Genetically Modified Organisms

Food for Thought: A Local Analysis of Genetically Modified Foods

by Katherine Schmidt

Full of heavy gambling, bright lights, big casinos, and colorful characters, Reno does not seem like it would be home to much ideological or ethical scientific debate. However, with the growing controversy surrounding genetically modified foods, we can also see a level of public interest that indicates an increase in their concern for the world around them. More people are asking questions, and more people are forming their own opinions. When the phrase “genetically modified food” is brought up, it is virtually impossible to find information uncolored by bias or personal views. This leads me to ask my own questions: is the public’s perception of genetically modified foods true to the science? And is this perception merited?

What Are GMO’s?

The acronym “GMO” stands for genetically modified organism and refers to “organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” (World Health Organization). GMO’s can be created through genetic engineering, a very complex and intricate process and science. Scientists around the world have altered the genetic makeup of plants and animals; many of these changed plants and animals become our food. GMO’s, more specifically genetically modified foods, have brought up many questions from both the public and from within the scientific community itself.

What Is Genetics?

Genetics was first a very unclear concept. The beginning of a more clarified definition of the idea of genetics can arguably be traced back to Charles Darwin and his 1859 work On the Origin of Species. In his book, he wrote of his theory of natural selection; this is a process of evolution in which the organisms best suited for an environment reproduce most and survive longest, meaning that their favorable traits are passed on to their offspring. Over time, the weaker species dies off, and the species best suited for the environment continues to thrive. This theory was highly controversial in its time, being that most people held that offspring were a perfect mix of the parents—a belief that made natural selection entirely impossible. Today, however, it can be seen that Charles Darwin’s hypothesis was widely true.

Another feat that further defined the concept of genetics was Gregor Mendel’s series of pea plant breeding experiments. Though his results were published in 1857, two years before Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Mendel’s findings were greatly overshadowed by Darwin’s at the time. In the cross-breeding of different strains of a pea plant, Mendel concluded that traits were passed down from generation to generation in pairs—one from each parent. His deductions also showed that some traits were dominant and some were recessive, meaning that, though the genetic makeup of an organism might call for one trait, another stronger one may be observed instead.

Later, in 1902, English physician Sir Archibald Garrod further advanced the field as well. He studied an inherited human disease called alkaptonuria, a disease that causes a person’s urine to turn black once it has been in contact with air. He noted most remarkably that it recurred in families. Garrod’s findings were significant because they were some of the first interpretations regarding genetics in humans. His observations also “made the link between the inheritance of one particular gene and the activity of a single protein” (Halford 3). This link was further supported by Beadle’s and Tatum’s one gene, one enzyme theory in 1941.

How Does The Genetic Modification Process Work?

With a better understanding of what exactly “genetics” is and how it works as a broad concept, scientists began to delve more into the specifics. DNA was already known to exist when James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins won the Nobel Prize in 1962 for their discovery and development of the double-helix DNA model. Today, we’ve built upon that and know that DNA structure consists of a double helix with chains of four organic bases that can only be paired in specific ways. These strands of DNA are found in the nucleus of every cell that makes up every living being that has ever existed.

DNA combines in different ways that form genes—the “functional units within a DNA molecule” (Halford 6). These functional units are also known as units of heredity. When a cell divides before it reproduces, its DNA is unzipped, in a way, and the double helix becomes two different half-strands of DNA. Since the organic bases that make up the DNA can only be paired in a very specific fashion, DNA is replicated nearly perfectly in the cellular reproduction process. Ergo, the gene sequences are also copied exactly—the daughter cells will have the same DNA and genes as the parent cell. These genes all code for different things to happen; some regulate body processes, others code for things like hair color.

The roles these genes play can be seen through genetic expression. Genetic expression differs from cell type to cell type. For instance, the gene for eye color would only be turned on, or expressed, in iris cells, and the alcohol tolerance gene would only be expressed and utilized in liver cells. Changes in genetic expression occur naturally through evolution. Parallel to Darwin’s aforementioned theory of natural selection, genes that are not useful to an organism can be turned off over time, a trait that can be passed down to its offspring.

