Genetically Modified Foods Need to be Labeled

Lindsey Hickman
Ashford University
GEN 499 General Education Capstone
Instructor: John Macerater
September 1, 2014
   Genetically modified foods have created controversy consuming blogs, social media, news, and the desks of many lawmakers. Although anti-GMO protests and occupy movements and have swarmed state capitals nationwide, only 15 States have labeling initiatives (Center for Food Safety, 2014) and California voters rejected a GMO labeling bill in the November 2012 California election. Dozens of countries throughout the world have banned genetically modified food entirely because, although there are many pros and cons to producing genetically modified agriculture, research leaves unanswered questions about longterm affects on the environment, health and sustainability. The United States was founded on free enterprise and individual choice; therefore, rather than banning genetically modified agriculture, products distributed for human and animal consumption in the United States should be labeled to allow consumers to make informed choices about their purchases. This essay will explain what genetic modification is, research findings of positive and negative affects of genetic modification, and why leaving genetically modified products unlabeled creates an ethical problem between distributors and consumers. It will also include an analysis of information available about GMO on the internet, and how active citizenship can affect the future of GMO products.

What is Genetic Modification?
   GMOs, GM foods, BD, biotechnology and genetically-modified organisms are all terms for agriculture that has been modified in a laboratory in order to increase desired traits, such as enhanced pest resistance or in order to improve nutrition, on a molecular level. GMOs are organisms whose genetic make-ups have been changed by mutating, inserting, or deleting genes, by using genetic engineering techniques or biotechnology (Goldbas, Abbie, MSEd JD, 2014). Current techniques of developing organisms used in the production of these foods typically involve the transfer to the host of the desired gene or genes in combination with a promoter and a gene for a selectable marker trait that allows the efficient isolation of cells or organisms that have been transformed from those that have not (Oxford Journals, 2003). Simply put, plant geneticists find genes responsible for a certain trait, isolate it, and graft them together.  

   For example, if the goal is to create a more drought tolerant squash plant, scientists would determine a very drought tolerant plant, or even animal, then determine the gene responsible for its tolerance, and find a way to incorporate the gene into the seeds of the squash offspring. Genetically modified foods have become infamous for the genetic combination of the B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that which are highly lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer (Whitman, 2000)

Which Genetic Modified Crops Being Consumed in the United States?
   Most people do not realize how many genetically modified foods that they consume on a daily basis in the U.S., and that GMO spans much more than just produce. These include salmon, oils, soybeans, rice, squash, sugar beats, tomatoes, potatoes, with corn being one of the largest. The GMO corn and soybeans are then used in animal feeds, as well as, processed foods like corn syrup, and corn tortillas. 
In the wild, salmon can take more than three years to mature, so scientists have found ways to create GMO fish that can reach two-times the natural size in half of the time. Although the genetically engineered fish is supposed to be sterile, experts believe there's no way this can be ensured because DNA tends to mutate over time (Bocca, 2013). 

   Soybeans are used regularly in baked goods, breads, chocolate, as a additive to fast food meats, ice-cream and more. Argentina, Brazil, and the United States are the three leading countries to produce and export soybeans internationally, therefore, probability shows that nearly everyone in the United States consumes soy products on a daily basis in one way or another. Even if consumers are careful to avoid soybeans by reading nutrition labels, if they are buying non-organic meat, their meat was eating it. Majority of the soybeans produced is not intended for human consumption, however, it is fed to beef cattle, market pigs, and even lambs and goats. The gene is passed through the meat to the meat eater (Bocca, 2013).

   Whether you are buying oil from China, India, or the United States, or purchasing packaged products such as potato chips, cookies, margarine, you are most likely eating GMO cottonseed oils. By modifying soy, cotton, canola, and corn oils, geneticists successfully eliminated bitterness, while increasing resistance to herbicides (Bocca, 2013). The crop can then be sprayed with weed killer, and not die. Scientists are concerned that creating herbicide resistant crops will most certainly result in super weeds, much like antibiotic resistant bacterias.

  Genetic modification is done to promote health and nutrition in most instances (Mishra, 2011 p. 3). Crops such as potatoes have been modified in order to increase antibiotic properties in third world countries and to become more disease resistant while they grow. While golden rice has been enhanced with vitamin A and iron in the form of carrot DNA and iron genes (Bocca, 2013).

