Transaction / Regular Paper Title

Genetically Modified Foods

CMPE 80e Spring 2005

Project Engineers:

Jon Faerber

Terrell Edwards

Andre Goenawan

Shogo Osawa

2017年11月12日 INTRODUCTION

Throughout history, humankind has attempted to make various things easier for them by controlling the world around them. It started with the domestication of animals around 50,000 B.C. After altering animals, as humans evolved into an agricultural based society, they started breeding different strains of plants hoping to get the best possible plants for food. These practices have continued throughout history, but as scientific understanding of breeding and technology grows, the methods of going about altering plants and animals have changed. Now, rather than breeding two similar types of plants or animals together, engineers and scientists can directly alter the genetic sequence of the DNA of a species. This possibility of altering plants and specifically crops for the food supply raises many ethical and possible safety issues which need to be explored.

This paper will explore many of the social and ethical dilemmas associated with GMO's in our food supply. Specific focus will be given to the technical aspects of genetic modification, possible positive and negative effects of genetically modified foods, laws on genetically modified foods in the United States. The goal by covering all of these diverse topics is to help the reader be well informed of all aspects regarding genetically modified foods so that they can come to their own ethical stance. We propose that the government create a law requiring the labeling of all GMO products. This is currently done in all European nations and should also be obligatory here in the United States. This will leave the ultimate decision regarding GMO's to be made by way of an informed consumer choice to spend their dollar.

TECHNICAL ASPECT OF GMO

There are several rising concerns about the upcoming push of genetically modified foods, due mainly to the emergence of new products from GM companies. For centuries, we have been doing our own sort of genetic modification, by manipulating certain breeds and species. One example would be the selective breeding of plants; by selecting certain seeds with more resistance to disease and pests than others, farmers are able to produce more crops. However, with the introduction of genetic engineering, modifications to plants and animals no longer have to be done through the selective breeding process. Genetic engineering has allowed the process to speed up considerably faster, allowing farmers to produce crops that are immediately resistant to strains of bacteria or insec- ticides. It also has the advantage of cross species manipulation, providing for an unlimited number of possibilities. So what is the process behind all of this? There are several techniques available with today’s technology to modify plants and animals through genetic engineering.

The use of genetic modification has become relatively common in today’s technologically expanding world. By taking specific long strands of DNA (genes) and inserting them into other species of cells, it is possible for the new cells carry on useful traits. These new cells that emerge with foreign genes are called transgenic organisms, and are also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Generally, plants can be genetically modified easily because they can be grown from a single cell or piece of tissue. The process of genetic engineering requires the successful completion of five important steps, each varying in length of time to complete: DNA extraction, gene cloning, gene design, transformation, and backcross breeding [1].

The first step that takes place is DNA extraction. During this step, the selected gene is extracted from an organism. The gene is then cloned thousands of times, so that it can be successfully inserted into cells. Next, the gene is designed to be effective when placed inside a different organism. This step is done by modifying three regions, the promoter, coding region and termination sequence [1]. The promoter region essentially turns the gene “on” and “off” like a light bulb switch and also specifies the number of times a protein will be produced. The coding region is where the important DNA information is stored, and gives off the desired traits. The termination sequence signals the end of the gene so the entire chromosome is not read, which is important because unnecessary genes should not be read. Transformation is where a new gene is delivered into the nucleus of a plant cell and inserts into a chromosome [1]. The term transformation means to genetically change a living organism. It is typically done on tissue culture, so that the cells can be grown into whole plants with a copy of the transgene. Once the genes transfer over, they are then regenerated through a special growth medium containing antibiotics. There are several methods for delivering DNA into the nucleus of plant cells, such as injection, gene guns, and agrobacterium (Boucher, 1).

One type of soil bacterium, called agrobacterium, has the natural ability to transfer DNA into plants, and has thus been called “Nature’s own genetic engineer”. Since agrobacterium usually causes disease, those genes are removed without compromising the gene-transferring ability. Scientists insert special genes into this strain of bacteria, and then place the agrobacterium into a solution with calluses, which are clusters of undifferentiated plant cells. Once in the solution, the agrobacterium work their way into the target calluses, eventually giving rise to a new breed of plant cells [3].

The method of genetic modification by ways of using biolistics, also known as “gene guns” or “the shotgun method,” can be applied to any plant cell. This method works by shooting DNA into the plant cells, using microscopic gold or tungsten particles coated with DNA. Tissue culture cells are put in a vacuum chamber and the metal particles are propelled with high-pressure gas, such as helium, and is released in a sudden burst. DNA that penetrates the nucleus of the plant cell are eventually regenerated with special laboratory procedures. The gene gun method is used where agrobacterium is not suitable for use, such as in wheat, rice, and corn [4].

