Genetically Modified Organisms Can Be Organic Maria Belen Salazar Tijerino, MS Lily C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1.5 CPEUs and 2.0 ANCC Contact Hours Genetically Modified Organisms Can Be Organic Maria Belen Salazar Tijerino, MS Lily C. Darbishire, MPH, RDN Monique Mi Song Chung, MS Grace C. E. Esler Alexander Chang Liu Dennis Alan Savaiano, PhD Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically modi- to regulate the use of GM, conventional, and organic mate- fied technology is currently considered an “excluded method” rials in the United States. As defined in the Code of Federal not allowed to be used in, or added to, organic agricultural Regulations (CFR), genetic modification is the “production products under the US Code of Federal Regulations. Despite of heritable improvements in plants or animals for specific evidence that GMOs may serve as a safe alternative to conven- uses, via either genetic engineering or other more traditional tional crops, they are frequently associated with harmful and methods,” and a GM organism (GMO) is “an organism pro- unsustainable agricultural practices. We discuss the economic, ” environmental, nutritional, andfoodsafetyconcernsofGMOs duced through these genetic modifications. As opposed to in organic agriculture, and how GMO technology could conventional plant breeding practice, a gene from a differ- benefit it. We propose (1) allowing the use of genetic mod- ent species is inserted into the plant cell. For example, Bt ification in organic agriculture and (2) an enhanced effort (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn contains genetic material from to disseminate science-based information to consumers. Bt, a bacterium that grows naturally in the soil. Bacillus Nutr Today. 2021;56(1):26–32 thuringiensis produces crystal-like proteins during spore forming, which, when ingested by a susceptible insect, the crystals act like a poison. The benefit of these proteins is ools to improve organic crop operations and yields their specificity to some groups on insects, harming only are needed.1 The economic, nutritional, and envi- crop pests and leaving beneficial insects alone. Moreover, ronmental benefits of genetically modified (GM) T they have no effects on mammals.2 Inserting genes from dif- food may improve organic crop production. For that rea- son, we propose the removal of GM materials (ie, seeds ferent species is one of the main issues of concern regarding and plantules [embryos beginning germination]) from the the use of GMOs. “ “excluded methods and procedures” for organic certifica- Organic agriculture, on the other hand, is aconcept tion. In 1986, the US Executive Office of the President and and practice of agricultural production that focuses on pro- the Office of Science and Technology Policy released the duction without the use of synthetic inputs and does not ” Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology allow the use of transgenic organisms according to the CFR.3 To use the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic label, farmers must undergo a certification pro- Maria Belen Salazar Tijerino, MS, is a master's student in the Department cess4 demonstrating compliance with all the organic stan- of Food Science at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. dards of the USDA National Organic Program. The CFR Lily C. Darbishire, MPH, RDN, is a doctoral student in the Interdepart- outlines the criteria for allowed and prohibited substances, mental Nutrition Program at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. methods of production, and ingredients for organic agri- Monique Mi Song Chung, MS, is a doctoral student in the Department “ ” of Food Science at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. culture. Under the CFR Section 205.2, excluded methods “ Grace C. E. Esler, is an undergraduate student in the Department of Nu- are defined as a variety of methods used to genetically trition Science at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. modify organisms or influence their growth and develop- Alexander Chang Liu, is an undergraduate student in the Department of ment by means that are not possible under natural condi- Nutrition Science at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. tions or processes and are not considered compatible with Dennis Alan Savaiano, PhD, is the Virginia Claypool Meredith Professor organic production. Excluded methods include cell fusion, of Nutrition Policy in the Department of Nutrition Science at Purdue Univer- sity, West Lafayette, IN. microencapsulation and macro-encapsulation, and re- The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. combinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene Correspondence: Dennis Alan Savaiano, PhD, Department of Nutrition Science, doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the Purdue University, Stone Hall, 700 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907. positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. technology). However, excluded methods do not include DOI: 10.1097/NT.0000000000000456 the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, ® 26 Nutrition Today Volume 56, Number 1, January/February 2021 Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.”3 of GMO products. Some argue that these labels should Under these excluded methods, genetic engineering is be restricted. prohibited in all organic agriculture including animal feed, seeds, and seedlings. CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF GMO The American Medical Association, the National Acad- PRODUCTS emy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advance- Genetically modified foods inspire passionate beliefs among ment of Science, and the World Health Organization many consumers, but studies show that most consumers (WHO) are among the health organizations that support do not have the knowledge to support their opinions. the use of GM crops based on the totality of scientific – Overall, American knowledge of GMO is very low, with evidence.5 7 Nevertheless, concerns about safety remain 54% of a sample population stating they know very little one of the major reasons consumers reject GMO prod- or nothing at all about GM foods.14 Without knowledge ucts, and public perception remains mixed regarding about the production or safety of GM produce, it is not the safety of GMO consumption. It seems that consumers surprising that consumers are skeptical. Only 45% of agree that produce and products developed with the use Americans from the Hallman et al14 study believed GM of GM technology should be identified in the market- foods were safe to consume. Furthermore, 75% of a sample place,8 with voluntary labeling, including “non-GMO” of American consumers express GMO safety concerns related or “GMO free.” However, these and other targeted key- to health.8 In a recent European poll, 61% of participants did words such as “natural,”“cage-free,”“grass-fed,” and not support use of GM foods because of the perceived “sustainable” likely contribute to the negative perception issues of pesticide residues, presence of antibiotics/ of GM products and produce, driving sales to the organic hormones in meat products, and potential pollutants.15,16 market. Yet, when given the choice between purchasing GM ver- With a projected 6.5 million acres of organic farmland in sus organic products, shoppers did purchase GM products 2019, if GMO technology was introduced to organic crops, regardless of perceived issues due to the lower price. there is potential to substantially increase crop yield.9 “The There is also a lack of understanding among consumers UN projects a population of 9.7 billion in 2050, creating a about the potential benefits of GM crops. In the Angus Reid monumental challenge for feeding the world.”10 Geneti- Group poll in 2000, only 31% of participants were aware cally modified technology is a potential solution to food that GM crop technology increased yield. From the same security while simultaneously reducing environmental im- poll, only 15% were aware that GM technology can im- pact. Simultaneously, there is substantial evidence that ag- prove food quality (eg, golden rice) and leads to a reduction rochemicals widely used in conventional agriculture pose in pesticide use. There seems to be an assumed “unnatural” environmental burdens.11,12 Organic agriculture may assist stigma surrounding GM crops, because many think more in establishing an ecological balance by preventing or re- pesticides and toxins are used in the growing process. This ducing soil infertility, pest problems, and water pollution; perception drives consumers to the organic market as they encouraging the use of renewable energies; and promot- believe organic crops are chemical free and uncontami- ing biodiversity preservation.13 However, current organic nated.17 Consumers also value and are willing to pay a pre- practices produce lower yields. Genetically modified or- mium for products they believe reflect values such altruism, ganism technology could be critical in sustaining organic ecology, and universalism with nature.17 Moreover, organic agriculture as future populations demand more and higher product consumers are more responsive to farm worker quality food. conditions and motivated to support local and small com- Policy change or legislation may be in order that allows munity businesses.18 We argue that, in contrast, GMO crops the use of GMOs in organic agriculture, eliminating re- are associated with multinationals and other large corpora- combinant DNA technology from “excluded methods.” tions and generally rejected by consumers. With society The effect of this change to the CFR