Evan Kegler

GMO Research Executive Summary

Throughout America we have faced problems which we had to address
in order to keep America growing. For America we have faced tough
challenges that require different ways to address these problems. When
America started doubling its population people looked for alternatives to
keep America fed and keep the people healthy. With the insane population
increase, and further demand for food, American agriculturalists were
pushed to confront the issue. They would need to use technology and new
practices to increase output, safety, and quality of American food products.
In the forefront of this mass food production campaign, there were a
plethora of different agricultural strategies. Most strategies were concerned
with best management practices (BMP's) and new technological and
biological discoveries. However, one of the most influential strategies was
the process of genetically modifying certain organisms. The first
commercially grown genetically modified food crop was a tomato created by
California Company in the early 1990s. This tomato was created so it would
take longer to decompose after it was harvested. The main purpose for these
genetically modified organisms is for the crop to last longer and for the
farmer to pick for or harvest more.

In fact, these same genetically modified organisms can be used in a

variety of other industries that will be discussed throughout the course of the
report. Many of these modification programs have amazing results and
produce extremely proficient outcomes for the agricultural industry.
However, as with many highly technical processes, public misunderstandings
can lead to unfortunate results for those who have decided to implement
these practices. From this misunderstanding we find the critics for these
fascinating biological enhancements.

Introduction
Although "biotechnology" and "genetic modification" are commonly
used interchangeably, GM is a special set of technologies that alter the
genetic makeup of such living organisms as animals, plants, and bacteria.
Throughout the history or agriculture farmers have been investing in ways to
help farmers in ways that would benefit farmers finically and make it easier
for them to grow their crops.
The first genetically modified products known to man were tomatoes.
As stated earlier the purpose of these tomatoes would be to allow the farmer
more time to harvest tomatoes. Looking at the tomato modification from a
more technical standpoint, the deactivated gene approach was implemented
to prevent softening. Using this approach the tomato was able to have an

increased shelf life, improved flavor, and prevent the necessity for artificial
ripening.
Genetically modified crops have helped assist farmers in a variety of
different areas. In todays crops most of the foods you consume or products
you buy have some sort of genetic modification already in it. One of the
biggest drops that Americans consume that is a great example is corn. Corn
has been modified to help farmers with controlling insects and by controlling
weeds by having seed treatment on the seed and having their genes altered
in ordered to grow higher yields in smaller acres. Combining genes from
different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the
resulting organism is said to be "genetically modified," "genetically
engineered," or "transgenic."
When a gene from one organism is purposely moved to improve or
change another organism in a laboratory, the result is a genetically modified
organism (GMO). It is also sometimes called "transgenic" for transfer of
genes (University of California San Diego). This basically shows how the
concept works and how they change the plant genes. There are different
ways of moving genes to produce desirable traits. A plant with a desired trait
is chosen and bred to produce more plants with the desirable trait. This
technique is done usually in a lab where genes that express the desired trait
is physically moved or added to a new plant to enhance the trait in that
plant. This is often produced on crops to produce insect or herbicide resistant

plants. A great example for this category is cotton. Cotton seed is treated
with a herbicide and an insecticide which helps with the weeds and the
insects that would eat the seed.

(Here is a beautiful cotton feed that has been planted with treated seed. )
The top 3 crops grown that are genetically modified are Corn,
Soybeans, and Cotton. Corn is the No. 1 crop grown in the U.S. and nearly all
of it -- 88 percent -- is genetically modified. In addition to being added to

innumerable processed foods, genetically modified corn is a staple of animal

feed. Soybeans are 93 percent genetically modified. Soy is a staple of
processed foods under various names including hydrogenated oils, lecithin,
emulsifiers, tocopherol (a vitamin E supplement) and proteins. Cotton is the

third according to the USDA, 94 percent of cotton grown in the U.S. is

genetically modified. Cottonseeds are culled from cotton, and then used for
vegetable oil, margarine or shortening production, or frying foods, such as
potato chips. All of these commodities play a huge role in the foods that
Americans consume each year.
(This graph helps demonstrate the commodities and there relation to
genetically modified organisms.)

