AIDS Research Must Link to Local Policy

Alec Moore



D. Farrell- File/AP

South Africa has been a nation riddled with turmoil on many fronts, whether it is the racially charged apartheid faced for decades or, in the case of this article, the ongoing battle with the HIV epidemic. Despite its stature as a “scientific powerhouse” and an increasingly developing political and economic system, South Africa still houses 17% of the entire AIDS ridden population. With one in every ten South Africans being struck with the disease, it seems that AIDS research has reached a plateau, mostly due to the lack of funding experienced globally. Authors Salim and Quarraisha Abdool Karim argue that the problem does not lie in scientific ability or power, rather the problem stems from a lack of local research financing. Without the proper funding from the national government and local sources, the AIDS research community in South Africa is being forced to depend on international finance and global donors, a source that is not always sustainable. Others argue that current AIDS spending is wasteful and could be better resourced elsewhere in health care budgets globally. Roger England, author of the article “Are we spending too much on HIV?” argues that far too much money is being spent on HIV research. The AIDS epidemic is a global crisis that affects all people around the world. In South Africa specifically, in order to combat South Africa’s rapidly expanding problem of HIV, the authors of “AIDS Research Must Link to Local Policy” argue that South African government increased funding and more AIDS research are the necessary steps to end this life-threatening disease. Both authors agree that HIV/AIDS is a major epidemic and needs to be conquered; however, the authors disagree on the importance and overall impact of funding AIDS research, causing a heated debate.

When speaking at the 13th international AIDS conference in Durban, South Africa, nearly ten years ago, Nelson Mandela called for action, “we must mobilize all of our resources and alliances…until this war is won.” This however, has not been the course that the South African government has followed. The authors argue that due to this increased dependence on international funding, South African scientists have been forced to shift their focus from the local tragedies to the overall problems faced on a global scale-putting a halt to the local troubles.

Opposition to this mindset of increased spending is found across the globe. Author of the article “Are we spending too much on HIV?” Roger England claims that much of the budget allotted for AIDS research is misspent for the profits of the few, imposing the question of the existence of a corrupt system. England believes that much of the money currently “wasted” in AIDS research could be allocated to other pressing causes. Such examples include prenatal illnesses and ischemic heart disease-diseases that cause more deaths in low to middle class countries than HIV. One can see the validity in England’s claims about using AIDS funding through different channels. However, one can also dispute his claims on the corruption of AIDS spending, as he lacks essential reasons behind this accusatory assertion.

The authors of “AIDS Research Must Link to Local Policy” are valiant supporters of the progression of AIDS research, and believe that the primary impediment of further progress comes from within. That is, in order to achieve more headway in the field, the country must be united for the cause. This includes everyone from state officials to the local farmer, everyone must be involved. Through more research, it has been discovered that certain “AIDS denialists” in the South African government have caused even more trouble for the progression of AIDS research. Chiefly, the theory of AIDS denialism has reached members of President Thabo Mbeki’s administration, causing a reluctance to expand funding and the distribution of antiretroviral drugs. Such ignorance and simply blatant stupidity has caused the deaths of many AIDS patients around the world. “AIDS alternatives” found on websites such as www.aliveandwell.org are one of the main causes of the research standstill and can be accredited to the reason many people afflicted with the disease are still dying without receiving the proper treatment. These alternatives are backed by Roberto Giraldo, a New York hospital technologist who served on President Mbeki’s advisory council in 2000. Mr. Giraldo is convinced that the HIV infection can be treated through a change in diet and that AIDS is caused by deficiencies in a person’s diet.

For reasons just as this, the South African HIV epidemic is still going strong, affecting a population of people plagued with the ignorant ideals of the few. For the people of South Africa’s sake, I hope that this putrid opposition to AIDS research and antiretroviral drugs is toppled. I believe, as do Salim and Quarraisha Abdool Karim, that the nation of South Africa needs to put global impact on the backburner, and home in on the local problems faced by its own population. Once South Africa has its own HIV epidemic under control, then by all means become everyone else’s hero. But for now, increase funding for your scientists, having them focus on the very issues that affect YOUR population. Your people will thank you in the long run.