Genetic expression can also be altered artificially, in a laboratory setting. Scientists and geneticists have developed ways in which to change the genetic makeup of different organisms. Through extensive and carefully calibrated procedures, scientists have developed several different ways in which to achieve this feat. Many of these methods mimic nature and how DNA is naturally altered within a cell. Genetic expression can be changed by adding new sequences of DNA to an existing chain, coding for new genes or coding for the activation/deactivation of existing ones. Genetic expression can also be changed by deleting sequences of DNA or altering existing sequences. One way scientists implant this new, different DNA into existing cells is by utilizing a naturally occurring bacterium as a carrier of the new DNA. The bacterium transfers the new DNA, and the cell reproduces with this new DNA.

Why Genetically Modify Food?

The 1960s saw a global boom in agricultural production—facilitated by an increased use of irrigation, pesticides, and fertilizers—that became known as the “Green Revolution.” In the 1970s, scientists first figured out how to replicate DNA in the lab and introduce foreign DNA into living organisms like bacteria. The 1980s brought with it a lessening of restrictions on experimentation and research in the field of genetics. This ending of many restrictions set the stage for an increase in genetic modification of many crop varieties, in addition to the commercialization of many genetically engineered drugs, one of which was synthetic insulin (McLure 726).

Much exploration in genetic modification occurred due to ability and curiosity. However, the genetic modification of many plant varieties took place out of necessity. Genetic modification was, and still is, utilized for two main reasons: the perceived advantage to the producer or consumer, and the improvement of crop protection. The main advantage to the producer of genetically modified crops would be a lower price; for instance, many of these plant varieties are more durable, meaning that producers spend less money on pesticides or replacing crops. Some benefits to the consumer are a lower cost—since the producers can grow these genetically modified crops for less, they can also sell them for less—and a greater nutritional value in some cases. Genetically modifying crops improves crop protection as well in that it improves a plant’s “resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides” (World Health Organization).

There are more global consequences to the growing and consumption of genetically modified foods as well that both result from the aforementioned motives and create new motives. With a lower cost to both producers and consumers and an engineered increase in insect, disease, and virus resistance, it has become more possible and more practical to grow these crop varieties in developing, impoverished nations around the world. There are many projects and organizations out there that work to make an international difference. One such project is the Golden Rice Project, which seeks to “cut malnutrition and save millions of lives in the developing world through the use of GM rice varieties enriched with Vitamin A” (McLure 719).

What is the Public’s Perception of Genetically Modified Foods?

When searching for information on genetically modified foods, it is nearly impossible to find a single article untainted by personal opinion or established bias. Although the public debate on GM foods in Europe has been raging since their introduction in 1996, the issue has not become as prevalent in the United States until relatively recently. This new interest can be attributed to the large GM-labeling debates in California and Washington that have gained significant attention.

Polls have revealed that the American public is greatly divided over the debate on whether or not to genetically modify. “Twenty one percent of respondents to a 2010 Thomson Reuters and NPR (National Public Radio) poll thought GM food is safe, while 15 percent said it was unsafe. Nearly two-thirds weren’t sure” (McLure 720). In a later poll conducted by the New York Times, “Three-quarters of Americans expressed concern about genetically modified organisms in their food, with most of them worried about the effects on people’s health. Thirty seven percent of those worried about GMOs said they feared that such foods cause cancer or allergies” (Kopicki). Additionally, on June 19, 2014, ABC News reported that “barely more than a third of the public believes that genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Instead, 52 percent believe such foods are unsafe” (Langer). There is prominent support for both sides: “GM supporters argue that abundant research shows that GM crops are safe and that uninformed pressure groups and the organic-farming industry have thwarted GM progress. Opponents argue that the jury is still out on the safety and environmental effects of GM crops and that, at the very least, growers should better inform the public about the use of gene-transferring techniques in food” (McLure 719).

