GMOs and Their Potential
Troy Springer
Senior Seminar
Fall 2004
Thesis statement:
With an ever growing world population possibly reaching 9+ billion by 2050, how sustenance will be provided is a question that is often asked. The utilization of GMOs is a leading plan to help do this, not only in providing an efficient way of growing food, but also by providing a way to better help those who are malnourished to become healthy by providing a food source that covers a broader spectrum of nutrients.
I. Introduction
II. Uses
“Outdoor” GMOs
III. Concerns
IV. Misconceptions
A. GMOs are not needed to feed the world
B. GMOs will not benefit farmers
C. The promotion of GMOs is only for the self-interest of transnational corporations
V. Ethics: Should GMOs even be used?
VI. Policy/Regulation: How can we control the use of GMOs?
VII. Conclusion
Introduction
A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is a virus, bacterium, or more complex life-form in which the DNA has been altered for a particular purpose. Some of these purposes include: research into the nature of genes and biological processes, manufacturing animal proteins, correcting genetic defects, and making improvements to animals and plants (Natural Environment Research Council). Making improvements to animals and plants is a major motivation to produce GMOs. With a world population on its way to 9 plus billion by the year 2050, a viable option for sustenance production is needed. With this ever-growing world population there is a need for somehow controlling the amount of people born. China is one country which has dealt with their overcrowding problem, but it seems that many of the other countries of the world are not doing much if anything to control their own populations. Because of this lack of action in controlling the world population, the need is shifted to how we will provide for all those people. GMOs are a way in which we as a world population can better provide for ourselves so that everyone will have enough provisions to survive.
GMOs have been created naturally for millions of years. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is one example of a natural genetic engineer because it is able to alter another organism’s DNA to benefit itself. This species of soil-dwelling bacteria infects plant cells with a piece of its own DNA, and when it is integrated with the plant’s chromosome, it uses the plant’s own cells to proliferate the population of the bacteria. The way in which the bacterium does this is through the use of its bacterial chromosome and a plasmid, which is also a DNA carrying structure. The bacterium infects the plant through wounds in the roots of stems, through which the plant is giving off chemical signals. These chemical signals set off a cascade of gene activity in the A. tumefaciens which direct a series of events required for the transfer of tDNA from the plasmid into the plant’s cells through the wounds of the plant. The tDNA then moves into the nucleus of the plant cell and becomes integrated into the plant chromosome (Understanding GMOs).
This procedure has also been performed successfully in the lab with dicots, broadleaf plants, soybeans and tomatoes for many years. Through this procedure, the desired gene and marker is inserted into the tDNA of the plasmid. Tissues of the organism are then transferred to a medium containing an antibiotic or herbicide in order to tell if the organism has successfully taken up the desired gene because only the tissues expressing the marker will survive. These tissues are then grown under controlled environmental conditions in tissue cultures containing nutrients and hormones so that whole plants are grown. When plants are grown and have produced seed, an evaluation of the progeny is done making sure that the desired traits have been passed on (Understanding GMOs).
A basic method in which we get specific genes integrated with another organism’s chromosome is as follows: Isolate the DNA from which selected gene is to be taken from and treat it with enzymes that will cut out that specific gene. These genes are then inserted into bacteria and grown into colonies being screened to be sure that the bacteria has accepted the gene. The most suitable carrier of the gene is then selected and grown exclusively. These are then sequenced and the genes are trimmed along with having DNA signals added before it is inserted into the DNA of another organism via virus, bacterium, plant or animal (Natural Environment Research Council).
Another mode to create GMOs in the lab is done through the use of a “gene gun”. This is a new method for in-vivo transformation of cells or organisms. This method shoots genes directly into plant cells and plant cell chloroplasts. DNA or RNA is coated onto small particles of gold or tungsten, and then shot directly into the plant tissue by a high pressure helium pulse (Understanding GMOs).