There is another method of which involves injecting DNA with a very sharp needle into cells. This has been used primarily on animals, but unfortunately has a high rate of failure. Similar to the gene gun method, the genes from one organism are transferred to a foreign cell through specially designed needles. In animals, the injected cell is usually a fertilized egg which can be put back into the fe- male uterus and develop normally.

The process of delivering DNA into the cell via electroporation uses quick puls- es of electricity. It is done by first creating and mixing a solution containing cells and DNA molecules. By “electrocuting” the cells, tiny pores in the walls open up, allowing the DNA molecules to fit through them [1]. However, this process usually requires repeating hundreds of times before success, since there is no control as to how the gene gets inserted into the chromosome.

Once the gene is successfully inserted, plant cells are immediately go through a special process called regeneration. “Plant cells or tissue into which genes have been introduced can be regenerated in the laboratory by the use of appro- priate plant hormones, and careful culture, into whole plants” [1]. However, there is no universal method in the regeneration of plants because each plant re- sponds differently. Therefore, culture and regeneration methods must be adapt- ed depending on both plant cell type. Shortly thereafter, they are crossbred with non-modified plants, making a new line of plants which are again bred with the hybrids, until the offspring have 99+% of the transgene [1]. After that, scientists check to see if the inserted genes work, and monitor the future offspring of the plants.

One important thing in this field of technology is the use of marker genes. New genes that are introduced into plant cells have beneficial characteristics, such as the ability to produce their own insecticide or increased nutritional value. The problem with genetic engineering is that the success rate isn’t very high; only a fraction of genetically modified cells take up the new genes. Marker genes allow scientists to tell if the new genes is present in a cell or not, giving them identifiable characteristics in the early stages of cell development; this saves scientists time and resources [4]. For example, some marker genes give cells the ability to withstand antibiotics and herbicides. When they are treated with antibiotics or herbicides, these cells will survive, while the untreated ones die. Other marker genes can turn cells into a distinct color when treated with chemicals, or glow under a certain kind of light [5]. Marker genes are essential in genetic engineering because it provides a powerful tool to the scientist: determining whether or not a cell has been successfully modified.

Among crops that are genetically modified in the United States, soybeans, corn, and cotton are the most commonly produced [6]. The goal of most biotechnology products are to tolerate herbicides, resist pets, improve color and flavor, increase nutritional value, and provide longer storage times. For example, the process behind creating a new breed of corn that can withstand insects can be done in a few steps. By inserting a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thruingien- sis (Bt) into plants, it instructs them to produce a protein that is toxic to some insects, such as caterpillars, but harmless to most other creatures. First, the gene from the Bt bacterium that directs cells to produce a toxic protein to certain insects is isolated, then inserted with the marker gene into plant cells by method of very sharp needles. Once that is done, scientists create a condition where only the cells that have taken up the genes will survive, such as by exposing the cells to an antibiotic. Once determined, the new cells are allowed to grow into plants, where they eventually produce seeds for companies to collect and redistribute.

With such a promising future for genetic engineering, the applications are limit- less. “On the horizon are bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B; fish that mature more quickly; fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties” [7]. As researchers gain more information on this subject, GM product development will continue to progress in unprecedented ways, possibly allevi- ating important issues such as world hunger and crop failures.

BENEFITS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

With an ever increasing global population, massive 3rd world hunger, and the health risks of pesticides, it would seem as if genetically modified organism (GMO's) would be seen as a hero coming to the world's rescue. Instead however, many people see GMO's as the greatest threat ever to human civilization [8]. But genetic engineering or biotechnology is creating new novel strategies to help scientist solve the problem of how to feed the world. It has been estimated that a child dies every two seconds world wide from starvation; this does not even take into account the number of people who are mal and undernourished. We have the technology to transfer potentially any gene from any organism on the planet to another organism. There is a great promise in the use of this technology to benefit not only the farmers, but also societies worldwide.

The growth in agriculture production has increased since genetic modification first became available. As an example: corn, wheat and protein production has increased 333%, 136% and nearly 300% respectively, according to The National Research Council. Corn is the most important and widely grown grain in the United States. As Noel Vietmeyer of the National Academy of Science pointed out, corn does much more than just feed America, “You rely on corn products each time you read a magazine, walk across carpet, mail a letter, eat steak, drink beer or a soft drink, eat candy, chew gum, or take an aspirin." Among the many strengths corn has, it also has a major fatal weakness, it cannot reproduce without human aid. Its tight husk prevents the corn kernels from escaping and reaching the soil to germinate. It is also vulnerable to many pests and diseases, and corn requires a lot of nutrients.

