Chapter 4

In my research I came across an article titled “GM Crops and Food: What do consumers want to know?” written by Alan McHughen. The author is an academic molecular geneticist at the University of California. He earned his doctorate at Oxford University and has previously worked at Yale University and the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. In addition to his academic experience he also served on the US National Academy of Sciences panels investigating the environmental effects of transgenic plants, the health effects of genetically modified foods, and helped review the sustainability and economic impacts of biotechnology on United States agriculture. 
 

Alan McHughen

This article addresses many questions and concerns the public has concerning genetically modified foods. One of the most popular questions he receives is, are GM foods as safe as the foods we were ingesting before the introduction of GMOs? In response McHughen states “Scientifically, we know that the process of rDNA does not inherently or invariably result in the production of unexpected or unintended products. Therefore, it is valid to conclude that the process of rDNA is at least as safe as other technologies used to breed crops or develop pharmaceuticals.” So essentially no studies have shown adverse side effects that come from GMOs that are any different than ones we would see from eating organic, or plants that have not been genetically engineered. The author also discusses how pharmaceutical companies have been using genetic engineering for decades and yet their safety has gone relatively unopposed.

McHughen also address the lack of long term effect studies done on humans. Stating that it would be nearly scientifically impossible to conduct such a study. In no way can we feed a human throughout their life only certain GM foods and know that any adverse side effects were a direct cause from the genetic engineering rather than some other factor. He also discusses and refutes many studies that have shown negative effects of GMOs. Many of the studies being scientifically inaccurate or lacking in concrete evidence. He brings up most of the benefits of using genetically modified crops, including the unintended benefit of increased crop yield.

The conclusion of this article is very strong. It accurately displays McHughen’s motives when writing the article. I’m going to post the conclusion here to reinforce his ideas of where the public should get their information regarding GMOs:

“Clearly, consumers raise many diverse questions about GMOs, which is not particularly surprising considering they are a diverse group of humans with varied interests and priorities. But when it comes to questions on safety, especially food safety, public scientists—especially academic scientists–are the appropriate expert source to provide balanced, unbiased information and, if necessary, referral. Not as advocates, but as educators seeking to help an often confused public learn more about agriculture and food, and especially how food is produced. Consumers do have a right to know their food is safe, but with so much misinformation so readily available, consumers are often denied access to the information they seek. Scientific experts need to share their knowledge to enable a more informed populace and a healthier society.”

This article is a good example of accurate, reliable, and unbiased information readily available to the public. Below I will post the link to the online version of the article. Please take a look at it to get a better understanding of the other points the author makes. 

Article:

https://www.landesbioscience.com/article/26532/full_text/#load/info/all