Technological Innovation in Genetic Modification and Health Consequences. 

Genetic Modified (GM) foods, such as produce and meat products, have been making their way onto the US market for the past few decades. Because of this gradual shift toward GM foods, consumers and scientists have raised questions about how safe it is to consume these products. According to a 2016 Pew Research Center, a data-driven social science research organization, study titled “The New Food Fights,” many consumers hold a negative view of GM foods as opposed to traditional ones. The study finds that  “39% [of Americans] say GM foods are worse for one’s health…[and] About one-in-six (16%) Americans…predominantly believe GM foods pose health risks;” despite this, there is “scientific consensus that GM foods are safe.” This discrepancy in opinion warrants a scientific understanding of the question: Do the benefits of GM in the US agricultural industry outweigh their consequences? This research report will provide scientific insight into this question by weighing both the plethora of GM technologies and the health effects on the human consumers of these products because the success of these increasingly seen innovations has a large impact on the US economy.

As GM foods have continued to overtake the market, the technologies responsible for them have improved in terms of safety. Nicholas Bate, crop science lead at Pairwise Plants, defines GMO technology, and other contributors define GMOs, one of the first widely used GM techniques to hit the market, as being a transgenic process that involves the transfer of DNA from a donor to a host’s genetic sequence (genome) (711). Although transgenic processes such as transgenesis have previously been successful, other experts have countered with claims that criticize the safety of transgenesis methods. The American Federation of Scientists (FAS), a nonprofit policy research and advocacy organization, disagrees with Bate about the safety of transgenic methods like transgenesis because of possible mistakes in the genetic transfer of DNA. Similarly, Dr. A.S. Bawa and K.R. Anilakumar, urologist and senior scientist at the Defence Research and Development Organization, respectively, emphasize such concerns over GMOs, citing a process known as insertional mutagenesis, which “can disrupt or change the expression of existing genes in a host plant,” resulting in the inactivation of mutation of some genes, demonstrating the risks associated with GMO mechanisms (1041). However, newer methods of GM, specifically genetic engineering (GE) methods tend to be safer than their GMO precursors. Bate explains that CRISPR/Cas9 methods are the “most widely applied GE system,” demonstrating its already valuable applications for US agriculture (7). Bate claims that GE’s utilization of genome editing techniques “sets them apart from mutagenesis and traditional transgenics where the processes are random” (7). Dr. Michael Eisenstein, gastroenterologist, agrees that CRISPR systems are advantageous, but offers some additional perspective on how practical CRISPR is, stating that “‘It’s efficient, but not precise…So that can lead to gene knockout easily, but not necessarily a lot of outcomes you wish to achieve’” (791). Because of CRISPR’s inability to perform practical outcomes like precise changes or optimization, Eisenstein poses a discussion of cytosine and adenine base editing, which uses a modified version of the Cas9 enzyme that is used in traditional CRISPR GE to achieve specific changes, rather than large scale ones, demonstrating the adaptability of CRISPR and its potential to reach maximum efficiency depending on the situation (790). Therefore, by avoiding the use of transgenesis and having versatile traits, the incorporation of GE foods that are produced by CRISPR technologies can have a positive impact on the market. 

Due to the controversy surrounding GM foods, there have been subsequent debates about how safe they are for human consumption. According to A.L. Van Eenennaam and A.E. Young, specialist in animal genomics at UC Davis and contributor to the Journal of Animal Science, respectively, animals such as livestock are often fed foods containing GE ingredients (3247). Consequently, “meat, milk, and eggs are produced by animals that consume feed containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients” (3247). Despite this, “DNA digestion is not affected by the DNA’s origin,” leading the FAO and USFDA to the conclusion that consumption does not demonstrate health concerns when humans consume foods of animals that are raised on GE diets (Van Eenennaam 3247-3248). Eisenstein extends this concept to when humans consume GE foods by explaining how one GE technique may have positive effects on human health. Eisenstein explains that “conventional CRISPR-Cas9 [was used] to domesticate a wild South American tomato by manipulating five genes linked to traits such as fruit, size, yield, and nutrient content,” allowing for the improvement of such traits (791). M.B. Wheeler, professor of biotechnology at the University of Illinois, expands on the possibility of nutritional benefits, claiming that the “production of lower fat, more nutritious animal products produced by transgenesis could enable improvements in public health,” which Wheeler accredits to higher yields and improved nutritional value. Bate agrees that there are potential health benefits. However, he highlights a different origin of said benefits: health-promoting metabolites, which have already been released in GABA tomatoes (715). S.Y. Yum, researcher of veterinary medicine at Seoul National University, and affiliates agree with the possibility of health benefits, but accredit this to enhanced proteins, explaining that it is possible to produce bio-pharmacological proteins. Dr. Bhanu P. Telugu, Dr. Ki‑Eun Park, and Dr. Chi‑Hun Park, professors of animal and biological sciences, further explore the health benefits in milk products. However, rather than improved protein, they find that the modification of milk includes the “production of hypoallergenic milk” (342). These different examples of GM foods’ potential health benefits from this array of professionals demonstrate the diverse manners in which GM can improve public health, as facilitated by the production and sales of these products in the US agriculture industry. 

Despite the large consensus on the presence of health benefits, Bawa raises concerns over potential health risks such as “toxins, allergens, or genetic hazards” (1040). Additionally, Bawa challenges that “foreign proteins that have never been in the human food chain will soon be consumed in large amounts,” meaning that GM products’ short time in the market introduces a level of uncertainty no matter how much consensus currently exists (1041). However, the FAS disagrees with how likely it is for an allergic reaction to occur, stating that it depends on many factors, including “the particular gene product, the food in which it appears, and the individuals who consume it;” therefore, allergens are not guaranteed to manifest. Sheldon Krimsky, fellow of a bioethics research institution, produces a similar sentiment that despite the lack of allergic reactions in humans, adverse immune effects are possible based on a study conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization, where the consumption of a genetically modified pea by mice resulted in adverse immune effects rather than the anticipated allergic reaction (890). Despite these risks, which are unlikely to manifest,  the great potential for GM products’ ability to broadly improve public health should not be ignored because of their possible implications for the US agriculture industry.

After examining some of the most commonly known GM technologies and the human health effects of consuming foods that have been altered by said innovations, it is clear that there is a wide range of ways that such technology can be applied to improve the US agriculture industry. Because of the general scientific consensus of GM foods’ safety and the many opportunities to enhance the health benefits of foods, steps should be taken to optimize these technologies’ efficiency so that the adverse immune and allergenic effects can be limited. If these measures to ensure high efficiency and health safety are secured, then it is possible to declare that the benefits of using such technology outweigh their harms when placed in this scientific context.