   However, modification does not always work as planned. Squash is notoriously prone to diseases and bacterial funguses, so they were originally modified to encourage the survivability of the crop; however, the modification backfired. The Cucumber Beetles that feed on unhealthy squash leaves were determined to be the prominent carrier of the bacteria, spreading to healthy plants and beyond. Because genetically modified crops are supposed to be grown in controlled environments, this has caused concern for scientists as the beetles have carried the DNA to crops outside of designated fields, spreading GMO to wild squash plants.

   Tomatoes were one of the first marketed produce, originally modified to last longer on store shelves. This was halted after it became clear to scientists that the gene also produced an antibiotic property that was passed to the humans eating them.  Concerns were raised that the gene could be contributing to human resistance to antibiotics, making them less able to fight infection and disease (Bocca, 2013). Since then, GMO tomatoes have been altered so that the don't rot as quickly as regular tomatoes, enabling them to be imported from farther away because they are able to tolerate longer transportation periods.

   Sugar beets are one of the newer GM foods to be created, then to be tremendously scrutinized by researchers. Geneticists created a weed-killer resistant sugar beet crop that was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2008, and then banned in August 2010 (Bocca, 2014). The gene alteration was intended to enhance nutrients in the vegetable, while encouraging quicker growth. The USDA approval was revoke in 2010, however, when a federal judge determined that the USDA had failed to accurately report their Environmental Impact Statement. The Environmental Impact statement insures that modifications, growing, harvesting of the crop is safe, and since it has still not been received, all production was completely halted. After the halt, sugar was replaced with corn syrup in most foods. is conducted, planting, harvesting and processing of GM sugar beets has been halted. Because beet sugar was the most common form of sweetener in processed foods, it was immediately replaced with the GMO corn syrup that had an abundant crop that year. Corn syrup just stuck as the go-to in most foods after that.

   Known as sweet corn, Bt-corn (named for the Bacillus thruringiensis bacterium) has been modified to incorporate inspect killing genes of fish. By adding these genes to the corn, farmers can eliminate the need to spray pesticides, because after eating one bite of the corn, the insects die. This sounds like a fantastic option; no spraying means less harm to the environment and the workers handling the toxic spray (Bionet, 2014). However, it isn’t all good. The  DNA responsible for killing the corn worms, is also attacking and killing the Monarch butterflies. According to the USDA, farmers in every state in the U.S. are growing at least some GM corn at any given time (USDA, 2014). There is currently no way to know if the corn used to make high fructose corn syrups used in processed foods is made with GMO corn or not.

Positive Impacts of GMO Foods
   Pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, cold and drought tolerance, disease resistance, nutritional and medical properties are all positive aspects of genetically modifying foods (Whitman, 2000).  

   An infestation of corn worms, cucumber beetles, caterpillars, potato bugs, earwigs, and slugs can destroy a garden in one night, so, proper pest control is absolutely necessary for the success of the farming economy and crop supply. Pesticides loaded with chemicals have been developed to eliminate pests; however, as research continues to develop, consumers are shying away from eating the unknown. By developing pest resistance genetically, the need for chemical pesticides is eliminated (Mishra, 2011).

   Chemical herbicides such as “Weed n’ Feed” and “Round-Up” have been developed to kill weeds that rob crops of nutrients; but will also destroy crops if contacted by residue. Through genetic modification, crops become immune to herbicides, allowing entire fields to be sprayed without damaging the produce (Mishra, 2011).

   Geneticists have also created GMO crops that are more immune to viruses, bacterium, fungi; as well as, resistance to heat and cold temperatures. Potato and tomatoes are traditionally intolerant to freezing weather, however, antifreeze genes from cold water fish have been incorporated in their DNA, making them able to withstand temperatures that would typically be detrimental (Whitman, 2000).

Negative Impacts of Genetic Modification
   Although there are many benefits to genetically modifying in the ever-more-demanding population of Earth, there are many downsides and unknown long term effects of altering DNA of plants and animals. Allergic reactions, increased antibiotic resistance, lowered pesticide effectiveness, and unintended harm leave many questions unanswered. Assessing safety may be more difficult in the future if genetic engineering projects cause more substantial and complex changes in a foodstuff. Methods have not yet been developed with which whole foods (in contrast to single chemical components) can be fully evaluated for safety (Oxford Journals, 2003).