Though there is an obvious lack of consensus, the spectrum of opinion can be narrowed down into three main categories: first, that people believe that genetically modified foods are too much of a risk to be sold or consumed; second, that genetically modified foods are harmless and even beneficial; and third, that most people do not have enough information to properly formulate an educated opinion.

Why Are People Skeptical of GMOs?

CQ Researcher sums up the issue of public confusion and ignorance quite simply: “[Plant scientists] argue that valuable research has been hindered by consumer resistance to GM foods, due to either misunderstanding or confusion about the safety of crops” (McLure 720). Two consequences arise from this: less research means that less information is available to the public, and less research also means that questions are still going unanswered. The main concerns people have regarding genetically modified foods are that there are risks to biological and health safety in that there is a lack of testing, there are risks to biological and occupational safety in the form of out-crossing/contamination, the sale of genetically modified crops promotes big companies and hinders the small farmer, and that there are threats posed to the environment.

How Can These Concerns Be Addressed?

With as much public uncertainty as there is surrounding GMOs, the scientific community has more answers than we give it credit for. It a lot of cases, “the public debate has drifted very far from scientific reality” (Goldstein 194).

Regarding the issue of insufficient testing of the biological and health safety genetically modified foods, GM foods are actually the most thoroughly examined whole food group in history, besides chemical food additives. In the Times poll cited previously, the thirty seven percent of those worried about GMOs said they feared that GMOs caused cancer or allergies did not realize that scientific studies continue to show that there is no added risk. In the USA, genetically modified crops are conjointly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. “There is no specific US Federal legislation regarding GM food safety”—a fact that worries many Americans. “All food must be safe, and GM crops, foods, and ingredients must be as safe as their conventional counterparts.” The genetically modified food testing can be roughly summarized into 5 steps:

The genetically modified food is compared side-by-side to its conventional, safe, and traditional counterparts.
Differences between the genetically modified foods and the conventional counterpart are identified and focused on.
The gene source is then analyzed to avoid any potentially allergenic and toxic sources.
A bioinformatic analysis is performed. The genetically modified food and the altered genes are first tested for homology to allergens or toxins again. Next, the food undergoes heat stability and digestibility analyses in which scientists determine if the food can in fact be digested. Acute protein toxicity studies, as well as 28- or 90- day whole crop studies are routinely performed in rodents, and livestock studies provide additional assurance of nutritional analysis.
A compositional analysis is then performed. This includes testing for known toxins, anti-nutrient factors, and an analysis of fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals.

All of this is to “assure that the composition of the GM crop falls well within the range of expected values for the conventional crop” (Goldstein 190). Furthermore, GM foods are oftentimes altered with the aim to be more nutritionally beneficial. As mentioned before in the case of the Golden Rice Project, rice strains were genetically engineered to contain more vitamin A than what was traditionally grown to battle malnutrition and starvation in developing countries in Asia.

Next comes the biggest environmental issue: outcrossing. Outcrossing is the crossbreeding of genetically modified plants and non-GM plants. This phenomenon of outcrossing has scientists and farmers taking many steps to prevent it. To begin, outcrossing can only occur between plants that are sexually compatible—for example, soy crops cannot naturally contaminate alfalfa crops. Next, not all outcrossing is negative. For example, the transfer of an herbicide resistance gene to a genetically modified plant’s wild relative really is not an issue because herbicides are rarely used outside of the field or farm. One precaution scientists are implementing is engineering plants for male sterility, meaning that there is no pollen formation in the plant. Another step being taken is creating seedless fruit, which “prevent[s] outcrossing of transgenes and the uncontrolled spread of genetically modified seeds in the environment” (GMO Safety). It should also be noted that “fifteen years of studies demonstrate considerably more variability among conventional crops due to genetics and environment than results from transgene insertion [outcrossing] in a particular variety” (Goldstein 195).

