Drawbacks

Home _____ Benefits _____ Drawbacks _____ References

Enhancing Vitamins/Minerals ___ Reducing Undesirable Components ___ Modifying Macronutrient Compositions

 

Who does this really benefit?

Many researchers claim that the purpose of increasing a crop's nutritious value through genetic modification is to decrease food deficiencies in undeveloped countries. The reality of this claim has come into question. According to Johnson et al., "only a relatively few developing countries such as Brazil, China and India have the resources to invest in creating GMOs" (2002). In contrast, the majority of GMO research is funded through private companies. These private companies These private firms will most likely only invest in research which will lead to a profit gain. Therefore, most research funded through private firms may be aimed at making a profit off of developing countries and not at benefiting developing countries (Johnson et al., 2002).

Is it really advantageous?

Altering the biochemical pathway of an organism may lead to unknown consequences. Due to the fact that genetic modification of foods is a relatively new technology the risks are virtually unknown. An introduction of allergens is one example of a genetic modification creating a disadvantageous result. Introduction of genes from another source could cause unknown allergens in the genetically modified food. Based on this and other food safety issues, genetically modified foods would need to be tested prior to consumption by the public (Johnson 2002).

In addition to possible safety issues, the levels of nutrients in genetically modified foods must be considered. When presenting their research Ye et al., felt that their golden rice would provide 2micrograms/gram of provitamin A (2000). These levels would then prevent vitamin A deficiency throug a normal dietary intake of golden rice. In contrast, Greenpeace claims that a farmer must eat 9 kilos of cooked golden rice to meet their daily vitamin A requirement (Greenpeace, 2001). Based on this arguement the true levels of nutrients in genetically modified foods must be evaluated.

Is it cost-effective?

Ultimately, these modifications all come down to money. If the process of genetic modification is not cost effective for companies, then it is not a viable option to pursue. Much like the food safety issues discussed above, if there are potential issues that must be dealt with before a product can be brought to market, then they must be outweighed by the potential benefits. For example, Baker argues that GM coffee loses its natural defense against insect predators--caffeine. If the GM coffee is now so susceptible to insect attack that farmers lose half their yield, then this loss would offset any potential increase in sales (Baker, 2003).

Regulation and Labeling to ensure consumer choice

In 2000, over 9000 new food products were introduced into the market, many of which were in some way genetically modified. The rapid evolution of GM products presents a challenge of keeping nutrient databases updated and collecting and labeling accurate dietary data. (Kris-Etherton and Etherton, 2003)

There is an ongoing debate on whether or not all genetically modified foods should have to be labeled as so. If a product such as oilseed plants were genetically modified to produce healthier oils, it would be extremely difficult, time-consuming, and costly to label every single product manufactured with the oil produced from a GM plant. Another question is whether products that are only derived from GM crops - but that actually contain no genetically modified material - should be labeled as "GM." For instance, in the case of oil, the consumer is not eating anything that actually contains genetically modified material, the product is simply obtained from a genetically modified crop. Another drawback of labeling is that a GM label on a product may steer consumers away from potentially beneficial and harmless products.

Importing and Exporting

Many countries are wary of genetic modification. One potential drawback to utilizing genetically modified crops is the potential alienation of markets. For instance, most of the world's coffee is grown in Brazil. Should GM decaffeinated coffee be implemented, potentially most European countries would be skeptical of such a product and would shy away from it. Many other interest groups are vehemently opposed to the implementation of GM crops, and will petition their government in the interest of safety or human rights (Black, 2003).

Environmental Effects

The issue of potential environmental damage is always at play when dealing with genetically modified organisms. The introduction of foreign genes into a gene pool could have diastrous effects on the local environment. These could affect either the natural ecosystems, or create environments that are detrimental to the local farmer. To reiterate, caffeine is a defense mechanism innate in plants to ward off pests. So, for instance, should scientists move toward decaffeinating coffee plants, the local ecosystem could be adversely disrupted by the increase in pests now free from the selection pressure of caffeine. In addition, farmers could also be adversely affected by such a large portion of their crops now susceptible to attack (Baker, 2003).

 

 

Back to Top