The omnipresence of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is so significant as to make them, for all practical purposes, unavoidable. The pervasiveness of GMOs is astonishing. Even more incredible is the frightening combination of popular unawareness and apathy with respect to the regulation of information about such new biotechnologies. As it is inadequately restrained and reported, GMO presence yields implications for myriad spheres such as animal welfare and environmental impact. For this reason, it seems pragmatic in this narrow snapshot of the topic to begin by focusing on the potential influence, both positive and negative, that widespread GMO research and proliferation can have on modern man. After attaining a rough grasp on the extent of GMO presence, one inevitably takes issue with the lack of transparency about the inclusion of these organisms in consumer products.
The products of genetic modification range from the absurd to the pointedly mundane. The GloFish, a novelty pet that glows upon exposure to ultraviolet radiation, is a popular example of the more capricious meanderings of genetic research. The fish was created through the insertion of a gene for the production of a fluorescent protein in jellyfish into a zebrafish embryo. While the fish was initially modified to explore methods of biopharmaceutical production, its sale for amusement purposes drew sharp criticism about the belittling of other organisms and the arrogance of humans with regard to our grasp on genetic manipulation and its potential consequences. Less attention-grabbing, albeit similarly significant, examples of GMO products include the unassuming grocery store tomato as well as grains that are found in household staples like cereal and granola bars.
The demand for GMO-related solutions has many faces. With regard to applications in medicine, the genetic engineering of mosquitos has proven useful for the reduction of the spread of illnesses such as dengue fever. The creation of “golden rice” through the insertion of genes from corn into rice plants has the potential to mitigate the suffering of the impoverished class in the Philippines, as the poorest of the populace suffer from life-threatening vitamin A deficiencies due to lack of access to expensive nutritious foods. From an economic perspective, profits for companies and farmers have increased, as their genetically altered products grow faster and taste better. As the list of benefits continues to grow, genetic modification appears to be an increasingly viable solution to pressing issues previously deemed unsolvable.
Focusing on criticisms of GMOs that relate more or less directly to humans, one stumbles upon the common claim that the process of genetic modification teeters on unfounded confidence in the human ability to sufficiently understand, let alone control, the workings of the genome. They assert that our newfound power to toy with genetics is paired with a dangerous ignorance of the implications of our tinkering, presenting the possibility of the creation of unwanted or uncontrollable organisms, among other possible negative outcomes. This also feeds into the issue of environmental impact; genetically engineering a species in a manner that could affect its success in an environment could cause an irreversible imbalance in a biome.
GMO creation also provokes the issue of conflict with religious beliefs; this qualm is applicable both to the process of genetic modification and to the product. Certain religious groups are strictly against such genetic engineering practices, as they believe they conflict with God’s plan for creation and exhibit unforgivable arrogance on the part of humans. Others argue that the same higher power endowed humans with the intellectual capacity to innovate and engineer using all materials, including biomaterials, available to us. With regard to the products of genetic modifications, those with dietary restrictions due to religious or personal beliefs face unprecedented challenges in defining what is moral to consume. A particularly dilemmatic example of this is the use of porcine genes to enhance the flavor of tomatoes; those who wish to eat only halal or vegan, for example, are thereby thrust into uncharted territory. Our ignorance of the effects of GMOs extends also to health repercussions, as those with dietary restrictions due to allergies will face new questions pertaining to food safety.
The facts presented above indicate the extent of the pervasiveness of GMO products and their possible implications; I have not attempted to examine the ethics of genetic modification in this article. However, I do advocate for transparency regarding the presence of GMOs in food products in the United States. Laws mandating that companies inform consumers of the inclusion of GMOs in their food products were successfully passed at the state level only by Connecticut, Maine and Vermont; these laws were made null and void by the very recent Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, federal legislation that does not mandate labeling but makes it voluntary. Verification of claims that a food contains no GMOs or a negligible percentage (relative to an unstandardized threshold) is in the hands of independent groups. Unless a food is labeled as “organic” in the U.S., the presence of GMOs in the product is possible, affecting a broad range of unsuspecting consumers. A dual-action solution comprised of increased transparency on the part of companies and responsible, conscientious consumption on the part of the layman is an appropriate first step to place into focus the unchecked proliferation of GMOs.
Author’s note: Some of the information included in this article is presented in Autumn Fiester’s “Justifying a Presumption of Restraint in Animal Biotechnology Research,” an excellent source for those interested in delving further into the topic of bioethics.
Contact Alizeh Ahmad at alizeha ‘at’ stanford.edu.