Some opportunities to use GMO's for good is: creating plants better resistant to weeds, pest and other diseases such as corn, foods with better texture, flavor and nutritional value, produce with a longer shelf life for easier shipping, bigger yields to create more efficient use of land, less uses of herbicides and other pesticides, and finally GMO's can create an essential sustainable way to feed the world.

In the United States we have already begun to grow our first generation of transgenic herbicide and pest resistant crops. This has allowed farmers to not only use fewer pesticides, but the ones they are choosing to use are more envi- ronmentally friendly. It is also hypothesized that future generations of transgenic crops will lead to the creation of foods that can improve human health [9]. We should not be afraid of biotechnology. Humans, plants and animals are more than just our genes, changing one or two genes do not make food products unac- ceptable for consumption.

Positive Environmental Impacts of GMO's

Soil salinity has become a major problem in all agriculture especially in the San Joaquin Valley [10]. Salts have built up due to a decrease in the water table, poor drainage, and topical irrigation [11]. The increase in salinity has made crops less able to grow and in some cases unable to grow at all [10]. The pictures in figure one and figure two show areas of salt concentration in the San Joaquin Valley as a result of irrigation practices. Areas of salt concentration

(Figure 1. A cornfield in the San Joaquin Valley 15 miles north of Kettleman City along Highway 41 showing salt damage.)

Water holding area Areas of salt concentration

(Figure 2. Soil just outside agricultural water holding land in the San Joaquin Valley 20 miles north of Kettleman City along Highway 41. The soil is now white because of significant amounts of salt.)

Decreasing soil productivity in a nation requiring the diminishing agricultural land to be more productive will not allow enough food to be grown for the globally expanding population. Thus we need to research the possibility of using the genes of salt tolerant plants species in our agricultural crops.

Mangroves are one such plant species, which may be able to provide several options to decrease the amount of salinity within the soil. Mangroves have the unique ability to bring in salt water through their roots, remove it from the water, and release the salts through their leaves where wind carries it away. It may be possible to remove some of the salts in the soil by growing mangroves in areas of high salt content or by isolating the genes that allow them to grow in areas of high salt concentration and placing them in our traditional field crops.

Plants are being classically bred for salt tolerance but nothing has been successful [12]. An alternative to plant breeding is to genetically modify plants to be salt tolerant. Salt tolerant plants may contain genes vital to genetically modify crop plants to be salt tolerant [12]. Mangroves contain genes allowing it to tolerate and live in saline conditions. A gene from the grey mangrove, Avicennia marina, has been genetically implanted into a tobacco plant [13]. The plants surviv- ing the gene transfer show an increase in the ability of the tobacco plant to tolerate salt stress as well as showing tolerance to other ionic stresses [13]. It may be possible to use the gene found in the grey mangrove as well as find other mangrove genes allowing it to tolerate salt and transfer them to food crops. Food crops with the ability to tolerate salty soil would potentially be able to remain productive in the San Joaquin Valley.

Creating a Sustainability through GMO's

Food in the U.S. is relatively inexpensive, abundant, safe and readily available because of the success of modern plant breeding and genetic engineering. The growth in agriculture production has increased since genetic modification became available. Though, the American food supply may be on the verge of collapse as depletion of crop gene pool continues. Among the less fortunate people of the world catastrophic agriculture collapse have already taken place.

Some of the most exciting advances in genetically altered plants are for non-food sources. Edible vaccinations are one such area. It has the potential to provide more convenient, less costly immunization strategies. Dr. Charles Arntzen said, "The dramatic impact of modern vaccines is not reaching the developing world where it is most needed." There is a lack of equipment needed for making, storing and delivering vaccines in these under developed nations, and also a cultural barrier that impedes the acceptance of injection-based immunization. What if people were able eat foods that where part of their normal diet, but that could also immunize against diseases?

This question has lead to scientists pursuing the creation of food products, which would protect people from cholera and diarrhea. These two are the lead- ing causes of infant deaths in developing parts of the world. Already transgenic potato plants have been produced that were demonstrated to be effective in im- munizing mice against the bacteria that cause diarrhea. The potatoes were then used in the first-ever human clinical trails utilizing a genetically engineered food to deliver a pharmaceutical. The trials were successful [9]. The genetic engineering of plants has the potential to provide edible plant vaccines that could be used to immunize individuals against a wide variety of infectious diseases ranging from cholera to potentially AIDS. Such developments have profound implications for improving human health worldwide and save millions of lives.