Citations:
“AIDS Research Must Link to Local Policy” Salim Abdool Karim, Quarraisha Abdool Karim; Nature (11 February 2010)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/full/463733a.html

“Are We Spending Too Much on HIV?” Roger England; BMJ 2007
http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7589/344.full

Putting your fetus to the test

Should pregnant women undergo biomedical research? Ethical guidelines say yes, but personal ethics often say no. Researchers must consider the hazards of both their inclusion and exclusion. Clinical trials pose risks to woman and unborn child, but research leads to the establishment of treatments that can help alleviate the illnesses affecting them. Because fetal development faces potential harm, minimized risk clinical trials should only include pregnant women with preexisting conditions.

Francoise Baylis of Nature Magazine feels that pregnant women’s involvement in biomedical research is a necessity, and their exclusion is both unethical and unscientific. While she acknowledges that researchers must take extra safety precautions when studying pregnant women, she ignorantly dismisses the possible fetal damage that could result from their inclusion. In Baylis’ opinion, trial organizers should convince pregnant women that these trials are safer than taking prescribed medication, luring them into participating. However, her claims about said trial safety are weak; and she uses terms such as “often” and “generally” that demonstrate her inability to completely support her opinion. Baylis raises an issue that needs addressing, but ignores some key information when developing an appropriate solution.

Clinical trials do prove themselves beneficial. They offer information that researchers can utilize to develop safe and effective treatments. When pregnant women are excluded from these trials, their access to much-deserved treatments is destroyed. This is because they do not have the same drug reactions that non-pregnant women have, and therefore require specific medical aid research (“The Second Wave: Towards the Responsible Inclusion of Pregnant Women in Medical Research”). Doctors are currently unable to recommend evidence-based treatments and must instead rely on partial information and guesstimates when developing treatments (Baylis). Biomedical research eliminates fragmented-data dependence by providing doctors with the necessary information to make educated recommendations.

Unfortunately, the women and unborn children partaking in such research cannot have their safety guaranteed. The unforeseen dangers of untested medications are just that, unforeseen; doctors cannot fully predict the way the treatment will affect trial participants. Nearly a quarter of all clinical trials receive no federal oversight. Even some FDA-approved trials fail to follow guidelines and are full of deficiencies (Lemonick and Goldstein). Dangers like these make biomedical research seem like a pretty risky gamble with your own life, and an insane chance to take with both yourself and your offspring.

Pregnant women have much more at stake than regular participants, creating a warranted hesitation to volunteer. It isn’t even the mother who is being studied and subjected to exposures, but rather the fetus; and while pregnant women can freely give their consent to being guinea pigs, the children they are carrying cannot (Brody). Few women are willing to make this decision for their unborn children and subject them to research that could turn out developmentally detrimental. So, although no laws actively prevent pregnant women from participating in clinical trials, they aren’t exactly lining up to offer their bodies and their children to science.

Some expecting mothers make better candidates for research participants than others. There are rare cases where taking a pregnant woman off of medication that she is already taking would be worse for the baby than the drugs are. Women with diabetes and depression are prime examples of this need for treatment continuation (Smith). In these cases, doctors would continue to administer the woman’s current medications as long as there were no known lethal fetal effects. In the case of a drug being known to harm unborn children, the mother may have to switch medications, but still remain under the same type of treatment she was already being given. This allows women to receive the drugs they need, babies to develop properly, and doctors to conduct research. The researchers can then monitor the medications’ effects without subjecting both mother and fetus to new, potentially harmful, and frequently unnecessary treatments.