Genetically modified foods have also presented issues to smaller farmers—another area in which outcrossing proves to be a problem. In a pamphlet titled the “GMO Free Shopping Guide” distributed by the Great Basin Community Food Co-Operative, “the Supreme Court began patenting genes in the 1990s. This has made it almost impossible for businesses to save, clean, and redistribute seed. If pollen from a plant which has received the patented genes drifts onto a farmer’s field, the farmer can be found in violation of patent infringement. In the past 16 years, Monsanto has sued 150 farmers and filed charges against more than another 700 farmers who settled out of court.” One of the most notable cases between Monsanto and farmers is the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association v. Monsanto. This lawsuit was filed by a group of farmers against Monsanto in 2011 in effort to invalidate Monsanto’s patents and protect organic, non-GMO family farmers from “unwanted genetic contamination of their crops and from Monsanto’s aggressive patent infringement lawsuits” (Food Democracy Now!).The case was dismissed, appealed, and dismissed again by the United States Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. in September of 2013. Regardless of its dismissal, the case legally bound Monsanto to “not take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes” (Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association). Though the wheels of legislative change turn slowly, there is promise that the corporate grip on genetically modified crops can be lessened. The patents on genetic modification make sense because the development of the manipulation of a gene is intellectual property, after all. However, patents should not be placed for corporate benefit at the expense of the individual or community.

Outside of outcrossing, another environmental concern is the use of herbicides. Herbicide-resistance genes bred into plants grant the plants immunity to different kinds of herbicides. This means that farmers can use stronger, more broad-spectrum herbicides to kill weeds without having to worry about harming their crops. As with the use of all herbicides, there are several risks presented to the environment: the herbicides could linger on and in the fruits and vegetables all the way to the consumer’s table; rain could wash herbicides into the water supply; and the usage of herbicides, similar to the excess usage of antibiotics, can lead to the evolution of superweeds, or weeds with extra resistance to herbicides. These risks are present with the use of herbicides on conventional crops as well, and the only way to ensure safety is to practice safe and sustainable herbicide use.

What’s GMO Labeling?

In the public debate regarding genetically modified food, one important question has been posed: should genetically modified foods be labeled? Over a series of seven different polls spanning from 2001 to 2013 from credible sources like Washington Post and the New York Times, an average of 94.3 percent of participants supported the labeling of genetically modified foods (Center For Food Safety). As of right now, the federal government does not require the labeling of GM foods unless the nutritional content is changed or toxic or allergenic properties are added.

Those against labeling say that the concern lies in that, “to the uniformed shopper, these labels might be perceived as warnings, adding to the continued stigmatization of GMO products (Toma). Another, more extreme opinion, is that labeling will “demonize a technology with enormous potential benefit” (McLure 719). Conversely, most people are of the inclination that knowledge is power. “‘People have a right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed to our children,’ said Stacy Malikan, a spokeswoman for California Right to Know” (McLure 719). The movement to label GMO products would be a large and rather costly one. “It is estimated that 60 to 70 percent of all processed foods available on store shelves contain GMO ingredients, particularly corn or high fructose corn syrup, soybeans, and cottonseed or canola oils” (Erdosh and Lusted 15). Labeling this massive amount of products would take massive effort, but it would be of no real consequence. More information on genetically modified crops made available to the public would help to end the fear-mongering. A better informed populace would not be afraid of GMO labels—instead, the people would utilize the information to make the product choices right for them.

What Is the Local Impact?

The Reno area is one not exempt from the influence of trends and popular opinion. Misinformation is present here as it is everywhere. A national movement towards more objective information available to the public on genetically modified foods would benefit our Truckee River watershed.

Although northern Nevada is not a particularly agricultural area, the University of Nevada, Reno, has an agricultural department that grows various crops—one of these crops being wine grapes. Dr. Cramer of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and his lab team investigated the genetic makeup of a particular strain of wine grapes. The team then analyzed the genes and worked to determine whether or not they could improve the stress tolerance of the grapevine. Being that the Reno area has extreme cold, draught conditions, and saline soils, a strain of grapevine with increased stress resistance would survive much more successfully.