It has been shown that plants have a great economic value to pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and other industries. As the world population continues to grow an increased demand has been placed on our Earth's resources. Farmers sustain billions of dollars in crop loss each year that has the potential to be controlled by gene modification. Genetic engineering is a major innovation for agriculture providing growers with other alternatives to conventional pesticides.

There are a number of social and economical risks of GMO's but these risks are not a consequence of the technology but of its use. Progress with genetic engineering is no different from any of our other technological progress. Most people in industrialized countries are willing and able to accept a technology like the automobile. Just as many negative things could be said about our cars as could be said about GMO's such as they contribute to green house gas- es, kill about a half million people a year in the United States alone, and adds nothing important to our lifestyle except for convenience of fast travel. So why is genetic engineering perceived as being too risky?

Humans cannot escape the facts that we are part of the Earth's ecosystem and in every ecosystem there are producers and consumers. Currently we have no reason to think that genetic engineered plants are not safe to eat. People now consume about 100,000 different genes daily, and the DNA is efficiently bro- ken down in the human intestinal system. Though consumers want to eat what they see as natural products and many think of genetic engineering as unnatural because it involves laboratory procedures and field-testing. Many experts be- lieve the only way to overcome consumer resistance to genetically engineered foods is to clearly label products especially fruits and vegetables, derived from transgenetic plants. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the agency of the US Government that overseas food safety made its policy in May 1992 that food obtained from transgenetic plants need not be labeled as such. The FDA decid- ed that what is important to the consumers is the material content of the food nutritional, allergenic, pesticide and not the process used to generate the plant. What counts is the end product, not the methods used to produce plant variety.

It has been argued that the world already has enough food sources to feed the world and that the only problem has been transporting the food to the people. This is currently the case in our dilemma of how to feed the world. How- ever, we must continue to be on the forefront with our research on new sustainable ways to feed the ever-expanding current populations. Our current methods of commercial mass production agriculture are not sustainable in the long run. We have poisoned our soils and waters to the point that previously fertile lands are no longer productive. It is our duty to further expand our research on GMO's, as this may be the only way to feed our children in the future.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF GMO’S

The use of genetically modified plants and animals has already become com- monplace in today’s society without many people being aware of it. The lack of consumer consent in the choice to eat genetically modified foods creates an ethical dilemma. In an online article “Super Organics” from Wired by Richard Man- ning, he discusses genetically modified organisms and new, more natural ways of altering plants. Manning reveals that as much as “70 percent” of food prepackaged in a normal grocery store contain genetically modified foods, particularly “corn and soybean[s]” [14]. When in a store there is no way of identifying which foods are genetically modified. The only possible exception is those foods clearly labeled as organic are not modified, unless the crops have unknowingly been contaminated. To further complicate the issue, some of the modified foods found in stores were never intended for human consumption. One particular strain of genetically modified corn called StarLink corn was designed specifically for pig feed but has found its way into the national corn supply. In a Mercury News article titled “Banished biotech corn not gone yet” by Paul Jacobs, he discusses StarLink corn. Jacobs states that a program by the federal government to test corn has found traces of StarLink corn in “more than 1 percent” of the corn tested from various suppliers and growers of corn in the last year [16]. The prolif- eration of genetically modified foods in the food supply has grown and shows no sign of stopping.

A majority of consumers do not want genetically modified foods. This fact was clearly revealed by the public response to the Flavr Savr tomato. Flavr Savr was a brand of genetically modified tomato created by Calgene, which had the gene removed that caused the tomato to decay (in order to spread its seeds). Without this gene, the tomatoes were able to ripen on the vine and still remain firm during transport to the markets where they were sold. Traditionally tomatoes are picked before ripening while still green and allowed to ripen during trans- portation. Despite being genetically engineered, Flavr Savr tomatoes turned out to be less resistant to pests and easily caught diseases, which made the crops even more costly to grow. When Flavr Savr tomatoes were released, there was a large public backlash against genetically modified foods. The term “Franken- food” was generated to describe any engineered foods. Public groups like the Pure Food Campaign stalled the US Food and Drug Administration’s aproval of the sale of Flavr Savr tomatoes for over three years, and by the time the tomatoes were released many people refused to purchase the modified food. The refusal to buy Flavr Savr tomatoes was both due to their increased price, as well as being genetically modified. This led to the bankrupcy of Calgene, which was eventualy bought up by a larger agricultrual company, Monsanto. In many countries in the world, there are laws either banning the sale of genetically modified foods or requiring the labeling of foods that have been genetically altered. The large agricultural companies in the United States have used their financial backing of members of congress to prevent any laws restricting modified food from passing in America. This pressure applied on the government is another tactic used by large GMO companies which raises ethical concern about trangenetic foods. The companies’ stance against labeling is due to the fear that such laws would hurt their sales when people avoid modified foods.