Image: Oregon Health and Science University http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/health/services/women/clinical-trials/images/midwifery-research.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/health/services/women/clinical-trials/current-clinical-trials.cfm&usg=__uhbxqD-WYgfcKTxgcle0wUTL8Zk=&h=250&w=544&sz=48&hl=en&start=106&zoom=1&tbnid=XOELalekcZlwtM:&tbnh=60&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpregnant%2Bwomen%2Bclinical%2Btrials%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D975%26bih%3D598%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C3507&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=493&ei=dyaiTPjbAoT78Aai-L2DBA&oei=aSaiTNLgM8T58Aacq731Aw&esq=8&page=8&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:106&tx=40&ty=20&biw=975&bih=598

Sources:
Baylis, Francoise. “Pregnant women deserve better”. Nature Magazine. 9 June 2010. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7299/full/465689a.html

Brody, Baruch A. “The ethics of biomedical research: an international perspective”. Oxford University Press. 1998. http://books.google.com/books?id=merfunmvv_oc&pg=pa101&lpg=pa101&dq=risks+of+biomedical+research+on+fetuses&source=bl&ots=cmkthbuybq&sig=dz5p3uei6kiw7iezktyq6mcep28&hl=en&ei=csoatjwad4oclae_omhjcq&sa=x&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0cdkq6aewbw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Lemonick, Michael and Goldstein, Andrew. “Human Guinea Pigs”. TIME Magazine. 14 April 2002. http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020422/story.html

“The Second Wave: Towards the Responsible Inclusion of Pregnant Women in Medical Research”. Johns Hopkins University

http://www.bioethicsinstitute.org/web/page/901/sectionid/379/pagelevel/2/interior.asp

Smith, Stephanie. “Should pregnant women be medical test subjects?”. CNN Health. 17 June 2010.

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/17/should-pregnant-women-be-medical-test-subjects

To teach or to research – the balancing act of all universities - Zeeshan Haque.

As college students today, whether you are entering freshmen or seniors, I am sure that you can quickly distinguish certain characteristics that universities may have. Some universities tend to take an active and engaging role in student learning. Some universities are more researched-based compared to others. Regardless of differences in a particular university, all universities recognize the importance found in teaching. Universities value the practice of teaching just as much as its own research objectives and projects. That said; being a college student today, I feel, unlike the Nature article “Education ambivalence”, University and college-level institutions place the same level of emphasis and importance in teaching practices compared to research initiatives - through teacher interactive assignments and tenure requirements. The Nature article holds the argument that universities put its own research and inquiry over teaching practices to students; however, the ideas of interactive professor assignments and university differences prove otherwise.

If you look at the teaching assignments implemented at certain colleges, there is significant evidence that universities are placing the same level of emphasis on student learning compared to the actual research done. In recent article (2003) in the National Academics Press publication group, new teaching initiatives, launched by a committee of college professors and teachers alike, aimed to help foster a better learning experience for undergraduate students in the biological sciences field from all over the country. The initiatives included providing more hands-on research projects for students, an increase in the amount of laboratory teaching conducted, and the continued encouraging of student presentational work based on past, student-led experiments conducted (2003). In addition, this project emphasized the ability of undergraduate students to learn from their own research. A quote made by James M. Gentile, president of Research Corporation for Science Advancement, in Academic Excellence (2000) sums up the reasoning behind undergraduate research, “Undergraduate research is not only the essential component of good teaching and effective learning, but also that research with undergraduate students is in itself the purest form of teaching.” What is more noteworthy about this particular national effort is it dealt with university teaching practices in the biological sciences, where the notion of professors being focused on personal, rather than student, research/learning, tends to exist stronger. However, as this recent article shows, even teachers in university biological sciences are genuinely interested in the learning experience of their students as well, by providing a variety of teaching assignments and projects.