Creation of GMOs by humans hasn’t been a recent development. Humans have changed the genetic make-up of organisms, especially plants and animals, selecting for particular traits such as fast growth rates, and good seed production for centuries. We have done this through selective breeding of these organisms, which could be considered as a kind of evolution by natural selection. The new technologies that have been developed have taken a lot of the guess work out of this kind of selection. We now have much greater precision, being able to change a single gene instead of thousands which was involved with selective breeding (Natural Environment Research Council).
The uses of GMOs span a wide variety of applications. They can range from medicines to all sorts of foods, and with future research, they could be implemented in various other areas of our lives.
‘Indoor’ GMOs produce medicines such as antibiotics, painkillers, vaccines and other substances such as insulin and growth hormones, but there are some food based products such as cheese and yogurt whose bacteria can be modified to change their production. Indoor GMOs don’t necessarily have changes in their end product; the modification is usually within the process of production. Since these products have such strict rules to follow in the laboratory where they are produced, these GMOs are not likely to be a hazard to the environment (Natural Environment Research Council).
‘Outdoor’ GMOs are those that have a possibility to improve existing plant crops, protect crops from pests and diseases, alter plants to produce novel products, control the reproduction of wild animals through contraceptive vaccines, solving environmental problems, and even treating genetic disorders. The motivations for producing GMOs are to help increase the efficiency of food production such as solving problems by creating drought-resistant plants, creating plants that can deal with pests that have become resistant to insecticides, or even providing helpful vaccines in common foods (Natural Environmental Research Council).
Major issues arise through the use of ‘outdoor’ GMOs to provide ways to feed a growing world population.
The major struggle against GMOs is the debate about whether they are safe or not. Those who are against the use of GMOs claim that our environment and health are at risk, while those in support do not believe that to be true.
An increased awareness has created an significant resistance regarding the use of GMOs in today’s world. One of the major points for those who are against the use of GMOs is due to the risk of gene flow. Gene flow, also known as gene migration is the transfer of genes from one population to another (Gene-flow). Those against GMOs regard this manual movement of genetic information as being wrong, and many times raise the term ‘playing God’.
Another point that many anti-GMO activists make is the fear of crossing GMOs with non-modified organisms, specifically plants. One example of this could involve the crossing of crops with their weedy relatives so that the traits are expressed in the crop are expressed in the weed, creating some sort of ‘super weed’ which would be resistant to all control measures. This crossing has been shown to occur, that traits like resistance to an herbicide or resistance to a group of pests can be passed from crop to weed through the crop plant’s pollen. What hasn’t been proven yet is whether this crossing results in these so called ‘super weeds’, being resistant to all control measures. It is not clear that this is a possibility because the widespread use of a single herbicide or insecticide puts pressure on the weed or pest to adapt to that particular control measure. For example, the extensive use of glyphosate (Roundup) might result in glyphosate-resistant weeds, but the farmer then has other control measures which he could switch to (Information on GMOs, 2000). There have been a few cases in which glyphosate resistant weeds were found in Australia , Malaysia , and possibly California , but none of these cases are related to GM crops (Morton, et al, 2001).
Regarding insects and their ability to become resistant to pesticides, it is very possible for them to do so with Bt crops. Bt crops are crops that kill insects by expressing toxic proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Shelton , 2000). Since these crops express these proteins at all times throughout the entire plant, the insects do not have to be in a certain area of the crop to be exposed to the pesticide. To try to keep resistance from developing, farmers are required to plant refuges of non-Bt plants within the crop, which should help keep populations of insects susceptible to the Bt toxin (Information on GMOs, 2000). Studies regarding the effectiveness of these non-Bt refuges have shown that fields containing isolated refuges of non-Bt plants are far more effective at suppressing insect resistance than fields in which non-Bt crops are mixed among Bt plants, and add that spraying a refuge with a different insecticide may actually increase the likelihood of the emergence of resistance (Shelton, 2000).
