Works Cited
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424534/
- https://cban.ca/gmos/issues/environmental-impacts/