Related to this idea of interactive teaching showing university attitude is the practice of graduate students engaging in teaching opportunities for students (CBE – Life Sciences Education 2006). Graduate students, just like university professors, are often busy with conducting their own research objectives, giving such students a reason to focus solely on their own work. However, they often end up teaching large-enrollment courses at universities. Graduate students teaching today are also participating in many teaching-development workshops designed to help hone teaching skill sets needed to provide undergraduate students with meaningful learning experiences (2006).

By looking at the interactive teaching methods university professors use, and the level of involvement of graduate students in undergraduate teaching, there is already strong piece of evidence that universities value teaching to the same degree as research. These interactive teaching methods show that universities, and the professors themselves, take the time and effort to help bring about the best learning experience for students, and more importantly, these same professors are not solely concerned with just personal research. The second piece of evidence that shows universities are just as concerned with teaching as research deals with the university type.

The idea of university differences deals with two overall concepts – the differences amongst different universities and an error in reasoning found in the Nature article discussed, the differences amongst universities and colleges is based on the idea that different types of universities tend to focus on different areas of interest. Liberal arts schools, such as UNC, tend to hold teaching standards and education curriculum at a high level of importance. On the other hand, though, there is also, what are called research universities. Research universities primarily devote its efforts towards the advancing of research efforts and projects. A local example of such a university would be N.C. State University. Now, with the distinction established between liberal arts and research universities, the second aspect of this evidence is regarding the reasoning found in the Nature article, “Education Ambivalence.” In this particular Nature article speaks to the audience as if research universities are all encompassing of all universities. The article does not make an effort to show that the differences in an institution, such liberal arts or research universities, influences the level of teaching and research done at a particular school. An example of this in the Nature article is in the discussion regarding a survey conducted by Nature Education, Nature Publishing Group’s educational division. The survey conducted was with 450 university-level science facility, from more than 30 countries, asking about the quality of undergraduate education in their opinion (2010). The results, as expected, showed a strong opinion towards science undergraduate education providing low levels of teaching and instruction. However, the solution proposed is intended towards all universities and colleges in general, not just scientific universities and colleges in particular (2010). Here is where the error in Nature’s reasons lies. Nature, in this instance, assumes that all universities and colleges take the form of scientific-research based institutions, and forgets the presence of liberal arts in today’s academic climate. Nature should have made a distinguishing division between liberal arts and research institutions before setting out to make a solution that dealt with all universities. This assumption flaws Nature’s argument made, because now it seems unclear as to whether the article was specifically dealing with research universities in particular.

The two, main pieces of evidence regarding professor teaching practices and differences amongst university types supports the notion that universities place an equal level of emphasis on teaching and research. Professor teaching practices show the level of dedication and commitment given to students, helping to bring about the most efficient and productive learning experience possible. The differences amongst university types helps to explain why it appears some colleges tend to focus on either teaching quality, or research opportunities. Integrating these two aspects not only explains the characteristics of a particular school, but moreover, show that universities and colleges hold teaching and researching to the same degree of importance.

Works Cited

1. “Education Ambivalence.” Nature. 03 June 2010. Pages: 525–526. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7298/full/465525b.html

2. “Approaches to Biology teaching and learning: On integrating pedagogical training into the graduate experiences of future science faculty.” CBE – Life Sciences Education. Spring 2006. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635132/pdf/0001.pdf

3. Personal author, compiler, or editor name(s); click on any author to run a new search on that name.Doyle, Michael P. “Academic Excellence: The Role of Research in the Physical Sciences at Undergraduate Institutions.” Publisher name and contact information, as provided by the publisher; updated only if notified by the publisher.Research Corporation. 2000. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED477576&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED477576

4. National Research Council (US) Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century. “Bio2010 - Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists.” National Academies Press (US). (2003). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=nap10497

Egg Donations-Ethical Or Not?