   GMO foods can present significant allergy risks to people, according to Brown University (Duvauchelle, 2011). Because GMOs blend proteins that are unable to naturally pollinate each other, new allergens are being introduced to the human body. If someone is allergic to fish, eats tomato with fish proteins in it, anaphylaxis can occur unexpectedly.  Numerous problems have been acknowledged with respect to the potential toxicity associated with GM foods, including the inherent toxicity of the transgenes and their products, and unintended effects resulting from the insertion of the new genetic material into the host genome (Oxford Journals, 2003).

   Iowa State University warned that, in the instances of potatoes and tomatoes containing antibiotic properties, GMOs can lead to antibiotic markers in the system, making medications less effective when they are needed to treat illness. ISU states that ingesting GMO foods and being regularly exposed to antibiotics may be to blame for the decreased effectiveness of antibiotic drugs that is being noticed in hospitals around the world (Duvauchelle, 2011).
   
   Another significant risk of genetically modified crops is the risk that organisms are escaping into the wild creating super weeds that are resistant to all herbicides (Mishra, 2011). Brown University released studies showing the herbicide-resistant genes from commercial crops can cross into the wild weed population, creating new super-organisms that can out-compete natural animal and plant populations to drive certain species into extinction (Duvauchelle, 2011), all the while, pollens can be spread to surrounding field crops killing insects that have intolerance. Furthermore, just as mosquitoes have developed resistance the now banned DDT, many studies have given reason for concern that insects are slowly becoming resistant to B.t. and other crops that have been altered to have their own pest deterring DNA (Mishra, 2011). 

   But it may be health problems linked to GMOs that top consumer concerns. Research has connected GMO crops to a spectrum of health concerns including damage to the liver and reproductive system, cancers, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s. A study by International Journal of Biological Sciences analyzed the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, finding that Monsanto's GMO corn crop was linked to severe organ damage in rats (Duvauchelle, 2011). Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes had smaller and partially atrophied livers (Mishra, 2011). Rats fed Monsanto’s GM corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin, had liver lesions and other indications of toxicity (Mishra, 2011 p. 5). Rabbits fed GM soy had altered enzyme production in their livers, as well as, higher metabolic activity. Rats fed Roundup-Ready, or herbicide resistant, soybeans also showed structural changes in their liver (Mishra, 2011 p. 5).

Labels and Bans
   The guiding principle in the evaluation of GM foods by regulating agencies in Europe and the U.S. is that their human and environmental safety consider genetically modified food “substantially equivalent” to their natural counterparts (Oxford Journals, 2003). The questions arise from the term “substantial equivalence,” as this only analyzes the composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food (FDA, 1992; Kuiper et al., 2001; Maryanski, 1995; OECD, 1993) and does not require extensive safety testing. Evaluation of substantial equivalence includes consideration of the characteristics of the transgene and its likely effects within the host product, alongside the measurements of protein, fat, and starch content, amino acid composition, and vitamin and mineral equivalency (Oxford Journals, 2003). Furthermore, the process of genetic engineering itself creates unpredicted alterations, irrespective of which gene is transferred. This creates mutations in and around the insertion site and elsewhere (Mishra, 2011).

   The United States is trailing behind the rest of the world when it comes to labeling and controlling genetically modified foods in the grocery stores. Countries including Brazil, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Africa, Algeria, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan, Phillipines, The European Union, Norway, Austria, Germany United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Japan, American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Australia, New Zealand, and Australia have some sort of legislative bans on GMO crops; while currently, although distributed widely, the United States, FDA, and USDA do not require any GMOs to be identified on ingredient lists.

   Genetically modified foods and meats fed GMO feed should be labeled in the United States; however, according to Monsanto, the national leader in GMO seed production and the manufacturers of Round-Up, it is the manufacturer’s choice what to include, and leave out, on food labels, depending on what they think their consumers want to see. Being that Monsanto recorded and $1.6-Billion profit last year (Monsanto, 2011), why would they want consumers to be scared off by their GMO labels?
  
   Currently the FDA permits food manufacturers the choice of voluntary labeling of their products, “as long of the labels are truthful and not misleading”, i.e. organic, all natural, free range, antibiotic free. By allowing this freedom, food companies are in the best position to determine what type of information meets the needs and desires of their consumers (Monsano, 2013), making volunteer labels a marketing tool rather giving consumers all of the necessary information.