Another example of the desire by the populace to not have genetically modified foods was demonstrated in 2004 when Monsanto announced it would not market genetically modified wheat. In a BBC News article titled “Monsanto drops plans for GM wheat” it is stated that due to customer resistance Monsanto would drop their efforts to grow a version of Roundup Ready wheat. While they market other Roundup Ready products it was found that wheat was too readily identifiable with common foods such as bread which most consumers found disturbing [17]. This reveals that Monsanto knows that consumers do not want their genetically modified products yet they willing to continue to push the products when the consumers are not well informed. This lack of respect for persons and the ability to make fully informed choices on the food they eat shows bad faith in the genetically modified food industries. One of the most important ideals when making ethical choices is letting those who might be effected make a well informed choice with full informed consent.

This attack against the consumer’s informed consent upon knowning what they are eating has further come under attack. An attempt to undermine the ability of the organic label was brought forth in 2003. According to an article “True to its roots” in the Sacramento Bee there was an attempt by GMO companies that even animals fed up to 15% of genetically engineered food should still be able to be labeled as organic [15]. This attack further demonstrates the desire to keep consumers in the dark about what they actually are consuming.

One of the most common claims about genetically modified foods is that they are better than their regular counterparts. This claim is often backed with a false statement that modified crops require less pesticides and herbicides than traditional crops would require. The world’s largest supplier of genetically modified seed for crops is Monsanto, which happens to be one of the larger producers of pesticides and herbicides. Monsanto owns scores of patents on different genetically modified seeds for various types of plants. One of their popular products is Roundup Ready Soy. This is a modified version of the soy plant designed to resist the Monsanto made herbicide roundup. Now, rather than specifically spraying specific plants in a field of soy, the entire field can be crop dusted with roundup. An average of three times as much Roundup is being used in these Roundup Ready Soy fields. While this requires less manual labor in money in farm workers it leads to an increase in funds towards Monsanto. This creates another group of people who are affected by the choice to use GMO foods, the farm workers who are losing their jobs in favor of extra chemicals. In an online article by Eva Cheng titled "Genetically modified food: Bush promotes a `biological time bomb,'" she discusses the way large corporations have pushed modified foods and how many scientists agree they are dangerous. “Seventy-five percent of GM crops are genetically manipulated to be herbicide tolerant (but usually only to brands produced by the same multinational corporations) and to be cultivated with heavy doses of the designated herbicide so that ‘everything else’ is killed but the GM crop” [18]. The use of pesticides and herbicides in fields has been well documented as unhealthy due to the many ways it effects the environment as well as human consumption when the food product is eventually eaten and still contains traces of the chemicals.

Another common claim is that genetically modified plants are less expen- sive to grow and increase the productivity of farmers. This is a claim put forth by the agricultural companies performing the modifications since it encourages farmers to buy their products despite the fact that, many times costs raise rather than decrease. Richard Manning’s article “Super Organics,” which discusses the Flavr Savr proves to be a prime examples of this. Over two hundred million dollars was invested in creating these tomatoes and almost none of the investment was able to be reclaimed as the product was a bust [14]. Even successful products like Roundup Ready Soy increase the cost of farmer’s production by requiring more herbicides. Each year, new modified seed must be purchased from the agricultural companies again to ensure that the crops will be the same genetically modified strain. This ensures repeat business for the companies from farmers who want to grow modified plants. The Independent Science Panel performed a study about genetically engineered foods and published a report titled “The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World.” They state that, “GM crops have cost the United States an estimated $12 billion in farm subsidies, lost sales and product recalls due to transgenic contamination. Massive failures in Bt cotton of up to 100% were reported in India” [19]. An article on Organic Consumers titled “Bt Cotton Fails Again in India” goes into more details about the crop failures in India. While the Bt cotton was resistant to bollworms it was more susceptible to other forms of failure. While non-modified plants were thriving all the Bt crops failed. This lead to an alarming rate of farmer suicide to collect on insurance due to ru- ined livelihoods in the loss of farms and crops [20]. The only financial benefit from modified plants is to the companies producing them and the products that accompany the modified seeds, not to the consumers or farmers. A major ethical consideration about the genetically modified foods is about the amount and quality of testing preformed on the foods. Genetic engineering is a relatively new field of science, and the long term results of modification are not clear. To be ethically responsible for their product warning labels should be pro- vided about the lack of long term testing. Monsanto and other companies have started testing on the possible impacts of these foods but when unfavorable results start appearing these tests are pushed aside losing funding and other tests which don’t show negative results are given more funding. This extreme bias in testing raises the concern of in whose interest these tests are being preformed, those of the public or those of the companies. Testing has been preformed but there has been no unbiased long term testing preformed on the foods leaving a void of information needed to accurately determine the safety of GMO’s as food.