7.4 percent of married women between the ages of 15 and 44 are completely infertile. Another 11.8 percent of women aged 15 to 44 in the United States have an impaired ability to have children. Nearly 1 out of every 5 women in this age group who live in the United States have trouble or are completely unable to bear a child (CDC Faststats). However advances in modern biotechnology have opened many windows for these women. An example of advancement in technology can be found in the in vitro fertilization process, where sperm and egg are joined in a test tube for a higher chance of fertilization. But this process can cause serious health problems in the newborn child, such as premature births and a higher rate of chronic diseases such as Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome (Hidden Dangers of In Vitro Fertilization). Do these women have other, safer options to have a healthy baby? Surely if scientists can genetically alter animals and get close to cloning a human being they can certainly help these mothers who wish to have a baby, right?

An article published by Nature in August of 2009 explains the fact that manipulating or transplanting the DNA of an egg that may be defective with the DNA of a different “healthy” egg may create the a higher possibility of having a healthy baby. However, the questionable ethics of this type of procedure make implementation and further research difficult to accomplish. The Nature article first addresses the fact that in order to accomplish this type of egg manipulation, embryos would have to be created just for the "sake of research and science." This has been an issue for many years as it pertains to the “sanctity of life” of the embryo. However, the author attacks this claim by saying that embryos have been created for research that is funded by non-governmental agencies and that many embryos are "destroyed in commercial fertility clinics." Also the author explains that because paying to receive eggs for research is illegal because of coercion laws in every state except New York, many women just go to the fertility clinics where they can receive thousands of dollars for donating eggs. The author of this article argues that being compensated to donate eggs to research for this type of procedure would eventually lead to more ethical clinical techniques. This author concludes that egg manipulation should be allowed and researched so that more couples have the chance to have a healthy baby. This process, however, is dependent upon egg donations (Nature 460). The Nature article argues many scientific and legal ethical questions about egg manipulation and the associated research, but fails to acknowledge the social and economic ethical aspects of egg donation, an essential component of this procedure, which could cause larger scale issues in society than the inability to bear children by a small minority of women.

By first examining the economic ethical nature of egg donation one can gain significant insight into some of the ethical problems of the procedure. In basic economics, there are three basic players: the supplier, the consumer, and the regulator. In the case of egg donation, the supplier is the donor, the consumer is the clinic or whoever receives the eggs, and the regulating branch is the government. However, this regulatory body is absent from the donation process in the United States. In the United States, egg donation is not regulated by the government like it is in Canada or Western Europe where egg donation must be “voluntary and free of monetary compensation” (Amplify). In the United States, however, fertility clinics advertise and pay their suppliers ridiculous amounts of money to undergo a dangerous procedure that may end in hyper-stimulation ,hospitalization, and in some cases, more severe consequences( Amplify). Also, because the prices have no maximum limit, the clinics are able to use higher compensation amounts to “tempt donors to downplay the risks” (The High Cost of Eggs). For a compensation comparison, sperm donations receive on average about 25$ in the United States, and egg donations can receive anywhere from $2,500-$5,000 or above (Roth). It is the lack of regulation in the extremely high prices that has caused many more girls to become interested in this dangerous process.

The high compensation amounts can attract many females to embark on the egg donation journey, but strategically placed advertisements allow the clinics to focus on a target supplier. In many cases this target supplier is college, or college-aged, females. Not only are college aged females in the “ripest form” for egg donation, but they are also extremely vulnerable as they may be victim to tuition debt or other money shortages. Many of these girls do not have high-paying jobs or a consistent supply of income and are in the need for a few extra dollars. The fertility clinics are essentially able to “[induce] poor women to accept the risks of donation just to escape debt” with their high compensation rates and as a result, the clinics have ample people willing to donate for a little bit of quick cash. This exploitation of the poorer young women of society is not only flirting with the ethical lines on an economic sense but also could cause major other social problems down the road (Roth).