   Labels of “certified organic” or non-GMO should be required for consumers who want to make informed choices. The depth of genetically modified foods is so convoluted that it is nearly impossible for the everyday consumer to differentiate between what is and isn’t GMO. Consumers should not be forced into buying all, costly, organic foods in order to avoid it. Labels should be placed on all foods and meats. Consumers shouldn’t have to decode food labels. Labels should clearly state if the problem is genetically modified, especially in cases where vegetables contain DNA from fish or other living organisms.

Article Reviews and Social Perception of GMO
   In the scholarly article GMOs: A Solution or a Problem, environmental writer and GMO supporter Mark Lynas, and biologist/GMO critic Colin Tudge are interviewed by the Journal of International Affairs, sharing their concerns and insights on genetically modified foods. Interestingly, Lynas starts his interview by admitting he converted from a strong opponent to GMOs to a supporter in 2013 because of his research and writing about climate change, he felt he could not attack science on one side, and support it on the other. He argues, “I would often refer to the strong scientific consensus on climate change, yet realizing their was the same strong scientific consensus for genetic modification that I was arguing against (Journal of International Affairs, 2014 p. 1).” It seems that rather than creating his own consensus, he is selling the consensus of others like a car salesman would.

   In the scholarly article GMOs: What are they, the author and science education writer Abbie Goldas explains the pros and cons of genetically engineered agriculture for the Journal of Childbirth Education. I think she does a good job of clearly, but briefly, outlining the surface problems and advantages of GMO foods, quite similarly to what I have covered in the research paper. She states, “GMOs are not all bad. If fact, if used appropriately, they can relieve much human suffering, whether it be due to malnutrition or disease. But safety is the issue. Research and regulation are paramount,” (Goldbas, Abbie, MSEd JD, 2014). The author sites sources such as .gov sites, Transgenic research studies, and the Journal of American Toxicology, while staying away from taking a persuasive stand and targeting audiences who may not understand what GMOs are.

   The article, The GMO Suicide Myth, the author Keith Kloor argues that a myth of farmers killing themselves exists due to social implications of genetically modified agriculture. According to Kloor, “opponents of using genetically modified cotton in India claim that the technology has resulted in the suicides of hundreds of thousands of farmers. They appear to be wrong, and the real reasons why Indian farmers take their own lives remain largely unaddressed.” The article delves into global citizenship surrounding GMO concerns, which include synchronized global rallies against Monsanto seeds and international research. However, his main focus is on news coverage of the “more than 250,000 Indian-farmers have committed suicide following the failure of Bt cotton fields, by drinking the Monsanto pesticide. (Kloor, Keith 2014 p. 3).” 

   Kloor argues that suicides in India are always high, especially among farmers, calling Monsanto seeds a scapegoat, while supporting genetic modification by stating, “humans have been altering plants for thousands of years, advancements in recumbent DNA technology have brought new precision to the process (Kloor, Keith 2014).” This is a weak argument because, although it is true humans have been altering plants through grafting for years, the process has been been to changes its DNA completely. It is true that corn was developed over years of mutations from a nearly inedible stalk to the plump kernels on a cob, however, it was done by mating plants that were compatible, not by adding DNA such as fish genes like they do now.

   In the YouTube video supporting GMO called I Love Monsanto (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulq0NW1sTcI) a video reporter calling himself The Cult of Dusty displays all that is wrong with podcast propaganda videos. The foul mouthed anchor states that 25-years of scientific research proves that GMOs are safe and that, according to his Facebook polls, everyone who hates GMOs are uneducated on their position. In the video he sits on one side of the screen giving an angry 16-minute monolog, while the left-side flips through Facebook screenshot comments, news articles, and blogs and photos. Although he makes good points, his radical presentation turns viewers off.

   Social media has a huge impact on spreading awareness of social concerns such as GMO. Information quizzes such as Test Your GMO Knowledge (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/food-label-quiz.htm), infographics such as What Are GMOs (http://us.naturespath.com/infographic-what-are-gmos, and fan-pages such as GMO-Free World GDA (https://www.facebook.com/GMOFreeWorldGDA) receive millions of international views per day. Because these types of awareness boosters, global citizens can transcend geographical barriers, and come together with a common goal of, “Bringing the world together to protect our food supply (GMO Free World, 2014).” Websites such as globalissues.org have been following international concerns with GMO since 1998, highlighting specific regulations and scientific findings in nations across the globe.