Another major ethical issue is once the modified plant has been planted in nature, there is no way to remove the modification from the wild. This can have ad- verse effects on the environment which is a growing concern among the majority of the populace. Pollen from modified plants spreads and will infect more plants with this modification without any human help. StarLink corn has already been a prime example of this. Once released, despite attempts at controlling it, there is little that can be done to prevent the spread of the modification. In the Indepen- dent Science Panel’s study about genetically engineered foods titled “The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World,” one of the things revealed in this report is “High levels of contamination have since been found in Canada. In a test of 33 certified seed stocks, 32 were found contaminated” [19]. Now, even those who think they are growing natural products could possibly have crops that have been contaminated. While there is concern about how fast the modifications spread, there are other potential long term results that are already showing up. These modifications are also spreading to other varieties of plants; already, weeds fea- turing the herbicide resistant gene have starting appearing in Canada and parts of the United States. As these genes spread, nature tries to adapt to compen- sate. Insects have been found that are resistant to the BT gene inserted into corn and cotton in order to kill off pests. The ability of the modified gene to spread to other plants and their effect on surrounding species can lead to the introduction of super viruses and other unknown combinations. The environmental impact of genetically modified foods leaves many environmental ethic questions to be considered.

The issue of spreading genetically modified pollen spreading was also demonstrated in Canada. Monsanto was growing some genetically modified rapeseed which it held a patent for near an organic farmer’s crop. Naturally pollen spread between these two fields and the organic farmer’s crop was contaminated. When Monsanto found out about this they sued the farmer for growing patented crops without paying Monsanto for the seed. This legal battle made its way through the Canadian legal system all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court. In a BBC News article “Monsanto wins Canada seed battle” it is stated while the Canadian supreme court over turned a lower courts fine on the farmer that the farm be turned over to Monsanto [21]. This case has become a rallying point of those opposed to genetically modified foods as the unethical and one track mind towards monetary benefits that Monsanto has shown.

Another ethical concern raised in the use of genetically engineered crops is the safety of those who consume the final product. The Bt toxin that is used in most non-herbicide resistant strains of genetically modified plants was taken from the Bt bacteria. This toxin is designed to kill pests that eat crops, to replace the use of pesticides. Since the Bt toxin is inside the actual plant, there is no way it can be washed off or removed before human consumption. Allergies and other responses have been found in many people who eat these foods. These people with food allergies towards engineered are left with no alternatives as the use of genetically engineered crops spread and no labeling is preformed. As stated earlier, crops designed for pharmaceutical purposes are being grown. Rather than produce the pharmaceutical products in labs, it has been found more cost effective to introduce a gene into a plant and let plants grow the pharmaceutical product then harvest it from the plant or simply be used as feed. As the pollen spreads, genes from these pharmaceutical plants have made it into the food supply. These are essentially drugs inside of the food that affect the immune system and are being given to people who do not require them. The over use of, as well as unnecessary, pharmaceuticals has been well documented as harmful towards people, particularly towards young children and infants. These drugged foods are more commonly being fed to animals that are raised to be slaughtered and consumed by humans. Meats as well as plants now contain antibiotics that limit the ability of other antibiotics to treat illnesses when actually required.

Foods, specifically plants containing genetic modifications are already common in the American marketplace. The widespread use of genetically modified food has, for the most part, been hidden from public view due to the large backlash the public has against “frankenfoods.” The first step in helping solve the problem is to require all foods known to be derived from genetically modified sources to be clearly labeled. While it is difficult to determine which foods have been unknowingly contaminated, labeling allows the consumer to make the choice whether to support genetically modified foods or not. It will also raise public awareness that these foods are out there and how it may be affecting them. For those consumers currently concerned about modified foods, their only choice is to buy organic foods. Even organic crops and food sources are being threat- ened by pollen from genetically altered crops. The demand for organic food has consistently been on the rise for the past few years.

