Thesis: During the last few decades, the field of genetics has been significantly advanced.  One of these advancements is the understanding of how genes affect an organism.  Through this understanding, geneticists have begun to alter the natural genes found in food.  The altercation of genes in food has given these foods the name genetically modified.  Currently, the affect of genetically modified food on humans and the environment is a controversial topic among geneticists and environmentalists worldwide.  This paper examines the controversy surrounding genetically modified food in the United States and abroad.

Outline:

I. Introduction:
     A.  What are genetically modified foods?
     B.  How are genetically modified foods made?

II. Benefits of genetically modified foods:
    A. Bt corn
    B. Golden Rice

III. Health risks of genetically modified foods:
    A. Monarch butterfly
    B. Allergic reactions
    C. Superweeds

IV. The International Controversy:
    A. Rules and regulations of genetically modified food in the United States
    B. Rules and regulations of genetically modified food in Japan and Great Britain
    C. International agreement on genetically modified foods

V. Conclusion:
 

Introduction:
    During the last few decades, the field of genetics has been significantly advanced.  One of these advancements is the understanding of how genes affect an organism.  Through this understanding, geneticists have begun to alter the natural genes found in food.  The altercation of genes in food has given these foods the name genetically modified.  Currently, the affect of genetically modified food on humans and the environment is a controversial topic among geneticists and environmentalists worldwide.
    Genetically modified (GM) food is any food that possesses transferred genes from a different organism through the process of genetic engineering.  Genetic engineering can be carried out in two separate ways.  One route is specially designed for bacterial genes and is called the Bacterial Route.  The second route is designed for viral and other eukaryotic genes and is called the Gene Gun Route (McInnis and Sinha, 2000).
    In the Bacterial Route, first scientists isolate the DNA for the desired trait.  Then they splice in a gene for antibiotic resistance for tracking purposes later on.  Both genes are placed in a plasmid from the bacterium, Argobacteria.  In the final step, the donor DNA is shuttled into the organism's genome through Agrobacterital.  The bacterium acts as a transport mechanism for the plasmid and injects the plasmid into the organism's DNA (McInnis and Sinha, 2000).
    In the Gene Gun Route, scientists also isolate the DNA for the desired trait and splice in a gene for antibiotic resistance.  Then the isolated DNA is coated on microscopic bullets of gold or tungston.  The final step in the process is using a gene gun to fire the bullets of gold or tungston into plant cells at the speed of sound.  The result of this final step is to insert the donor DNA into the organism's DNA (McInnis and Sinha, 2000).
    Now it is time for a short pop quiz to test the reader's knowledge of how genetically modified foods.  Question one:  Can you recall eating genetically modified foods?  Question two:  How many genetically modified foods can you name?  If you answered no to the first question, then you are either unaware of what you are eating or not telling the truth.  Most likely, your answer for the second question was well below the number of actual genetically modified foods on the market.  The reason why you probably guessed a lower number is because genetically modified foods have successfully infiltrated the market at a rapid rate and are in a variety of foods that humans eat.  Here is a list of just a few of them: soybeans, tomatoes, potatoes, corn, squash, zucchini, and watermelon.  In addition to these foods, large corporations, such as McDonalds, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pepsico, Monsanto, Gerber, and Budweiser, all used or currently use genetically modified organisms in their products made for human consumption (McInnis and Sinha, 2000).
    If all of these foods contain GMOs, and large corporations have used or currently use genetically modified organisms in the food they produce, then why are genetically modified foods so controversial?  To answer this question, we need to examine the different sides in the debate over genetically modified foods in the United States and other parts of the world.  With enough knowledge each person can make an informed decision about genetically modified food.