   Education on the topic is imperative, and most Americans seem to agree knowledge is power. According to recent polls by the New York Times, Reuters, The Washington Post, Consumer Reports, and MSNBC 93 to 96 percent of Americans favor labeling of GE food (Center for Food Safety, 2014) because the more informed consumers can be, the better equipped they are to make healthy choices. 
Active citizenship is imperative in demanding genetically modified labels and more in-depth research and transparency on the long term affects of their consumption. The easiest option is to stop buying it; buy local and organic foods, and avoid over processed packaged foods. Grow your own from organic seeds and save seeds to plant the next season. Tell your friends; spread the word on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google+, and Vine. Most importantly, separate fact from fiction; we are told that GE crops will help feed the world's poor but according to the United Nations, we are already producing one and a half times the amount of food needed to provide everyone in the world with an adequate and nutritious diet (GreenPeace, 2014). Thousands of websites aim at discrediting the others, making the dismantling of misinformation a challenge. Finally tell your legislators how you feel; participate in the community protests at the local, state, and federal level. I believe that if everyone becomes more informed, the likelihood of decreasing genetically modified groceries can grow greatly in the next five to ten years.

   Genetically modified foods could have long term health and human welfare problems associated with them. Just as consumers have a right to know the ingredients in their food, they should be told if there is fish DNA in their corn. Although there may be many benefits of genetic modification of agriculture, theories of allergy risks, gene transfers, supersedes, and antibiotic tolerance make the possible dangers worthy of more research, and consumers should know what they are feeding their families. GMOs are being banned in dozens of countries, it is clear that something could be very wrong, making it unethical for Americans to be uninformed.
References
Bocco, Diana (2013). Discovery Channel: Top 10 Genetically Modified Food Products. Retrieved on September 1, 2014 from http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/ 10-genetically-modified-food-products.htm
Bayer, Alicia (June 18, 2011). The Examiner: What Countries Have Banned GMO. Retrieved on September 1, 2014 from http://www.examiner.com/article/what-countries-have-banned- goo-crops
Duvauchelle, Joshua. Pros and Cons of GMO Foods, March 31, 2011. Retrieved on September 1, 2014 from http://www.livestrong.com/article/213053-pros-cons-of-gmo-foods/
FDA (1992). Statement of policy: Foods derived from new plant varieties. Food and Drug Administration. Fed. Reg. 57, 22984–23002. 
Goldbas, Abbie, MSEd JD. GMOs: What are They. International Journal of Childbirth Education 29.3 (Jul 2014): 20-24. Retrieved from http://linksource.ebsco.com.proxy- library.ashford.edu/ls.ce5e41ee-9463-462a-bcbe-04e2ba3d2ccf.true/linking.aspxsid=EBSCO:edsgao&genre=article&issn=08878625&ISBN=&volume=29&issue=3&date=20140701&spage=20&pages=20-24&title=International%20Journal%20of%20Childbirth%20Education&atitle=GMOs%3A%20what%20are%20they%3F&aulast=Goldbas%2C%20Abbie&id=DOI:&pid=
Green Peace (2014). Genetic Engineering: in China. Retrieved from http://www.greenpeace.org/ eastasia/campaigns/food-agriculture/problems/genetic-engineering/
Kloor, Keith. The GMO Suicide Myth. Issues in Science & Technology. Winter 2014, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p65-70. 6p. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/ eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5f8c4b9b-3576-49db-91c0-67287dd45f1b %40sessionmgr4005&vid=7&hid=4108
Journal of International Affairs. GMOs: A Solution or a Problem. Spring/Summer 2014, Vol. 67 Issue 2, p131-139. 9p. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy- library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=863d0c37-4cac-4ea4- a2c9-8f6fac48a577%40sessionmgr4001&vid=7&hid=4108
Monsanto (2012). 2012 Annual Report. Retrieved on April 2, 2014 from http:// www.monsanto.com/investors/Documents/Annual%20Report/2012/monsanto-2012 annual-report.pdf
Monsanto (2013). News and Views. Retrieved on September 1, 2014 from http:// www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/default.aspx
Oxford Journals (2003). The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology Toxicological Sciences Volume 71, Issue 1 Pp. 2-8. Retrieved from http:// toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full
Sanjay, Mishra. A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on Human Health.  
The Open Nutraceuticals Journal, 2011, Issue 4, 3-11. Retrieved on http:// www.academia.edu/542384/ A_Review_on_Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified_Food_on_Human_Health

Whitman, Deborah. Genetically Modified Foods: Helpful or Harmful? ProQuest Cambridge University, April 2000. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/review.pdf

No comments:

Post a Comment