As fertility clinics try to take advantage of people in dire need for money, they could also run into some serious social and economic ethical problems. The proven irresistibility of money in today’s society combined with the large rewards from the clinics provides an incentive for anyone to donate eggs, but those in desperate need for money are more likely to donate. But because of the lack of regulation in the United States nothing is keeping females with genetic defects of disease from donating their eggs to the clinics to pick up some additional financial benefits. The fact that a hopeful parent could receive an egg that contains a genetic defect or disease from a fertility clinic that could affect the potential child is a scary thought. It also is not fair to the parents or the potential child that the fertility clinic is after more money instead of protecting against the dangers of “lesser quality” eggs. It is almost as though the fertility clinics are cheating the potential parents and the child. Nothing about this issue is ethically right in the economic or social sense (Roth).

The idea of “lesser quality” eggs in terms of eggs that carry disease or genetic defect is a big issue dealing especially with ethics socially. No family looking to have a baby wants to acknowledge the possibility of having an unhealthy child, but with egg donations taking place unregulated, the chance of receiving an unhealthy egg may escalate. But the quality of eggs could also potentially go far beyond the idea of health issues. The quality of the egg could also theoretically be interpreted to include the pedigree of the donor. It has been recorded that students at the University of Oregon have received $4,000 for donating eggs, whereas students at Cornell have received on the upward ends of $10,000 for donating (Amplify). What makes the eggs $6,000 different- the difference in a public school and a private Ivy League school? Egg brokers often “offer tens of thousands of dollars to women with the right pedigree of looks, SAT scores and special talents” (The High Cost of Eggs). These females’ eggs are the most demanded by women looking for help to have a child. This raises the question, is it right that the richest people are able to essentially purchase the best chance at having a smart, beautiful, and talented child? This will promote the fertility clinics targeting the “best” females in terms of the highest test scores, best looks, athletic ability, musical ability and many more categories. Parents will essentially be able to customize the genes of their child in order to give themselves the best chances of having the perfect baby. This crosses the ethical lines on so many levels as it could essentially lead to what some people consider “playing God.”

In addition to targeting females for their test scores, intelligence, looks, and abilities, race and issues of ethnicity can also play a huge role. If parents can pick and choose desired characteristics based on test scores, eye color, height, athletic ability, and many more similar factors of the egg donor, what is to stop the parents from choosing or excluding specific races or ethnicities? One egg donation advertisement called for “Young Filipino women with a GPA of 3.5 and above.” If egg donation clinics can demand specific racial characteristics of egg donors, the clinics can define certain races as more desirable, or superior, to others. This is essentially opening the door to a medium for discrete, or maybe not so discrete, racial discrimination (Amplify).

The idea of giving every couple faced with the dilemma of not having a baby or having a baby by other means than traditional conception an opportunity to have a healthy baby is a very optimistic, yet extremely humane and happy thought. It is something that societies around the world should shoot forward in the future. As the Nature article explains we are close scientifically, however it is the ethics that present a huge problem. Nowadays with the lack of regulation and rules, fertility clinics are able to pay as much as they want, target who they want, pay more for “better eggs,” and many other things that allow parents to essentially customize a perfect child and the clinics to abuse the suppliers. This is where the ethical line has to be fixed if this egg manipulation process is to be pursued in the future. The author of “The ethics of Egg Donation” states: “When we scrutinize egg sources, we tread a fine edge between ensuring healthy babies and pursuing eugenics?” which is a very accurate description of what could be happening now with ethical issues in the field of egg donation and the egg manipulation research (Amplify). The socioeconomic ethics of this issue nowadays are what make it something that needs to be saved for the future. Besides, there are alternatives for the time being for the people unable to conceive a child, such as adoption. Adoption provides a perfectly legitimate alternative to having a baby for those incapable and provides further reason to delay the implementation of egg donation and manipulation until the ethical problems have been sorted out.

Works Cited
"Donors at Risk: The High Cost of Eggs - US News and World Report." Health News Articles - US News Health. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/030113/13donor.b.htm.

The Ethics of Egg Donation." Amplify. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2010.
http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/Leah627/2009/5/18/The-Ethics-of-Egg-Donation.

