Introduction
Genetically modified crops are no longer considered a fanciful notion existing in the realm of science fiction but are currently being utilized as a means to grow edible agricultural products (Green, 1999). It is only a matter of time until technology develops to such an extent that it will be utilized as a method of feeding the growing population of humanity.
The inherent problem with this concept is that there have been no viable studies that have effectively documented the long term effects of eating genetically engineered crops. The concept of “Franken-foods,” referring to all genetically modified food, is not limited to crops alone but also includes livestock as well. There are already various studies being conducted to research viable methods of making cows grow bigger, faster and have a much shorter gestation time.
This is not limited to cows alone but extends to pigs, sheep, and poultry, the justification for the development of genetically modified food is based on the need to feed an ever growing population which the current methods of food production cannot sustain in the long run. It must be noted that nowhere in human history have humans consumed genetically modified foods to such an extent that it would comprise nearly the entirety of the food pyramid.
As such, there is no telling exactly what might happen as a result of the consumption of such products (Green, 1999). The concept though of genetically modified food has not caught on with consumer markets due to their supposed “unnatural” origins which as a result have hampered their commercial development and sale.
Allergenicity
The term allergenicity refers to the potential for certain types of genetically modified food to cause allergies in the human body (Goodman et al., 2005). It must be noted that currently, humanity is still in the beginning stages of the science of genetic engineering, as such the potential results for genetically modifying certain types of food crops are still unknown (Goodman et al., 2005).
Allergen studies conducted to test the allergenicity factor of genetically modified food crops have shown that there are no current strains of the genetically modified crop have the potential to cause allergies in humans. Unfortunately, these were conducted in 2005, and since it is already 2011, this has given geneticists ample time to develop new strains of disease-resistant crops which do have the potential to cause allergies.
One prime example is the case of a genetically modified soybean strain that was found to cause an allergic reaction in humans due to genetic material from the Brazil nut being introduced into the soybean’s genetic makeup. This was done to improve the nutritional quality of the soybean for consumption however the genetic material introduced caused increased production of the amino acid methionine which is significant concentrations is linked to the Brazil nut allergy that a percentage of the population possesses.
If such a genetically modified product had entered the general market for human consumption, the possible effects would have been disastrous. Another example of a genetically modified crop that caused allergic reactions was a strain of pest-resistant field pea that was introduced for testing in small areas in Australia.
The crop was not just resistant to normal pests but it even caused an allergic reaction in mice that were fed the fully grown peas. It turns out that certain protein structures added to the genetic makeup of the pea itself modified the overall genetic structure of the pea to such an extent that it caused an unknown allergic reaction to take place.
Franken-meat
The concept of Franken- meat stems from the concept of genetically engineering lab-grown meat to replace the current method of cultivating livestock (Lee, 2010). While there have been no successful studies thus far which have produced viable genetically modified meat with the same consistency as current meat products.
The inherent problem though with such a concept is the fact that no one knows exactly what continuously consuming lab-grown meat will do the human body (Lee, 2010). It has already been shown that the ingestion of various types of hormones such as testosterone and estrogen can change certain aspects of the human body at the genetic level.
As such the consumption of genetically modified meat may have the same risks and cause undue harm to people. Why the Consumption of Genetically Modified Foods will become a Definite Possibility? What must be taken into consideration is the fact that the Earth has a finite amount of land resources available.
At the current rate of population growth, the human population will reach an estimated 12 or 13 billion by 2025 and will keep on increasing exponentially after that. As such the need will arise to effectively and efficiently provide enough food for a continuously growing population.
The use of genetically engineered food might be the only way to do so despite the apparent risks in eating products that may cause allergies or change the body’s genetic chemistry. Based on this there are two possible outcomes that can be carried out, either the population of humanity stabilizes at an appropriate number to prevent the overutilization of resources or science improves to meet the demands of a growing population.
In all likelihood, it is doubtful that the population will cease growing and as a result, there needs to be a set ethical framework by which the development of genetically modified foods must be set to. The reasoning for this is rather simple, if a set moral and ethical base is not established during the development phase of this new technology there is no telling what possible horrors geneticists may unleash onto the world that can never be undone.
References
Goodman, R and others. (2005). Assessing Genetically Modified Crops to Minimize the Risk of Increased Food Allergy A Review. International Archives of Allergy & Immunology, 137(2), 153-166.
Green, E. (1999). The spud America didn’t like. New Statesman, 128(4425), 18.
Lee, M. (2010). Lab grown meat: A low-fat, low-carbon, cruelty-free future. Ecologist, 40(11), 6.