GM Foods: The Christian Perspective, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The genetic blueprint of living organisms determines their particular characteristics, from chemical particularities to hair color, to pest resistance. Genetic engineering involves altering the DNA sequence of a life form. This is accomplished by one of two ways: 1) alteration of the genetic sequence of an organism; or 2) transference of genes from one life form to another (Ho). Scientists are thus able to save desirable attributes, and withdraw undesirable traits from an organism. Isolated genes from different life forms with desirable attributes can supersede the unwanted ones. An example of genetic alteration would include turning off a gene for growth of a crop item, thereby allowing the crop to grow larger than the outcome of natural processes would otherwise allow.  An example of genetic transference would include inserting a porcine gene into a tomato, to allow unprecedented growth of that tomato on a scale that a pig would normally enjoy.  This paper will discuss genetic modification and genetically modified organisms.  Also offered is a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of “GMO’s.”

Genetic modification has been in practice for more than 25 years.  All the same, until lately it has been applied to an increasing swath of food crops for release into the consumer marketplace environment. Scientists have identified the effects that particular genes cause an organism, such as what genes cause a jellyfish to glow, and what genes cause a crop to be pest resistant.   However, many other types of fallout happen through the genetic interplay that occurs in a given genome.  It should also be noted, that environmental influences play a role here too.  Epigenetic variation refers to changes within a short time span (generational, for plants and animals) as a result of environmental influences (climate, pests, and chemicals).  While not on the scale of being modified in a petri dish, these influences still cause changes that can spell survival or disaster for an organism.  So what qualifies as genetically modified?  For purposes of this paper, we restrict the discussion to the first premise offered, that being of a standard relating to genetic engineering, by scientists.

Presently, these gene to gene interactions are not well comprehended. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are usually found in food products today, and often are not labeled as being a GMO food. While GMO’s are under scrutiny by the United States FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Department, the real concern stems from society.  Many people who are interested enough to question the safety of GMO’s, also want the use of GMO’s in the food supply to stop.   In the UK, GMO’s hold a primary place in the agenda on food safety.

Numerous inquiries have been raised concerning genetically modified foods, both crops and livestock.  Is it necessary?  Is it safe to consume? What do we know about the long term environmental effects? Who is responsible for undesirable consequences?

In a 1999 Congressional Testimony, James H. Maryanski, PhD, Biotechnology Coordinator for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition of the Food and Drug Administration gave a statement before the Subcommittee on Basic Research House Committee on Science.  He maintained that the FDA was responsible for assuring premarket safety requirements of GMO’s, and that it was the realm of scientific study to determine ultimately if a GMO, once released into the consumer environment, was safe or unsafe (United States Food and Drug Administration).  Apparently, it was enough to have pre-market safeguards in place for the FDA regarding GMO’s.  Why would this be so?  This example illustrates the crossroads where science, government, and society meet on this issue.  In the United States, a fear that arises from government oversight of GMO’s is that the private lobbyists in Washington D.C., who represent big agricultural companies and big research biotech/pharmaceutical companies, are the ones who actually dictate the policy.

A concern that follows, then, is whether it is in the best interest of society  to accept policy that is ultimately written by companies that are profit-driven. While science and government have tried to answer the concerns and questions about GMO’s, any outcomes have not dispelled disquiet among the general population.

The Advantages/Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods

GM crops have been augmented to resist extreme circumstances such as weather-resistant (frost) and pest resistant conditions. Each growing season, many vegetable crops are lost following assaults by pests, diseases, competing plants or damage due to inclement weather circumstances.

Therefore, GM crops can withstand these severe circumstances. An example is a crop that has been modified to endure a draught.  This particular draught-resistant crop can be grown in regions susceptible to draught conditions. Indeed, it seems nonsensical that this would step-up the crop yield.  GM crops can survive severe conditions as compared to native varieties that may take many generations of evolution to achieve the same level of resistance.  A desirable benefit is that the food supply would be enlarged, thereby allowing more people to be fed. Since GM crops can withstand extreme conditions, there is little or no need for chemical interventions such as pesticides. Therefore the result of having trace amounts of chemical residues of insecticides in our food supply may likely be reduced (Ho).

When the application of chemical interventions such as pesticides is decreased, our environment becomes safer and closer to a natural order. Pesticides find their way into the local water supply.  Despite cutting-edge water purification technology in civilized countries, the presence of pesticides is found in blood and urine samples of a given population exposed to this threat.  By decreasing the use of pesticides through using GM crops, not only will the water supply be safer, so too will the general health of the population be improved (Ho).

Controlled maturation time is another benefit that may be realized from utilizing GM crops. Traditionally the growing season is dependent upon the place and the elements where the crop is grown, as well as subject to natural growing cycles of the crop itself.  Through genetic engineering, a crop can be modified to reach maturity quicker, thereby reaching the market faster.  Two benefits from that are an increased food supply, and less use of synthetic inputs (i.e. fertilizer) to obtain high yields (Frewer, Scholderer and Downs).

The Disadvantages/Risks

However, the use of GM foods has raised valid concerns that still not firmly established as true or untrue.  Such as, the introduction of allergens and toxicity via gene to gene interaction by introducing GMO’s into the food supply.

A potential issue is the problem of modified crop genes ending up in the soil, perhaps creating a new strand of weed that would invade/displace the indigenous flora.  The possible effect and less acceptable scenario of this require the weeds completely overtaking a farmer’s free agricultural land, thereby rendering it quite useless. The past benefits from not bearing the ill effects of chemical applications would be lost together with a farmer’s means of survival: agriculture. This issue could escalate from a local concern to a worldwide issue with an undesirable result being pandemic famine (Lal 95).

Additionally, an issue of note is the possible ethical troubles facing certain religions. Would the fact that a food crop has been modified with an gene of animal origin, what restrictions might apply for religions that have food taboos, such as eating pork, or being vegetarian?  The Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim faith has restrictions against eating pigs and cows.  This could be a potential problem.  Indeed, even those of the Christian faith face ethical issues over genetically modifying an organism. The realm of the natural world should not be determined by mankind; this is the realm of the divine and part of God’s plan, which is unknowable and should remain so (Gertsberg).

Conclusion

GM foods are not inevitably bad or wrong or even evil.  Though, allowing the growth of GM crops in farming for general population consumption, without appropriate scientific-based studies regarding potential effects, is not ultimately a good strategy.  Dangers could potentially exist, and we need scientific verification before we embrace GMO’s carte blanche. Humans are not the only potential targets of bad effects of GMO’s; plants, animals, even entire ecosystems could be at risk. Biotech companies that have a strong lobbying presence in government, particularly the United States, do not put the public health issue first; rather, it is profits first, and this is a cause of great concern that should not be taken lightly. While there are benefits that are realized in the short term, we must take a long-term view and rigorously study the potential effects of GMO’s in the food supply and in the environment.

 Works Cited

Frewer, Lynn, et al. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods. Effects of different information strategies. Working Paper. Aahrus: Mapp Center, University of Aarhus, 2000.

Gertsberg, Deniza. “GM Foods: The Christian Perspective.” 1 August 2009. GMO Journal: Food Safety Politics. 13 April 2010 <http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2009/08/01/gm-foods-the-christian-perspective/>.

Ho, M.W. Genetic engineering-dream or nightmare?: the brave new world of bad science and big business. Gateway Books, 1998.

Lal, P. “Edible vaccines: Current status and future.” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology (2007): 93-102.

United States Food and Drug Administration. US FDA News and Events: Congressional Testimony on Genetically Modified Foods. 19 October 1999. 12 April 2010 <http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115032.htm>.