Biased Information and Exaggeration of Dangers of GM Foods

Arguments over genetically modified (GM) foods often appears as a controversial topic in a discussion of the right and wrong of recent technologies. Those who are against the application of genetic engineering to food productions try to prove the existence of dangerous components in GM products with objective evidences, such as opinions of professionals, datas from reasonable experiments, and announcements by environmental activists. However, relying on these sources could be arbitrary in some cases; as a result, people’s attitude towards the new biotechnology would be strongly distorted by biased criticisms against GM foods: for example, professionals’ principles, overestimates of health risks, and choices of information sources with preference. Although opponents insist that their arguments is reasonable and fair, it is examined in this essay that they sometimes exaggerate the dangers of GM crops by treating the bases of their claim in a wrong way.

Opponents of the introduction of GM foods are based on some research results of scientists, which indicates that a GM crop has harmful effects on the physiology of mammals, and which implies that cultivating a GM breed interferes in regional ecosystems. However, most these studies include, more or less, sensational but unreliable aspects, just like Pusztai and Ewen (1999) and Losey et al. (1999). The former research conducted a controlled experiment with two groups of six rats; one of which are fed with conventional potatoes; another with a genetically modified one containing Lectin: a protein which attaches an insect resistance. The result shows the GM potato causes a disorder in rats’ bowels. Even though the research appeared in a famous medical journal in Britain, named the Lancet, it was turned out to be unreasonable in later inspection. On the other hand, the latter study measured an adverse effect of pollen from transgenic Bt maize to Monarch butterflies, larvae of which feed on milkweed growing around the maize. The study was also carried in a authoritative science journal, Science; nevertheless, it lacks validity in its experimental process. Both of these scientists might have had a individual belief that GM crops should be harmful to our health and ecological systems. Although these studies are recognized to be invalid among scientists, they have misguided the general public to unfairly negative images of transgenic crops because only their results was sensationally reported in the news media (Pense, p.139,264).

Opponents also insist that GM foods are still dangerous because they contain recombinant DNA (rDNA) and toxic compounds like cyanide included in transgenic flax. Firstly, all GM crop inevitably have rDNA; however, it is not considered as a material which can damage our health in any countries’ regulation. Secondly, most toxins in those crops are decomposed in processing and cooking, yet there is still a possibility of intaking them accidentally. In order to estimate such a risk, McHughen (p.109) calculate, as an example, an amount of cyanide in genetically modified flax CDC Triffid intaken annually per capita in Britain. The estimated amount is 5.7 microgram, which is clearly at an acceptable level as compared with an amount of cyanide in a cigarette: 138 microgram. More important, McHughen (p.112) continues that every food, whether it is genetically modified or not, contains slight amounts of poisonous substances from cyanide to arsenic; therefore, people’s attention should be payed not to whether foods has toxins, but to whether amounts of toxins in them are permissible. 

Finally, opponents refer to a large number of environmental activist groups that criticize giant biotechnology corporations which invent new transgenic animals and plants day after day, as well as the regulation authorities in their own country whose controls on GM products are not enough strict for the activists. Opponents say activists are much more trustworthy than greedy big companies trying to dominate a crop market with their GM products and also than corrupted regulation panels pursuing personal interests in collusion with a GM food industry. Even if so, depending only on activists for information about GM foods prevent people from fair judgement on the right and wrong of transgenic technology. According to McHughen (p.126), comparison of information sources on GM foods between  Britain and the United States provides with a useful suggestion for an interpretation of public attitude towards transgenic products in both countries. As a result of a public opinion poll, most British citizens trust information from anti-GM activists, while the U.S. citizens put the best trust in home doctors, followed by scientists in universities and governments; just 5% of them trust activists. This fact reflects a certain amount of Britain’s sensitiveness to GM foods in comparison with America’s indifference to them.

In conclusion, opponents’ arguments against genetically modified foods are proved to be invalid, and turned out to be exaggerated by arbitrary points of view. First of all, scientists whom opponents’ claim are based on have guided the general public to unfair views on GM foods. Even though their distorted researches include inexact experiments and lead unreasonable results, those results have corrected unnecessary attention through inappropriate reports. Valuing for data itself can also result in a misunderstanding of transgenic foods. Certainly, every GM crops contains rDNA and toxic compounds; nevertheless, these materials do not necessarily damage our health because some of them are not harmful, and, if so, amounts of them in GM foods are extraordinary small. Finally, biased choices of news sources may cause exaggeration of GM products. In order to maintain a fair and objective viewpoint, it is important to reject prejudice and keep a  distance from one-sided articles.

References

Losey, J. et al.. 1999. Transgenic Pollen Harms Monarch Larvae, Nature, 399:214.

McHughen, A.. 2000. A Consumer’s Guide to GM Food -from green genes to red herrings-. Oxford University Press.

Pence, G. E.. 2002. Designer Food: Mutant Harvest or Breadbasket of the World?. Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Pusztai, A. and Ewen, S. WB.. 1999. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine, the Lancet, 354:9187, p.1353-1354.