"The Ethics of Egg Manipulation : Article : Nature." Nature Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7259/full/4601057a.htm.

"FASTSTATS - Infertility." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2010.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/fertile.htm.

Mattes, Bradley. "The Hidden Dangers of In Vitro Fertilization." Christian Life Resources :: Clearly Caring! N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2010.
http://www.christianliferesources.com/?library/view.php&articleid=1204.

Roth, Rebecca. "Egg Donations." Serendip's Exchange. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. .
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web2/roth.html.

Image from: http://www.photoshopnerds.com/images/egg_14.jpg

Dangerous Foods Coming to a Store Near You

By: Erin Wallace

Today, about 70-75 percent of the processed foods that supermarkets such as Wal-Mart sell contain genetically altered ingredients. Even 45 percent of corn and 85 percent of soybeans undergo genetic modifications to grow faster and yield more product. However, genetics remains a fairly unknown territory intriguing scientists around the world; therefore, crops and animals carrying genetically altered traits to make them grow faster and larger could bear health consequences, such as producing stronger or more allergens, producing new allergens, toxicity risk increases, antibiotic resistance, and dangerous growth hormone effects, for consumer like us (“Genetically Engineered Food”).

Genetically modified foods, such as sugar cane, sweet peppers, tomatoes, pineapples, strawberries, and potatoes (“Genetically Modified Food- GM Foods List and Information”), and even drinks like soda may be tasty but they have dire consequences such as stronger allergies. For example, soy allergies increased 50% in the U.K. just after genetically modified soy was introduced (“Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe? Evidence that Links GM Foods to Allergic Responses Mounts”). This may be because the genetically modified alteration could have increased natural allergens in soybeans. One type of allergen in soybeans called trypsin inhibitor was 27% higher than organic soybeans. However, when this mutant vegetable was cooked, the allergen grew sevenfold. This high amount could be harmful, even deadly!

Genetically altered foods could even make entirely new allergens. As seen in the UK, altered soy DNA had numerous unpredicted changes that can lead to stronger and stronger allergens. Have you ever had an allergic reaction? Swelling, rashes, burning, and itchy skin are some of the numerous common effects of allergic reactions. And that’s just for skin! Nausea, headaches, and exhaustion are even more examples of allergy problems many people have experienced. If an allergen became stronger then these reactions could become twice as intense. However, if we can avoid these miserable consequences by simply not creating genetically modified foods, shouldn’t we stop these foods from being distributed before the health of children, college students, and people everywhere is threatened?

Toxins are also a major problem in genetically modified foods. Sheep that grazed on altered cotton plants in India showed multiple signs of poisoning, such as mouth sores, cough, and bloat (“Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe? Evidence that Links GM Foods to Allergic Responses Mounts“). Shepherds reported that a quarter of their herds died in five to seven days. Also, many chickens, pigs, and cows that ate from the same types of cotton plants had devastating consequences like sterility and death. A study about animals eating altered soy indicated that the animals had “toxic livers, altered sperm cells, significant changes in embryo development, and a fivefold increase in infant mortality” (“Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe? Evidence that Links GM Foods to Allergic Responses Mounts“). Scientists did not foresee these dangerous effects. With so many unpredicted and deadly responses for animals that eat genetically altered soy and cotton, one can only wonder about the long-term effects these crops could have on our bodies and our future. However, the consumption of these transformed crops defiantly satisfies the markets and the new illnesses created will satisfy the pharmacies. So technically everybody wins. Except of course…you.

