Genetically Modified Food – Is It Harmful to Health?

Food products derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may consist entirely or partially of such organisms or be manufactured using GMO-based raw materials, though the final product may not necessarily contain modified biological material—an example being rapeseed oil obtained from genetically enhanced varieties of the plant. Genetic engineering techniques enable the precise introduction of novel, desirable traits into the genomes of plants and animals. This process may involve the insertion of a specific gene (or gene segment) from the same or a different species, as well as the targeted silencing of genes responsible for undesirable characteristics. The resulting organisms exhibit stable, heritable genetic modifications that are transmitted to subsequent generations (cf. Skawińska & Blicharska, 2012).

The inaugural genetically modified organism (GMO) approved for regular commercial sale was a tomato branded as Flavr Savr, which debuted on U.S. supermarket shelves in 1994. Its defining trait was delayed ripening and reduced softening, designed to prolong shelf life, prevent spoilage, and mitigate financial losses for growers. Notably, the product carried no labeling to indicate its genetic engineering origins. After several years of market presence, it was discontinued due to low production profitability, as documented by A. Jurkiewicz in 2012. Currently, the most extensively cultivated GM crops—by acreage—are those engineered for resistance to herbicides, pathogens, or pests. A prime example is glyphosate-resistant soybeans, modified to survive applications of this broad-spectrum herbicide. Beyond pest and disease resistance, genetic modification also targets nutritional enhancement, such as eliminating harmful compounds or improving nutrient profiles. One such case is soybean oil with an optimized fatty acid composition: lower in saturated fats than conventional varieties and with an omega-3 to omega-6 ratio closer to the ideal balance found in olive oil. Introduced to the U.S. market in 2014, this oil demonstrated potential in reducing obesity in murine models (Deol et al., 2017). A cutting-edge avenue of GMO research involves **edible vaccines** embedded in vegetables—such as lettuce engineered to express hepatitis B virus (HBV) antigens, a project pursued by scientists at the Polish Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry under M. Świtoński and S. Malepszy (2012). Few realize that a biotechnological product revolutionizing diabetes care has been available for nearly four decades: **recombinant human insulin**. Prior to the 1980s, insulin was sourced from animals (e.g., pigs or cattle), entailing high production costs and risks of allergic reactions in patients. Since 1982, it has been manufactured using genetically engineered strains of *Escherichia coli*, ensuring purity, lowering costs, and eliminating immunological complications.

Within the legal jurisdiction of the Republic of Poland, the cultivation and commercial circulation of genetically modified crops are governed by stringent legislative frameworks, rendering the establishment of GMO plantations a procedurally complex endeavor subject to rigorous biosafety and environmental compliance requirements. Although domestic cultivation remains highly restricted, the importation, distribution, and retail sale of genetically modified foodstuffs and animal feed—including derivatives of maize, soybeans, cotton, rapeseed, and sugar beets—are fully permitted, thereby ensuring their widespread availability across Polish consumer markets. At the European Union level, only two genetically engineered varieties have received authorization for commercial planting: MON 810 maize, which exhibits resistance to certain lepidopteran pests, and the Amflora potato, primarily cultivated for industrial starch production. The most extensive GMO crop areas within Europe are concentrated in Spain (predominantly Bt maize), Portugal, and the Czech Republic, whereas unofficial industry analyses suggest that Ukraine may effectively lead in undeclared or illicit transgenic cultivation—with estimates indicating that over half of its soybean harvests could derive from genetically modified seed stocks (Zalewski, 2021). On a global scale, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA, 2021) reports that genetically modified crops are now cultivated across 29 nations, with an additional 43 countries permitting their import for human consumption or livestock feed, collectively encompassing 72 economies where such products are legally marketed. The largest GMO acreages are documented in the United States (primarily herbicide-tolerant soybean and maize varieties), Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and India. Beyond staple crops—maize, soybeans, cotton, canola, and sugar beets—commercially viable genetically modified varieties now include fruits such as the non-browning Arctic™ apple and the ringspot virus-resistant Rainbow papaya, as well as vegetables like Bt eggplant, virus-resistant squash, and salsify. Furthermore, genetic modifications have extended to ornamental plants, with genetically engineered roses exhibiting altered petal pigmentation, carnations with extended vase life, and petunias featuring novel color patterns now available in global horticultural markets.

Genetic modifications extend far beyond the plant kingdom—animals are likewise subjected to such interventions, though typically without the dramatic, science-fiction-esque transformations often conjured by popular imagination. A simple online search for "GMO cow," for instance, yields images of Belgian Blue cattle, whose extraordinarily hypertrophied musculature might initially suggest deliberate genetic tampering. In reality, however, this breed emerged from a spontaneous natural mutation that breeders deliberately selected and propagated across generations to amplify desirable production traits (Koszałka, 2010). Today, the first genetically engineered animal-derived products have already entered consumer markets. Canada has approved the commercial sale of AquAdvantage® salmon—a transgenic variant whose genome has been augmented with additional DNA sequences that accelerate growth rates, enabling it to reach market weight in a fraction of the time required by conventional farmed salmon. Meanwhile, other genetically modified animal species are primarily deployed in medical biotechnology, where they function as "living factories" for producing highly specialized therapeutic proteins, monoclonal antibodies, or vaccine components (Kajak-Siemaszko et al., 2016).

