Will Hager/ Thomas Tinsley/ March 6, 2011
GES 400/ Prof. Lansing/ Project 2
GMO ‘s and Health
Included here are points of international debate on health risks studies available for
main GMO’s including soy, maize, and oilseed rape. They are designed to be pesticide resistant
mainly to roundup. Tests on rats have been conducted and based on findings there were
possible levels of toxicity but further testing was needed.
The producers of knowledge in this scientific study are scientists who used rats in a
laboratory to study the effects of GMO’s on health risks.The consumers of knowledge in this
study are the companies behind the experiments that are attempting to develop and
presumably market these genetically modified foods for humans and feed for animals. In the
case of this study the resulting outcomes that further testing was needed and that there were
possible toxic problems involved were highly criticized by the companies, or consumers,
involved.
A main argument or point of interest in this article and regarding GMO’s is the idea of
how the GMO’s need to be tested and interpreted. Nutritional tests were available as well as
toxicology tests. A problem explained here is that the chronic side effects of pesticides are not
scientifically tested, but the GMO’s were modified to resist or tolerate these very chronic side
effects.The article makes note that the main controversy being discussed and as a topic around
the world is the possible commercialization of GMO’s abroad and the rules or regulations of
scientific testing and assessment that could be modified.
A key to the debate lies in the idea that GMO’s are insufficiently evaluated, a view held
by many on the producer side of the debate. On the consumer side of the debate would
presumably be any idea that would increase profitability for major GMO producing companies,
mainly that testing should be minimized and not fully assesed regarding health risks. Reducing
testing would obviously allow for quicker release of possible profit making GMO’s by companies
and therefore a faster and larger revenue chain. On the producer side the ideas lean more
toward more in depth and conclusive testing which would reduce profits and cost companies
more to do.
The relationship between these two groups of producers and consumers can be viewed
as a conflict between profit seeking businesses or individuals and a scientific community looking
out for the best interests of mankind who simply advocate for complete testing and analysis
before GMO’s can be made available to comsumers.
Bibliography
de Vendômois JS, Cellier D, Vélot C, Clair E, Mesnage R, Séralini GE. Debate on
GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests. Int J Biol Sci 2010; 6:590-
598. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v06p0590.html
GMO’s and Health
Producers: The producers of knowledge in this controversy are the American
Academy of Environmental Medicine. A recent report by another producer of knowledge
mentioned in the article, The Union of Concerned Scientists, concluded that over the past 20
years trials conducted regarding the use of GMO’s and crop yields showed no significant
increase except for a particular corn yield. They also concluded that even this increase in
yield could be attributable to improvements in traditional methods for crop production.
Consumers: The biotechnology world that claims that GMO’s can feed the world
through higher crop yields but don’t take into account that those GMO’s that increase crop
yields could actually be harming consumers of the product and that the GMO’s being used
may not actually be having the advertised effect of higher crop yield.
In regards to natural breeding the processes involved have been used for well over a
thousand years, with GMO techniques only having been in use for little more than decade.
Mentioned in the article are health risks associated with GMO’s including infertility, immune
disregulation, accelerated aging, genetic disregulation, insulin regulation, cell function,
protein formation, and changes in the spleen, liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal system. The
American Association also concludes that the connection between GMO’s and adverse health
effects has been proven through multiple animal studies.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has recommendations because
GMO’s have not been properly tested for human ingestion and because there is evidence for
the harm caused by GMO’s. As a producer of knowledge they ask doctors to educate
patients and communities to avoid GMO foods whenever possible and educate them
regarding the health risks involved with GMO’s. The AAEM also asks physicians to look at
the effect of GMO’s in diseases of patients they treat and document any changes regarding
GMO or non GMO food. The AAEM asks that all members of the scientific community and
medical community to gather studies and conduct research to analyze roles of GMO’s on
human health and develop methods to do the same, and implementation of long term and
in depth labeling concerning GMO’s.
The effects of the GMO controversy in the medical and scientific world can be clearly
seen in this article by the AAEM. The main claim mentioned in the article on the consumer
side, being the biotechnology industry, would be that GMO’s have the ability, if looked at it
extremely, to solve the problem of world hunger. On the opposite side of the controversy is
the scientific community who hold that not only have GMO’s proven to have harmful effects
on those using the products but that there is not enough history or evidence to support the
idea that GMO’s are increasing crop yields.
Bibliography
Dean, Amy. Armstrong, Jennifer. Genetically Modified Foods. American Academy of
Environmental Medicine, 2009.
http://www.arizonaadvancedmedicine.com/articles/GMO_foods_whitepaper.html