Genetically modified foods have not served any benefit to humankind or the environment, other than a few individual’s greed. The use of genetic engineering in the food supply has many ominous problems that would require long term testing before it should be considered. For now genetically modified products provide no benefit towards consumers or farmers, and the practice should be stopped. This does not necessarily mean that genetically modified foods hold no potential for good use, just needs to be exercised with extreme caution and for the good of all people not the power of a few individuals. While the end of GMO food is unlikely to happen, awareness of the problem should be raised until more pressure can be put on the government and agricultural companies to control the use of genetic engineering in the food supply.

LAWS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS IN THE UNITED STATES

Unlike the EU, which has a comprehensive system in considering and controlling the release of genetically modified foods into their market; the United States, a country known for its health conscious people, has a very high confidence in genetically modified foods. Since genetic engineered crops were first introduced for commercial production, the United States accounts for 63%, 105.7 million acres of land, of all genetically modified (GM) crops planted globally [22]. These crops include soybean, maize, cotton, and canola. In addition, “it is estimated that 70% of products on U.S. grocery shelves include GM products” [7]. They are widely available and generally accepted by most consumers. A recent study on March 1999 by the International Food Information Council shows that 77% of Americans would be likely to buy products that had been genetically engineered [23].

Another study shows however, that “in 2001, 88% of Americans are concerned about the nutritional content of their food. The number of consumers who have changed eating habits due to health and nutrition concerns rose to 72 percent, the highest percentage in the last four years” [24]. Therefore, it seems that most of Americans want to be healthy, but at the same time, they are still accepting genetically modified products. Do we really trust our health to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or are we just being ill-informed or kept in the dark genetically modified foods that are now extremely obtainable in the market?

There are three federal agencies that are responsible with the release of GM food plants in the United States. They are the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA). The FDA has the responsibility of regulating the safety of most domestic and imported foods in the US market, except meat and poultry, which are handled by the USDA. The EPA meanwhile has “jurisdic- tion over activities that can potentially harm the environment” [26], especially on pesticides used in or on foods. Of these three agencies however, the FDA is in charge for most of the GM foods that is available in the US’s market.

The FDA is one of the United States’ oldest consumer protection agencies. It regulates over $1 trillion worth of products sale annually. It is also a public health agency, in charge with “protecting American customers by enforcing the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and several related public health laws” [25].

In the food safety sector, the FDA makes sure that the food consumers consumed is safe, and wholesome. The agency’s scientists would need take food samples and test it for any excessive presence of pesticides and residues before it is released to the market s [25]. If contamination is ever detected, an appropri- ate corrective measure is taken. The agency however, does not evaluate the pro- cesses used to manufacture these foods. In other words, for a GM food, the FDA does not consider the fact that the sources of these foods are genetically modified organism [26]. The FDA would only require a label if they meet one of these criteria: “First, if a GM food contains substantially different nutrient content than its conventional counterpart, it requires labeling. Second, if the product is a novel food, i.e., one never before produced. Third and fourth, those GM foods containing a potential allergen or increased level of toxicity also must be labeled” [28].

The first commercially modified food crop was FlavrSvar, a tomato that was more resistant to rotting, created by Calgene [22]. In 1994, after it had passed the FDA’s voluntary testing for safe human consumption, Calgene released it to the market without any labeling indicating that FlavrSvar was actually genetically modified. The FDA allowed this as FlavrSvar was still actually a tomato with the same amount of vitamins, protein and mineral as non-modified tomatoes and did not constitute any health hazards (allergen). Although FlavrSvar did not hit the market very well because of poor flavor, the FDA later received many criticisms for not requiring labeling to FlavrSvar. This is also true that up till now, the FDA, despite increasing pressure, does not require most GM foods such as Bt potatoes that are readily available in grocery store to be labeled; simply because they are just equivalent to the non-GM version and therefore their method of production is irrelevant.

Since the process of testing the safety of GM foods by the FDA is voluntary for as long as the new product is “not significantly different” from its traditional counterpart, it is not surprising that if most of the products sold in the market now is categorized as “substantially equivalent” and safe by their manufacturers. These products could have too few health and environmental safety checks and therefore too much information being covered to the public. A report by the Consumer Federation of America Foundation concluded that this flexible law by the FDA in- cludes huge loopholes that could allow a potentially dangerous GM food to enter the food supply but still left the FDA blameless if that food is found to be unsafe [27].