There are also possible health hazards that could accompany the use of GMOs. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, the head of Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the Open University in Milton Keynes , UK believes that gene technology may well ruin our food supply, destroy biodiversity and unleash pandemics of antibiotic resistant infectious diseases. Many of these allegations are only based upon theories and speculations; there has been evidence to support both sides in the GMO debate. Allergies are a main point in the debate, regarding what could possibly happen, or is happening right now in today’s food products. One GMO, the Pioneer Hi-Bred soybeans with a Brazil-nut protein added, has been abandoned because of this possible allergic-reaction threat. One advantage for the companies creating these GMOs is to consider that 90 percent of our food allergies are in response to only eight foods: peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soybeans, shell fish, fish, and wheat. If special attention is taken in where donor genes are taken from, the problem with creation of new allergenic food can be bypassed. Since only a single or very few genes are normally involved with genetic engineering, it makes it even easier to test for possible allergic reactions because each gene encodes a single protein product, which can then be easily tested for its allergenic effects (Information on GMOs, 2000). The use of GMOs has even produced, at least one example, that allergic reactions have been lessened. The ultimate goal of doing this is to help create safer food, so accidental ingestion of hidden allergens will not cause dangerous reactions (Using GE to Reduce Allergic Reactions, 2002).
Another possible concern is the idea of the modified product being antibiotic resistant, a trait used to tell during the selection process that the gene had been incorporated. What is often thought of and is a common misconception is that the presence of antibiotic resistance marker genes means the GMO produces antibiotic. The consumer of the GMO does not receive a dose of antibiotic when they eat the product. But a possible scenario could be that if food from GMOs becomes widely available, there is the potential for antibiotic resistance genes to be present in many everyday items in our diet. This is a concern for some because of the uncertainty of what this extra DNA in our systems will do. What is commonly overlooked is that DNA is present in the cells of all living organisms, including every plant and animal used for food, and along with this DNA, incidental food contaminants are also consumed. This leads to the conclusion that the large amount of DNA that passes the gastro-intestinal tract daily indicates that DNA itself is not essentially toxic to humans. Knowing this, it should also be made known that the DNA that makes up an antibiotic resistance gene has no unusual composition compared to other genes and so, its presence poses no more health risk than the other DNA that is ingested (Read, 2000). So the DNA itself is not what poses a potential threat to us, but it is proteins that are transcribed from this DNA and we also would consume these if we were to eat GMO foods.
Another misunderstanding about GMO foods is to think of them as breaking down differently in our bodies. Most proteins rapidly degrade upon consumption and exposure to the mammalian digestive tract. Our gastro-intestinal tract is specifically designed to digest proteins by conversion to amino acids and small peptides that are absorbed by the intestinal tract. Any risk that could be possible would depend on the daily intake and the stability of the protein in the gastro-intestinal tract. This would mean that the foods that carry the greatest risks would be those that are consumed uncooked or unprocessed. We can find out if a protein is likely to be safe or not for consumption by examining proteins of the same function that have been safely consumed at similar levels, and for those proteins that are not similar to common proteins found in our diet, we can determine their safety by assessing their potential toxicity and allergic response, all of which can easily be determined through examining the source, amino acid sequence and function of the gene product (Read, 2000). Both sides of the debate agree that new and better methods to evaluate GMO foods are needed. We need to decide whether long term feeding studies are necessary to provide greater information on potential allergic reactions and toxicity, all of which are, at the present time, unknown.
Misconceptions
GMOs are not needed to feed the world.
The major thought process that is derived through this statement is that people are hungry because they are poor, not because there’s not enough food. So if they can’t even afford to buy conventional food, how would they be able to afford GM food? This is incorrect. People are hungry because they cannot locally produce adequate food to provide for themselves. Reasons for this may include the damage of crops by insects with the inability to purchase insecticides, or crops cannot grow due to drought or lack of fresh water. If those who were affected by insects were to grow a Bt crop, they would not need to buy insecticides because the plant is producing a form of one, allowing for a greater yield to be grown (Morton, et al, 2001).