Benefits of genetically modified foods:
    Genetically modified foods have been around for only a short period of time, but they have already been useful tools to humans.   Researchers claim that genetically modified foods produce crops that are more abundant, less expensive, and more nutritious.  One example of a useful genetically modified food is Bt corn.  The genes of the Bt corn plant have been modified by the insertion of genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis.  This bacterium was added to the wild-type corn plant's genome to stimulate the production of a natural insecticide by the plant.  The benefits of this additional gene are higher crop yields, lower amounts of artificial insecticides used, cost reduction, and cheaper food prices.   Bacterial genes have also been inserted into the genomes of soybean plants to protect the plants from insecticides and boost their immunity to certain pesticides (Butler and Reichhardt 1999).  The use of genetically modified corn and soybean has already become popular among farmers in the United States.  About fifty-five percent of soybeans and thirty percent of corn are genetically modified (Chase, 1999).
    Another example of how useful genetically modified foods are to humans is the development of "golden rice".  Swiss scientists are currently engineering the development of this new strain of rice.  The scientists are hoping that the new genes in the rice strain will produce iron and beta-carotene because famine stricken populations often lack enough iron and beta-carotene in their diets to survive.  Scientists are envisioning "Golden rice" as a stable crop to fight famine.  If scientists were successful in the development of "golden rice", it would be extremely useful to many underdeveloped countries in Africa and Latin America ( Chase, 1999).

Health Risks of genetically modified foods:
    Despite the usefulness of genetically modified foods, they have also been linked to health risks to humans and the environment.  In response to the possible risks of genetically modified food, some environmental and consumer groups question whether potential risks to the environment and human health have been adequately studied.  One controversial event involving GM foods is the evidence suggesting that planting genetically modified corn in open fields may kill butterflies feeding on Bt corn pollen.  In lab experiments, caterpillars had a higher death rate after eating milkweed plants dusted with Bt corn pollen than wild-type corn pollen.  Unfortunately, the milkweed plant is the main food source of the Monarch butterfly and is commonly found in cornfields.  Scientists fear that the Monarch butterfly will find the Bt corn pollen coated milkweed plants after they are dusted by windblown genetically engineered pollen.  "Fifty percent of the monarch population is concentrated in the Midwestern corn-belt and between twenty-five and thirty percent of the U.S. corn crop is Bt engineered.  According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the agency that oversees the planting of GMOs, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is used to protect the corn plant against insects closely related to the Monarch butterfly.  Unfortunately, no one knows whether or not the Monarch butterfly will choose to feed on milkweed plants with pollen when they have other plants in the wild to feed on (McInnis and Sinha, 2000).
    Another concern regarding the use of genetically modified organisms in food is allergic reactions to the genetically modified food.  This concern was brought to the public's attention in 1996, when Pioneer Hi-Bred International attempted to boost the quality of soybeans by introducing a Brazil nut gene.  The insertion of the Brazil nut gene was designed to take advantage of the nut's high protein content.  Soon after the genetically modified strain of soybean was developed, tests revealed that the modified soybeans caused hives in people allergic to Brazil nuts.  Once Pioneer discovered the test results, the company scrapped the project because allergies to nuts are common (Chase, 1999).
    In response to the concern over allergic reaction, Chase has an additional point about genetically modified foods.  Engineering a crop takes a lot of trial and error.  When a scientist inserts a new gene into a crop, he or she will get several different types of seed.  Some seeds will have the gene inserted correctly, others will have the gene inserted in the wrong place, and some may not have the inserted gene.  If the scientist is lucky enough to produce a seed with the inserted gene in the correct location, there is a chance that the gene also inserted itself somewhere else in the plant's genome without the detection of scientists.  If this event took place, then theoretically a new and potentially harmful allergen in the plant could occur.  How would scientists be able to detect an allergen that is unknown before it enters the market? (1999)
    Experts, unconcerned by the potential for newly created allergens counter that existing tests can sufficiently weed out potential allergens.  According to Jane Henney, commissioner of the FDA, "About ninety percent of all food allergies in the United States are caused by cow's milk, eggs, fish and shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, and legumes, especially peanuts and soybeans."  Henney seems confident that companies will test the new genetically modified food for allergic reactions.  She also points out that the creation of new allergens can occur in traditional or biotechnological plant breeding (Chase, 1999).
    Another detrimental consequence of genetically modified organism that needs to be considered is the possible formation of "superweeds".  Scientists working for environmental groups claim that gene transfers designed to make plants pesticide, herbicide, or drought tolerant could encourage the formation of a highly invasive weed.  Theoretically, the "superweed" could form when many different genetically modified organisms exchange genes.  The exchange of genes from GMOs could potentially cause a "gene stacking" of multiple advantageous traits and produce a highly competitive weed.  Unfortunately scientists will not fully know the effects of exchanging genes until genetically modified crops are widely used (Butler and Reichhardt, 1999).
    A recent gathering of scientists, regulators, and research managers took place in response to the concern over the formation of the "superweed".  The consensus of the meeting was that there is little risk of enhanced weed capacity from the current genetically modified organisms on the market because genetically enhanced traits do not give the organism a competitive advantage over other organisms.  The group also concluded that if the "superweed" does not have a competitive advantage over other organism, then they would eventually die out (Butler and Reichhardt, 1999).