A recent newspaper report on March 2005 said that one unapproved GM food actually went into our food supply. It was the genetically altered corn seed, called Bt 10. The seed was distributed by Syngenta. The seed was modified with a gene from the pesticide-like bacterium. It was sold “accidentally” to some US farmers for four years and has occupied for around 37,000 acres of land since then. Although most of the corn is for industrial and animal use, Syngenta spokeswoman Sarah Hull said that “It may have gotten into the food supply” [29]. Though according to the USDA and EPA that Bt 10 is safe, the fact that the federal government kept this news in secret for three months undermine the public confidence in the growing field of genetically modified crops. In addition, if the seed was safe in the first place, why was it not in the approved list of GM foods?

CONCLUSION

There are many ethical issues related to the growing and consumption of genetically engineered crops. They hold potential to greatly increase the nutritional value of food as well as the productivity of crops, while at the same time provide many safety as well environmental concerns. These decisions need to be looked at by all of humanity since everyone is directly affected by the choices. While each person can read these details and come to different conclusions on the value of genetically engineered foods as well as the ethical choices being made by the companies in charge of producing these foods. The ultimate choice on genetically engineered foods should be placed onto a well informed consumer not held in the dark by those in power of the government and large corporations which may not have the general public’s interests as their primary goal. GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS 24

REFERENCES

[1] Overview of the process of Plant Genetic Engineering. (2001).

[2] Boucher, Freeman, Pritchard, Nalle, Rayner, Seng. Drafting a Policy Statement: GMO Technology. (2003)

[3] Bates, Blair, Jerme, Keller, Lavik, McMaken. Executive Summary from the Genetically Modified Organism Exploratory Committee.

[4] Making Genetically Engineered Plants. (2002).

[6] Genetically modified crops in the United States. (2001)

[5] How to genetically modify a plant. (1998)

[7] Genetically modified food. (2005)

[8] Peels, Chris Martin J., 2004. Plants, Genes, and Crop Biotechnology

[9] Thomashow, Michael F. 1999. Before the U.S. House Science Subcommittee on Basic Research http://www.house.gov/science/thomashow_100599.htm

[10] Kelman, W., Qualset, C. 1993. Responses of Recombinant Inbred Lines of Wheat to Saline Irrigation: milling and baking qualities. Crop science. 33:6 Pg. 1223-1228.

[11] Holtzclaw, K., Sposito, G., Thellier, C. 1990. Chemical Effects of Saline Irrigation Water on a San Joaquin Valley Soil. I. Column studies. Journal of environmental quality. 19:1 Pp. 50-55.

[12] Borsani, O., Botella, M., Valpuesta, V. 2003. Developing Salt Tolerant Plants in a New Century: a molecular biology approach. Plant Cell, Tissue, and Organ Culture 73:101-115.

[13] Bo, L., Hantao, Z., Qingtong, L.,Wen, W., Yuanyuan,G., Pan, C., Xu, C., 2004. Transformation of the Salt- tolerant Gene of Avicennia marina into Tobacco Plants and Cultivation of Salt-tolerant Lines. Chinese Science Bulletin.49:5 Pp 456-461.

[14] Manning, Richard. "Wired 12.05: Super Organics." May 2004. Wired. .

[15] Lee, Mike. "True to its roots.” April 18, 2003. Sacramento Bee. .

[16] Jacob, Paul. "Banished biotech corn not gone yet." Dec. 01, 2003. Mercury News. GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS 25

[17] "Monsanto drops plans for GM wheat." BBC News 11 May 2004, World ed. .

[18] Cheng, Eva. "Genetically modified food: Bush promotes a `biological time bomb'." September 3, 2003. Green Left Weekly. .

[19] "The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World." May 10th, 2003. Independent Science Panel.

[20] “Bt Cotton Fails Again in India” October 10th, 2004. Organic Consumers.

[21] “Monsanto wins Canada seed battle.” BBC News 21 May 2004, World ed.

[22] Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, “Genetically Modified Crops in the United States”

[23] Social Issues Research Centre, “GM Foods OK in US”

[24] Google Answer, “Are we health conscious shoppers?”

[25] Food and Drug Administration, An overview.

[26] High Tech Harvest, Understanding Genetically Modified Food Plants. Paul F. Lurquin. Appendix 3: Regulation of Biotechnology.

[27] Consumer Federation of America Foundation, “Report Says US Regulation…Marketing with little Government Oversight”

[28] Green Nature, “Genetically Modified Foods and the Labeling Issue in the United States”

[29] Portland Independent Media Center, “US Secretly Allows Unapproved GM Foods in US Food Supply”