Assessing the GMO Controversy on Human Health by Brittany Oka

The intensity dealing with the controversy of whether Genetically Modified Organisms are actually a detriment to an individual’s health has become a progressively antagonistic debate. It has been argued that GMOs must be embraced by society because artificial manipulation can substantially lead to more health benefits for society. However, many oppose this idea and argue that altering the genetic material of an organism in order to obtain “desirable” traits leads to more risks than can be imagined. Amongst this debate, researchers Lutter & Tucker (2002) examine how consuming GM foods provides sufficient nutritional and health benefits that have been completely dismissed because of the lack of understanding from the opposing side. They consider that GM salmon has unacknowledged health benefits which can significantly lower a consumer’s health problems. Conversely, Lack (2002) makes it clear that GMOs have been linked to many clinical risks such as severe allergic reactions which is a primary reason why GM foods should be continually tested for such adverse health effects. Overall, authors Millstone, Brunner, & Mayer (1999) demonstrate that there is more growing evidence of health dangers of consuming GM foods and that many individuals are being persuaded otherwise because of the approach of “substantial equivalence.” 

Health Benefits of GMOs

Lutter & Tucker (2002) believe that the approach taken by those who oppose GMOs is simply one-sided because they do not make the effort of acknowledging GMO health benefits that may lead to substantial nutritional improvements. They provide scientific claims that the marketing of GM salmon will lower salmon prices and thus increase its consumption of salmon which are exceptionally good sources of omega-3 fatty acids (Lutter & Tucker 2002). The evidence that they provide gives incite on how GM salmon can in fact lower the risks of coronary heart disease (CHD) and other health issues because of the fact that they obtain higher amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. This nutritional benefit has been argued to lower the chances of CDH and has this benefit because “they provide strong antiarrhythmic action on the heart, serve as precursors to prostaglandins, and provide anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic actions” (Lutter & Tucker 2002: 59). A primary reason why they believe that improved nutrition can come from GM food derives from various sources of scientific evidence from recent studies that depict the benefits of n-3 intake. For instance, the scientific claims that they support is consistent with Hu et al. (2002) that examined how “a one percent increase in n-3 intake lowers CHD fatalities by 0.29%” (Lutter & Tucker 2002: 60). Lutter & Tucker also make it clear that GM salmon also affects society in a way by lowering the fish farmer’s production costs which would lower the consumer prices and thus increase salmon consumption. Consequentially, this would increase the n-3 intake from the GM salmon and “prevent between 600 and 2,600 deaths in the U.S. annually” (Lutter & Tucker 2002: 59). Overall, Lutter & Tucker make it evident that GM foods have a beneficial influence on consumer’s heath which should be more widely recognized throughout society.

Health Risks of GMOs

Lack (2002) evaluated that “the main concern about adverse effects of GM foods on health are the transfer of antibiotic resistance, toxicity, and allergenicity” (Gideon Lack 2002: 337). He acknowledges that despite the supposed benefits that researchers like Lutter & Tucker propose, more serious concerns have been expressed concerning potential health problems. Primarily, Lack establishes that when crops and plants are manipulated and genetically modified, they can potentially cause allergic reactions to the consumer. He explains how soy beans became genetically modified with 2S albumen from Brazil nuts in order to improve its overall nutrition. There is growing scientific evidence that GM soy contains an unexpected allergen that is not found in natural soy. The results indicated that the Brazil nut produced this allergen and that a “newly expressed protein in transgenic soy retained its allergenicity” (Gideon Lack 2002: 330). Therefore, consumers with an allergy to the Brazil nut could ultimately lead to severe health problems if they consume soy beans. Lack believes that there are not enough diagnostic tests and the uncertainty of GM food being allergenic must be assessed for the greater good of the surrounding community. He demonstrates that each GM food should be “tested against immune sera from at least 14 sensitized individuals with positive clinical histories” which should ensure a greater chance of detecting food allergens (Gideon Lack 2002: 339).

"Substantial Equivalence" Conceals Adverse Health Effects of GMOs

Millstone et al. (1999) acknowledge that there is more emergent evidence of health risks from GMOs. They argue against “substantial equivalence” which conceals the risks associated with GM foods that could potentially lead to major health effects. They suggest that this term in itself cannot be deemed to be a scientific concept because it is a “commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific” (Millstone et al. 1999: 526).  This concept constitutes a chemical testing approach that deliberates that a GM food is comparable to its non-GM counterpart, which assumes that there are no new health risks to be detected. Millstone et al. does not find this approach to be plausible because it is not consistent with their scientific claim that biological, toxicological, and immunological tests should be implemented in replacement. They demonstrate that “substantial equivalence” is much too vague and only becomes beneficial for the industry in releasing GM foods into the market but conceals the fact to consumers about the potential health risks. In this sense, the surrounding community is involved where they are unaware that “new GM products [are] permitted without any safety or toxicological tests” which is trivial for their consumer protection (Millstone et al. 1999: 525). As a source of scientific evidence, Millstone et al. illustrate how “substantial equivalence” has been used in practice for GM glyphosate-tolerant soya beans. The “substantial equivalence” has deemed these to be “substantially equivalent to non-GM soya beans: by not focusing on the biochemical or toxicological factors, but rather on the amount of proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids they contain (Millstone et al. 1999: 526). Overall, “substantial equivalence” is unreliable and often introduces new risks to public health by persuading consumers that GM foods are undoubtedly safe to eat.

The GMO controversy on human health has been a topic of debate for these various researchers. It is clear that researcher’s Lutter & Tucker (2002) argue that those opposing GMOs only consider the adverse health effects and simply disregard the many possible gains on the consumer’s health such as significantly lowering the risks of CHD.  On the other hand, Lack (2002) demonstrates that GM foods in the market have led to many health risks such as allergic reactions because consumers are being persuaded that GM foods are actually safe and thus become unaware of the real issues. Conclusively, Millstone et al. (1999) believe that consumers should select healthier natural food alternatives because there is more substantial scientific evidence of the health threats of GMOs. 

Works Cited

Millstone, Erik, Eric Brunner, and Sue Mayer. "Beyond ‘Substantial Equivalence’." Nature 401 (1999):   525-26. Web

Lack, Gideon. "Clinical Risk Assessment of GM Foods." Elsevier 127 (2002): 337-40. Toxicology Letters. Web.

Lutter, Randall, and Katherine Tucker. "Unacknowledged Health Benefits of Genetically Modified Food: Salmon and Heart Disease Deaths." AgBioForum 5.2 (2002): 59-64. Web.

Lutter, Randall, and Katherine Tucker. Unacknowledged Health Benefits of Genetically Modified Food: Salmon and Heart Disease Deaths. Chart. 2nd ed. Vol. 5. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 59-64. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

N.d. Photograph. Food Labeling and What You Should Know. Binary Bits LLC. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://blog.friendseat.com/food-labeling-and-what-you-should-know-infographic/>.

N.d. Photograph. GM Salmon May Go on Sale in US after Public Consultation. The Guardian, 25 Aug. 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/25/gm-salmon-us-fda-consultation>.

N.d. Photograph. Planet Ark. 5 Dec. 2008. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://planetark.org/enviro-news/item/50794>.