The International controversy:
    Most people in the United States do not think twice when they hear the words "genetically modified foods".  The reason for this apathetic reaction to those words is that the existence of GM foods has been relatively unknown, even though they are widely used in the food and agricultural industries.    No one seems to be concerned with GMOs, not even Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees the safety of food and drugs in the United States.  In fact, the FDA only requires voluntary testing of GMOs and submission of GMO's toxicity data summaries by the manufactures (Chase, 1999).  The FDA only mandates labeling of genetically modified food if it is known to be hazardous or if it differs from its wild-type cousin.  It seems strange that the FDA does not impose stricter regulation on GM foods when an estimated sixty percent of GM foods contain at least one genetically modified component.  However, a new bill was introduced in Congress that requires mandatory labeling of all foods.  Feeling the pressure from the new bill, the FDA decided to re-examine its food-safety program for genetically modified food crops and impose tougher regulations on genetically modified food (McInnis and Sinha, 2000).
    If few people in the United States are concerned about genetically modified foods, then why is there an international controversy emerging?  The reason for this controversy is that the view of the United States on GM foods is conflicting with that of other countries.  Unlike the United States, most countries view GM foods with skepticism.  The countries with the most skepticism are Japan and Great Britain.   The Japanese government was the first government to impose strict regulation and testing of all genetically modified foods imported and exported in Japan.  Japan will enforce mandatory testing of all potential health risks of GM foods starting in April 2001.  In addition to the testing, all foods containing genetically modified ingredients must be labeled and foods with a mixture of genetically modified and non-genetically modified ingredients must be labeled as undifferentiated.  British public opinion has also been skeptical of GM foods due to the failure of the British food inspectors to detect the Mad Cow disease in meat several years ago.  The British general public has also been turned against genetically modified foods by a faulty study on the effects of GM foods on rats and through vandalism done by radical Greenpeace activists.  In response to the skepticism, the British government created scientific advisory panels to examine GM food products (Whetton, 1999).
    Recently, a breakthrough has come in the international genetically modified food controversy.  After a conference in Montreal, negotiators from one hundred thirty countries made an agreement that will require exporters to identify genetically modified organisms and allow importing countries to judge whether they possess environmental or health risks.  If importing nations believe that the GMO possesses these risks, then they can block the shipment even without "scientific certainty".  One of the major stumbling blocks in the acceptance of the agreement was the shipment of grain.  The United States and other major grain exporting countries sought to exclude genetically modified grain shipments from the agreement because they were concerned that other countries would ban GM grain imports.  Eventually, a compromise was reached that included the shipment of grain as a regulated commodity (Macilwain, 2000).
    Environmentalists are praising this agreement as a historic breakthrough because it is the first precautionary step that has been incorporated into an international agreement.  However, some people believe that this agreement is fairly weak because it does not claim precedence over the rules of the World Trade Organization and the rules will not come into force until two years after the agreement is ratified by at least fifty countries.  Most likely, the United States will sidestep this agreement by delaying its ratification as long as possible to protect the large agricultural biotechnology companies (Macilwain, 2000).