Many genetically engineered crops contain antibiotic resistance marker genes. Scientists put these genes into plants so that they can tell if the plant has been successfully modified and now possesses all the desired traits. However, these antibiotic resistance marker genes do not digest. So, after we eat an altered apple, the marker genes remain undigested; therefore preserving the food’s DNA which can then be transferred to bacteria that live in our stomachs. These bacteria could then become resistant to many antibiotic drugs that so many men, women, and children rely on so heavily. The genetic markers used in genetically modified crops include ß-lactam antibiotics, gentamycin B, neomycin, amikacin, streptomycin, and spectinomycin (“Antibiotic Resistance Genes in GM Foods”). ß-lactam and amikacin antibiotics can treat infections in hospitals, gentamycin treats very serious illnesses such as meningitis, and neomycin is used in veterinary medicine. Also, streptomycin can be used to teat drug resistant tuberculosis, or TB, while spectinomycin treats gonorrhea infections. If bacteria became immune to these antibiotics, infections would rarely have a way to be treated and many serious ailments could be harder to cure.

Dangerous effects from growth hormones are another consequence of genetically modified foods. Milk, for example, has the genetically engineered growth hormone bovine, called recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, or rBGH, in it. This hormone is injected into the cow by the farmer and makes cows produce 20% more milk. The hormone then passes from the cow into the milk. Often, this hormone can lead to the injected cows getting infections and even more consequences for human beings. Bovine increases cancer risks and has been linked to breast cancer and colon cancer (“Milk: America’s Health Problem”). Even cheese is contaminated with rBGH unless labeled “NO rBGH”. Because of the use of this dangerous hormone, American milk and cheese is banned throughout Europe (“Milk: America’s Health Problem”).

Throughout our childhood, we are constantly told to “drink our milk so we can grow to be big and strong.” The hundreds of tiny cartons of milk that fill public and private schools across America further emphasize this popular idea. Now, with all this new information about the rBGH, drinking milk now seems more hazardous than beneficial to our health. According to the National Milk Producers Federation, almost “430 million gallons of milk were distributed through the National School Breakfast, Lunch, and Special Milk programs during the 2005-2006 school year” (“Give rBGH the Boot from our Nation's Schools “). Unfortunately, a significant amount of this milk could have been created with genetically engineered growth hormones like rBGH. This means that millions of children may have been exposed to a hormone that causes many different types of cancers.

I would be lying if I said there were absolutely no benefits of these altered foods. Animals that have had their DNA altered can produce better quality meat, milk, and eggs. Also, genetically engineered crops have better taste and improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides (“Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms “). These new plants can grow bigger than ever before, thus providing more food than usual from one mere plant, which could feed more people. This decreases the cost of farming and even increases the amount of income for the farmers. If the world worked perfectly, this might actually be true. Unfortunately, there are too many negative consequences from genetically altered foods for the continuation of their distribution on our shelves.

Despite the fact that there are numerous benefits that can come from genetically modified animals and plants, the consequences clearly outweigh the benefits. Stronger and new allergens, higher risks of toxicity, resistance to antibiotics and dangerous effects of growth hormones are some of many risks on human health due to these genetically altered foods. Human health could only the beginning of the problem. With all of these dangerous effects of genetically altered foods, it is clear that scientists need to research more and get a better idea of what they are dealing with. Genetics is unmapped territory where altering one gene could lead to thousands of consequences that we might never be able to overcome.

Works Cited:

“Antibiotic Resistance Genes in GM Foods.” http:// www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings /antibiotic_resistant_genes.html

“Genetically Engineered Food.” http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm

“Genetically engineered Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).” http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/bgh.htm

“Genetically Modified Food - GM Foods List and Information.” 22 September 2009. http://www.disabled-world.com/fitness/gm-foods.php

“Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe? Evidence that Links GM Foods to Allergic

Responses Mounts.” 8 November 2007. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7277

“Give rBGH the Boot from our Nation's Schools.” http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26680

“How to Feed a Hungry World.” 29 July 2010. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466531a.html

“Milk: America’s Health Problem.” http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

Image:

“Could you be eating genetically modified food without even knowing it?” 27 July 2010.

http://thewellnesswarrior.blogspot.com/2010/07/could-you-be-eating-genetically.html