Human Health Benefits of Genetically Engineered Food

As examples of the benefits food biotechnology can bring to consumers, they cite:

• Tomatoes with increased levels of the antioxidant lycopene, thought to reduce the risk of cancer
• Genetically enhanced soybeans that are lower in saturated fats
• Cooking oils that have a more healthful fat content
• Peanuts and rice with improved protein content
• Fruits that are genetically engineered to produce vaccines for diseases
• Potatoes with a higher starch content, thereby reducing the amount of oil absorbed during production of french fries and potato chips
• Plants with reduced levels of natural toxins
• Fruits and vegetables fortified with higher levels of vitamins such as C and E

Proponents agree that allergenicity is a key issue in food biotechnology. They see food biotechnology as being able to help people with food allergies by minimizing or eliminating proteins in foods that cause allergic reactions. They point to a low-allergen form of rice developed in Japan as an example of how biotechnology can minimize the effects of food allergies.

Proponents cite the same example of the discovery that the brazil nut gene inserted into soybeans would cause an allergic reaction in some people as evidence that the system is working. Testing revealed the product was unsafe, so it was discontinued. While opponents of the technology criticize government actions concerning regulation, supporters feel the government is setting stringent food safety standards. Consumers can be confident that GE foods are safe and properly labeled so that those with allergies can avoid eating foods that will cause allergic reactions.

Countering opponents’ claims of lack of research into the safety of these products, advocates cite years of research indicating that the benefits of agricultural biotechnology far outweigh any risks. Proponents claim that the scientific consensus is that risks associated with food-biotechnology products are the same as for other foods. They point to years of research and the absence of harmful evidence as indicators that biotech foods are safe. As for the L-tryptophan case, it is now thought that the problems came not fromthe genetically modified bacteria, but rather fromimpurities in the growth medium.

Those in favor of food biotechnology consider the research by Dr. Arpad Pusztai with GE potatoes to be flawed, poorly designed, and incapable of leading to meaningful conclusions. Supporters state that the chances of unintentionally transferring a naturally occurring toxin or other dangerous substance are greater with conventional plant breeding than with genetic engineering. They claim that modern biotechnology methods that target a single gene are more precise and predictable than traditional breeding techniques that transfer hundreds of genes.