Reno is also home to an organization committed to making natural, organic food available to the general public. The Great Basin Food Co-Operative, located down on Court Street, is a member-owned, community grocery store that encourages you to know your farmer and know your food. The Co-Op supports GMO-labeling within its walls, and it is one of many organizations that would benefit from GMO-labeling. According to Co-Op Board President, Armando Ornelas, it takes a lot of time and effort to find the presence of GMOs in the products they want to sell because labeling is not required on a federal level. The Co-Op does research to ensure that at least one item in each food category meets certain criteria:

“The product is 70% certified organic.
The produce is Non-GMO Project verified.
The producer of the product provides credible documentation of non-GMO status.
The product does not have high risk genetically engineered ingredients” (Great Basin Community Food Co-Operative).

Being that the Co-Op is member-owned, the Co-Op sells the products its members want to buy. The Co-Op labels its products as containing GMOs or being GMO-free in accordance to customer request. Its members want to make informed decisions, and many of them want to avoid “putting all of their agricultural eggs in one corporate basket” (Ornelas).

What’s the Bottom Line?

Genetics is a science that has been studied for centuries, and genetic engineering is an experimental process that has been around for decades. The genetic modification of foods has caused great public debate, and there is a great lacking in objective information to the general population. Genetically modified foods have gotten a bad reputation that can be fixed by educating the public further. Overall, diversity of product options is best: GMO-supporters and consumers support and stimulate the larger national economy, and non-GMO buyers support smaller businesses and farmers, plus stimulate the local economy. In the scientific article, “Tempest in a Tea Pot: How did the Public Conversation on Genetically Modified Crops Drift so far from the Facts,” Goldstein debunks many common GMO misconceptions that can calm the public. “GM crops have a more than 20-year track record of being grown and used commercially without a single human illness known to be caused by GM food or feed… The safety assessment paradigm for GM crops is robust and well-established, and the approach has been confirmed by authoritative regulatory agencies and scientific organizations around the globe” (Goldstein 199). When presented with facts, a better informed public can formulate their own genuine, cognizant opinions. Along these lines, GMO labeling—a process most Americans support—is a movement that would better inform and educate the public as to what they’re consuming. More information would lead to the end of demonizing GMOs and the beginning of conscious decision-making.

Works Cited

Erdosh, George, and Marcia Amidon Lusted. "To GMO Or NOT To GMO?." Odyssey 23.2 (2014): 15. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 20 Nov.

2014.

"Farmers VS. Monsanto." Food Democracy Now. Richir Outreach, 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.

"Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Foods." WHO. World Health Organization, 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Goldstein, Daniel. "Tempest in a Tea Pot: How Did the Public Conversation on Genetically Modified Crops Drift so Far from the Facts?"

Journal of Medical Toxicology 10 (2014): 194-201. Print.

"Great Basin Community Food Co-op." Great Basin Community Food Co-op. Web. 15 Nov. 2014.

Halford, Nigel. "DNA, Genes, Genomes, and Plant Breeding." Genetically Modified Crops. London: Imperial College, 2003. Print.

Kopicki, Allison. "Strong Support for Labeling Modified Foods." The New York Times 27 July 2013. The New York Times Company.

Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

Langer, Gary. "Poll: Skepticism of Genetically Modified Foods." ABC News. ABC News Network, 19 June 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

McLure, Jason. "Genetically Modified Food." CQ Researcher 31 Aug. 2012: 717-40. Print.

Ornelas, Armando. Personal Interview. 22 Nov. 2014.

"OSGATA Et Al. v. Monsanto." OSGATA - Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. Pollymac Design, 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.

Toma, Glenda. "End the Scare-mongering." The Wall Street Journal 14 July 2014. Dow Jones & Company. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

"Transgenic Apple Varieties – Approaches for the Prevention of Outcrossing and Dispersal." GMO Safety. Federal Ministry of Education

and Research, 9 Sept. 2005. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

"U.S. Polls on GE Food Labeling." Center for Food Safety. Center for Food Safety, 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

"Which Crops Could Spread Their Genes?" GMO Compass. GMO Compass, 12 Dec. 2006. ‘ Web. 20 Nov. 2014.