The issue of clearly labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products remains a cornerstone of consumer transparency. Under Polish regulations, any food item containing GMO-derived ingredients must be explicitly marked with a statement such as *„produced from genetically modified [ingredient name]”*. However, **exemptions apply**: products with a GMO content **not exceeding 0.9%** are **not subject to labeling requirements**, provided that the presence of modified material is **incidental or technologically unavoidable**. Furthermore, **animal-derived products** (including meat, dairy, and eggs), even if sourced from livestock fed GMO feed, **do not require GMO disclosure**, as scientific evidence—including reports by Poland’s Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS 2021)—confirms that modified DNA **does not transfer into animal tissues**. Compliance with these rules is monitored by the GIS, which publishes its findings annually in the *„National Sanitary Status Report”*. According to the **most recent available data from 2019**, **only one out of over 600 tested samples** (natural tofu) contained undeclared GMOs. Previous years also recorded **isolated instances** where manufacturers attempted to conceal GMO content (GIS 2019).

Scientific consensus and expert analyses highlight a broad spectrum of advantages associated with the adoption of genetically modified organisms in agricultural and livestock systems. Among the most significant benefits are: **the development of crop varieties exhibiting enhanced resistance to pests and pathogenic agents**, which translates into improved yield stability and reduced losses attributable to biotic stressors. Such advancements hold the potential to **alleviate global food insecurity** by boosting agricultural productivity while concurrently lowering production expenditures. Furthermore, **the streamlining of agronomic practices** contributes to a measurable reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, thereby advancing sustainability objectives. Another pivotal dimension is **the nutritional enhancement of food sources**—a case in point being *"Golden Rice"*, biofortified with provitamin A (beta-carotene), originally engineered to combat vitamin A deficiency-induced blindness among children in resource-limited settings. Despite promising research outcomes, **the deployment of this solution has encountered legal obstacles and societal opposition**, particularly from environmental advocacy groups (references: Duliński, 2019; Kafarski, 2012). Genetic modification technology also plays a critical role in **the manufacturing of biopharmaceuticals**, such as recombinant insulin, which reduces treatment costs and expands medication accessibility. **The World Health Organization (WHO, 2014) and numerous scientific bodies**—including the **Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN, 2012)**—affirm that **genetically modified foods pose no greater health risks to consumers** than their conventionally produced counterparts. Owing to the **contentious nature of this technology**, GM products are subject to **exceptionally rigorous testing and regulatory frameworks**, ensuring their safety at every stage—from laboratory development to commercial distribution.

Among the most vocal critics of genetic modification technology are numerous environmental advocacy groups, including prominent organizations such as Food and Water Watch, the Worldwatch Institute, and Greenpeace, all of which have raised substantial concerns regarding the widespread adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In a comprehensive report published by Greenpeace in 2015, the organization contends that after two decades of commercial GMO cultivation, the technology has failed to deliver the promised economic benefits to farmers. Instead, it has contributed to the uncontrolled genetic contamination of conventional crops while proving ineffective as a solution to global hunger—a claim that directly challenges one of the core arguments advanced by proponents of GMOs (Greenpeace, 2015). Another contentious issue centers on the safety profile of glyphosate, a broadly applied herbicide frequently paired with glyphosate-resistant crops. While certain reports have suggested potential carcinogenic properties associated with this chemical, rigorous scientific investigations—including a 2014 study by XiaoZhi—indicate that glyphosate ranks among the most thoroughly researched and least toxic herbicides available, demonstrating no significant adverse effects on either human health or environmental stability. Nevertheless, the ongoing debate has also highlighted critical ethical concerns, particularly regarding the lack of transparency in some scientific assessments and the presence of conflicts of interest that may compromise the impartiality of evaluations (Skawińska & Blicharska, 2012).

Under current regulations permitting up to 0.9% genetically modified organism (GMO) content in food products without mandatory labeling; the widespread use of GMO-based animal feed in global livestock farming; and the existence of unregulated gray areas, avoiding exposure to genetically modified ingredients has become virtually impossible in modern society. Every consumer, whether aware of it or not, has already encountered GMO-containing food in some form. The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community affirms that these products pose no demonstrable risk to human health or environmental stability. Public perception, however, remains largely skeptical—or even hostile—primarily due to knowledge gaps and fears amplified by misinformation campaigns. This consumer resistance, reinforced by environmental advocacy groups, has for years effectively stifled progress in agricultural biotechnology, delaying the commercial introduction of new genetically engineered crop varieties. Meanwhile, researchers emphasize that such delays incur tangible economic losses on a global scale while impeding solutions to critical public health challenges, including malnutrition in food-insecure regions.