For those who are lacking fresh water to irrigate their crops there may be a solution available in the near future. Trials are now being held with ‘eco-friendly’ genetic engineering developing plants that can thrive in salt-rich soils and hibernate in conditions of extreme cold or drought. This type of genetics is considered ‘eco-friendly’ because of the way scientists are going about modifying the plants. They have studied how plants protect themselves from environmental stresses, and then they enhance these natural defense systems by amplifying the relevant genes. One gene was found to help plants grow in soils with high salt content; the thinking is that with this gene amplified, the plant will be able to pump salt out of their roots before it can damage them. What the company that is developing these plants would like to ultimately do is to develop plants that can use sea water as an irrigation source. A third of the world’s irrigated land is deemed useless because it contains too much salt. One option to try to solve this is to flush the area with more water, however when water is a scarcity, this is not an option. This is one problem that a large number of farmers throughout the world need to deal with. Over 7.3 billion dollars is in lost yields in the U.S. alone every year due to salt-rich soils (Murphy, 2004).
Another misconception is that farmers will not benefit from planting GM crops. With today’s low market price for many crops, and farmers with high overhead costs, GMOs are one way in which they can help lower their costs, and even improve their yield, all while preserving farmland. The use of GMOs has been proven to reduce the need for chemical pesticides and tillage, which can cause soil erosion. In the U.S. alone, cotton farmers have cut their insecticide use by about two million pounds (12%) since GM seeds were introduced in 1996. Since fewer pesticides are needed, crops can grow by using less tillage, conserving soil, fuel and water, which would ultimately save money (Genetically Modified Organisms, 1999). Even the former leader of Greenpeace, director Patrick Moore agrees that there is potential for GMOs in his statement that “genetic engineering is a good way to reduce humans’ impact on the environment by increasing yields of key food crops, thus reducing the amount of land used for farming, along with reducing the need for pesticides (Public ‘Misled’…, 2001).” So, if farmers can reduce the amount of land they use for farming along with reducing the costs of pesticides, fuel and water, all while increasing their yield, they will be producing at a lower cost, creating more funds for themselves.
GMOs are only promoted for corporate greed and self interest
In today’s world, there are many things that are economically driven. Companies need to make a profit in order to survive from fiscal year to fiscal year. So, naturally there will be some profit gained by the use of GMOs. There are examples though, where this is not the case. One such example is through the production of Golden Rice. Golden Rice is a variety that would provide the consumer with a supplement of vitamin A. The argument has been raised whether Golden Rice will actually help people that lack vitamin A in their diets. However, the promotion of Golden Rice stands to try to help those who are deficient in vitamin A. The fact that someone tried to produce a new plant variety that has no commercial benefits to the transnational corporations and the fact that agreements have been drawn up to distribute this plant for free proves that this technology has the potential to work for the poor and malnourished. In fact, Golden Rice counters many of the arguments that those against GMOs raise including that it is not developed by and for industry, that those who benefit are the poor and disadvantaged, that it does not create any new dependencies, that it can be grown without any additional inputs, that it can be resown every year from the saved harvest, as well as showing so far no conceptual negative effects on the environment or risk to consumer health (Morton, et al, 2001).
Ethics: Should GMOs even be used?
When considering this question, it should be remembered that “science and technology have provided great benefits in the past and are likely to do so in the future, as long as they are properly managed and applied” (Administration and Finance Department, 2000). It is when they are abused that problems arise. There are many potential benefits that could very well come to be through the use of GMOs. These include: the increase of yield and quality of crops which would help lessen strain on the environment, and a possible source to treat malnourishment, even providing helpful vaccines through the consumption of common foods, especially for those in third world countries.
But with all of these possible benefits, there comes concern of the unknown. It comes down to there not being precise answers of what kind of side effects would come from the use of GMOs. This though, should not be a stumbling block for the cause. It should be an encourager for all those working in the field, and the rest of the public to help support such research.
Although there are possibilities of risks created by GMOs, there normally are risks when new technologies are created. The society as a whole or the scientific community needs to weigh these risks against the benefits. There are many technologies today that could possibly cause dangers to our health, including electricity, cars and planes. However, we as a society have agreed to take the chance because the benefits outweigh the risks. To determine whether risks do outweigh the benefits an expert committee established by the FDA concluded that the safety of a food depends upon its properties, not the process used to produce it. This means that the safety of GMO foods should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that the “decisions should be made by consensus, not by unanimity”. Waiting until everyone agrees is the same as eliminating the possible uses of GMOs (Information on GMOs, 2000). If the uses of GMOs were eliminated, so would the benefits that would come along. We as a society cannot forgo such an important leap of biotechnology and still expect the world as it functions now, to be able to provide for its entire population.