Conclusion:
    Examining the controversy surrounding genetically modified food, the author raises several ironies.  I think that these ironies are important to keep in mind when coming to a conclusion on the issue of genetically modified foods.
    The first irony in the genetically modified food debate is how public opinion is formed and how the government makes decisions.  The typical pattern of response, by the general public, to a scientific breakthrough is apathy.  The public only becomes concerned about an issue when there is a controversy.  Arousal of the general public forces the government into action.  Usually the government attempts to create a solution to the controversy by passing legislation and imposing regulations.  In the controversy surrounding genetically modified foods, governments around the world are stepping in and attempting to resolve the debate through regulations.  However, are government officials qualified to resolve a complicated scientific matter?  Most likely, the majority of government officials have little background in science and are unqualified to make decisions about the future of GM foods.  Due to their status in the government, these people are given an equal voice to that of the scientifically qualified people.  Do you feel comfortable with scientifically unqualified people making decisions about what is safe to eat?  Unfortunately, the general public seems to trust the government more on scientific issues than actual scientists and is persuaded by decisions of the government (Whetton, 1999).
    The second irony in the debate over genetically modified food is a comparison of genetically modified foods to dietary supplements.  Dietary supplements promise healthier lives, but are known to cause major health risks.  No one knows about the health risks because of the lobbying done by the wealthy dietary supplement industry.  The lobbying has effectively blocked, regulation, and some testing, yet millions of people take dietary supplements without thinking twice.  In contrast to dietary supplements, genetically modified foods have also been promised to increase health and vitality of humans.  Despite being linked to theoretical and unproven health and environmental risks, people have furiously opposed the development and consumption of genetically modified foods.  It is hard to believe that the general public is so willing to support dietary supplements and reject genetically modified foods at the same time.  It is also alarming to see how the government takes money and approves the usage of dietary supplements even though they are known to cause health risks (Krugman, 2000).
    The third irony in the genetically modified food debate is the comparison between classical plant breeding and genetically modified organisms.  In classical plant breeding, a desired trait is introduced into a crop from a wild relative by inserting large chunks of the donor genome into the new plant.  In this process, breeders may have no idea what other changes may have been introduced.  Director of the John Innes Centre, Mike Gale says, "Surely putting in one gene is better than shuffling around tens of thousands at random."  Once again, no one is suspicious of classical plant breeding even though it is essentially doing the same thing, only on a larger scale, as genetic engineering.  Why doesn't everyone want to put an end to classical plant breeding? (McInnis and Sinha, 2000)
    I believe that genetically modified foods are a great asset to humans in the present and future.  The general public will think the same way I do after the newness of genetically modified foods wares off.  Once the newness wares off, people will become less fearful of them and become more educated about them.  I think the key in the genetically modified food debate is public education and awareness.  However, I was surprised to learn how loosely the government controls GMOs, and I think that the government and genetically modified food manufactures should be held accountable by the public to discover the long-term effects and risks of genetically modified foods.  According to Ellerstrand, "Only one percent of the United States Department of Agriculture's molecular biology is spent to study the potential risks of genetic engineering" (Culhane, 1999).  It is hard for me to imagine an effective study on the effects of genetic engineering taking place with only one percent of the budget.  Hopefully, all sides of the issue will take more responsibility in solving the mysteries of genetic engineering and be more open to scientific breakthroughs in the future.

Bibliography:

Butler, Declan and Reichhardt, Tony (1999). Long-term Effects of GM crops services up
    food for thought. Nature, 398, 651.

Chase, Marilyn (1999). Should you worry about Health Risks From Biotech Food? Wall
    Street Journal, 234, B1.

Culhane, Kari Watson (1999). Fare Warning. Natural Health, 29, 90.

Krugman, Paul (2000). Natural Born Killers. New York Times, 149, A27.

Maccilwam, Colin (2000). Rules agreed over GM Food Exports. Nature, 402, 473.

McInnis, Doug and Sinha, Gunjan (2000). Genes: Genetically modified foods have
    already arrived on American diner tables. But are they safe? Popular Science,
    256, 64.

Whetton, Chris (1999). The Sleep of Reason. Hydrocarbon Processing, 78, 5.