The threat of 9 plus billion is quickly approaching, and the use of family planning does not seem to be an answer that a majority of us in developed nations want to swallow (UNFPA, 2004). A solution that we are facing now is implementing GMOs more widespread, but further research needs to be done so that we will be able to gain as much advantage as possible out of their use while reducing the problems.
Policy/ Regulation: How can we control the use of GMOs in the US ?
GMOs are regulated in the US by the FDA, USDA and EPA, but there is still grumblings that the policies and regulations set out by these agencies are not strict enough. The FDA sets safety standards for the GM foods, and requires labeling in cases where nutritional content is altered, if the toxin level has increased, if a new substance is a food additive, or if the protein made by the gene added is an allergen. The USDA grants permission to plant GM crops, authorizes interstate movement/ importation, and approves petitions for non-regulated status. The EPA regulates the distribution, sale and sets or exempts tolerances of pesticides used on the GM crops. Through further research, these governmental agencies will continue to try to promote the greatest of common good (DiFonzo, 2000).
I believe that GMOs are a very direct way in which we will be able to answer the problem of over crowding in the near future. I also believe that it will be a way that we will be able to provide necessary vaccines and other medications for those in need at a cost much lower than they are being produced now. What the unknown holds for risks doesn’t seem to me to be great enough to over power all the benefits that are possible. I do believe that more research needs to be done on the effects as well as prevention of possible gene flow. These, I believe, are not out of our reach. I am very confident that we will safely make a transition from being very cautious about GMOs, to welcoming them open-armed into our everyday lives, because we will recognize that they will be essential for sustaining life on this planet.
Work Cited
(n.d.) Gene flow. Retrieved October 4, 2003 from: http://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/gene_flow.html
(n.d.). Understanding Genetically Modified Organisms. Retrieved September 28, 2004 from University of Washington website: http://courses.washington.edu/z490/gmo/
(1999, December) Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Retrieved October 30, 2004 from: http://www.ift.org/pdfs/gmoback.pdf
(2000, November). Information on Genetically Modified Organisms. Retrieved September 28, 2004 , from the Ohio State University website: http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/
(2001, February) Public ‘Misled’ on GE Risk (Summary). Retrieved November 3, 2004 from: http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/2001/february2001/250201.html
(2002, October) Using Genetic Engineering to Reduce Allergic Reactions (Summary). Retrieved November 1, 2004 from: http://pewagbiotech.org/newsroom/summaries/display.php3?NewsID=274
Administration and Finance Department. (2000) Report of the Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture. Retrived November 6, 2004 from: http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/003/X9600E/x9600e06.htm
DiFonzo, Chris. (2000, April) Transgenic Crops. Retrieved November 7, 2004 from: http://www.msue.msu.edu/valueadded/images/sld014.htm
Morton, R &Roush, R &Parrott, W. (2001, July). Response to GM Food Myths. Retrieved October 3, 2004 from AgBioWorld’s website: http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/articles/myths.html
Murphy, Paul. (2004, May) Gene firm pioneers desert crops. Retrieved October, 23, 2004 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1221662,00.html
Natural Environment Research Council (n.d.). GMOs and the Environment: Scientific certainties and uncertainties. Retrieved October 3, 2004 from: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/gmo/
Read, Deborah. (2000, December) Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Genetically Modified Organisms. Retrieved October 24, 2004 from: http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/Publications/pdfs/ER-GI-01-1.pdf
Shelton, Anthony M. (2000, March) Bt Crops on Trial. Retrieved October 24, 2004 from: http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/gmo/pr-bt-crops-on-trial.htm
UNFPA. (2004) Population Growth is Still an Issue. Retrieved November 25, 2004 from: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch1/page7.htm#1