Some of the benefits for genetically modifying crops are genetic

engineering that include increased crop yields, reduced costs for food or drug
production, reduced need for pesticides, enhanced nutrient composition and
food quality, resistance to pests and disease, greater food security, and
medical benefits to the world's growing population (Phillips). This is basically
referring to the fact that these genetically modified crops and plants have
contributed to helping feed the population of the world that continues to
climb.

These traits also help keep the price low for ordinary people to afford
the crops and are able to buy them in the grocery store. There have also
been modified crops that would mature faster and tolerate harder growing
conditions. Another great example is salmon have been engineered to grow
larger and mature faster and cattle have been enhanced to exhibit resistance
to mad cow disease which was a huge threat around the early 2000s.
Genetically altered genes in animals are routinely bred to carry human genes
or mutations in specific genes, thus allowing the study of the progression and
genetic determinants of various diseases.
Scientists are working on testing microorganisms for clean fuel
producers and biodegrades. This could help for cleaning fuel and helping
vehicles burn cleaner fuel which would result in higher gas mileage. Another
possibility for genetically modified organisms to have a role is having
genetically modified plants that could help to make vaccines. Work is
currently underway to develop plant-derived vaccine candidates in potatoes
and lettuce for hepatitis B virus enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli , and
Norwalk virus. Scientists are looking at new alternatives that would make a
fresh new mode of action which would have no resistance on the virus.
There is a variety of ways that GMOs could benefit humans, but many
people also worry about potential risks. There are still unknown
consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through gene
expression. Basically what is happening is you are changing the growth rate,

metabolism and other factors that can affect how an organism is grown.
Another concern is that resistance to herbicides and pesticides could
potentially come back to put humans at risk by that could help other plants
to grow uncontrollably which could spread disease. In the big picture this risk
is considered to be quite low, but is still possible and could still happen.

(This is a bull that has had some genetic modification done which would
make it tougher to harsher environments.)
Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will
claim ownership of the organisms they create and not share them at a
reasonable cost with the public. If this statement is correct it could hurt the
environment and the economy practices by large-scale farm production
centers who can afford the expensive seed will dominate over the diversity
contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology. Basically

saying only bigger growers will be able to afford the expensive new
technology.
An additional concern with biotech crops is what the average consumer
will think about these products. In a recent poll 23% of Americans were
unsure what to think about these new traits relating to their foods. In most
cases, peoples opinion changes on these issues when they have a higher
education. Furthermore, it all comes down to peoples opinion about
technologies that are shared fairly; there are people who would still resist
consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of
personal or religious beliefs.
The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to
"play God," as well as the introduction of foreign material into foods that are
abstained from for religious reasons (Phillips). Some people believe that
things are made and grown the way they are supposed to naturally be. The
thought of people altering genes for cattle or changing genes for corn does
help with peoples beliefs on how things should be. When it comes to
genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the development of
GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they
can make informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. This
part of the issue is mainly made up of personal choice at this current
standpoint, but unfortunately many anti-GMO extremists share horror stories

(which are usually inaccurate and biased) that scare customers away from
safe and quality food products.
Generally, most people are okay with modifying plant to help farmers,
but when it comes down to altering the genes of animals peoples, support
drops more severely than crops. From the information gathered, it is going to
be hard to make it where it pleases everybody. Some people are going to
want more altering and support while others are going to want less altering
and be opposed to it.
There are many experimental variations for expression and control of
engineered genes that can be applied to minimize potential risks. Issues
such as the risk of vaccine-expressing plants being mixed in with normal
foodstuffs might be overcome by having built-in identification factors, such
as pigmentation, that facilitate monitoring and separation of genetically
modified products from non-GMOs. Other built-in control techniques include
having inducible promoters, geographic isolation, using male-sterile plants,
and separate growing seasons. This is stating that factors could contribute to
cause the facilitate monitoring and spread the genetically modified products
to non-gmos or plants that are naturally occurring.
Research shows that GMOs can benefit humans by being used in
quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment.
If used correctly, they could result in an improved economy, without doing
more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential

to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. The latter example could prove to
be the most important of all the current issues however, as our population
continues to increase at such an alarming rate. If more genetically modified
organisms are not implemented throughout the broad range of the
agricultural industry, Americans could start having a more difficult time
providing for their families basic necessities.
Literature Review
For this section of the report I have chosen to provide a variety of
different scholarly articles (most are peer reviewed to insure that the report
is accurate and unbiased) that cover a broad range of genetically modified
organism research. For the purpose of this report I will give a brief overview
of the article and then provided an analysis of some of the key elements.

"Labeling Policy for GMOs: To Each His Own?

The first article that I would like to analyze in this report is a thought
provoking piece titled "Labeling Policy for GMOs: To Each His Own?" This
report is authored by Julie Caswell and can be found in the Ag Bio Forum. The
subject of the report concerns the GMO labeling policy that is currently be
implemented in the United States, in addition to developing international
policies.

Author Caswell states in her report that "we are at a another crossroad
on the path that will determine the market acceptance of foods produced
with biotechnology." This statement truly displays the importance of this
issue, especially for the future of genetically modified organisms, in
American agricultural debate. However, one of the main problems in the
divergence in policy assimilation for a variety of companies, corporations,
and even government legislation. This problem could potentially have major
side-effects on the agricultural industry due to an uncertainty in the market.
So therefore, international trading may become extremely complicated from
the difference in policy for labeling products with GMOs.
The author also describes the necessity of labeling on food products
and emphasizes that labeling can help the consumer learn more
characteristics of the food production process. Caswell shares that this
labeling is extremely beneficial (even in products not produced with GMOs)
to both the market and the consumer. In addition, the labeling process could
spark a split in the food industry (GMOs vs. Non-GMOs) that would give the
consumer base two main options.
Caswell also provides that this could influence the Non-GMO produced
foodstuffs category to produce their products and sell similar products for a
higher price. This situation seems to tightly resemble the market split that
the "organic foods" industry has caused throughout the United States.
However, the biological term "organic" can be defined as something that is

related to or derived from living matter. Ironically, many supposed nonorganic foodstuffs can be described by this term.
In the conclusion of the article, Caswell includes and more in-depth
look into the subject of policy divergence that will be displayed in the
international market. In Caswell's opinion the divergence could easily cause
the massive consumer base to lose trust with any food products containing
GMOs. Caswell also points out that any policy for labeling of GMOs will also
be required for non-GMO products. Therefore all foodstuffs would be labeled,
which will in turn cost more money.

"Transparent Communication Strategy on GMOs: Will It Change

Public Opinion?
In this well researched article the authors Kristina Sinemus and Marc
Egelhofer use a comparison, between the European and United States
perception on GMOs, to find solutions that would improve public opinion.
Using this comparison they are able to break down the myths (surrounding
the public's opinion) and find the facts on why consumers might be afraid of
products containing GMOs.
In the beginning of the article the authors discuss the importance of
innovations, especially those that would be classified under the realm of
biotechnology, for the economy and growing population. Sinemus even

attributes 90 percent of current economic growth to scientific innovations.

She also hints to the fact that these innovations can also benefit society as a
whole. These innovations can improve the quality and sustainability of the
food production process, as well as provide safer food.
One of the main issues on the acceptance of food products containing
GMOs (or even products that use any type of GMO over the course of the
production process) is the cultural differences between cultures and nations.
One example that is pointed out in this article is the stark difference between
European and American standpoints on food production. Sinemus shares that
Europeans are more concerned with the origin of the food that they eat. On
the other hand, Americans, prefer to know more about the process that
produces the very food that they eat.
Although these cultural and national differences may seem difficult to
understand and work around, they could actually benefit the communication
process. Using these differences, scientists and other public relation officials
can tailor their communication to fit the individuals that they are
communicating to. In fact, using this communication strategy the public
relation officials will be able to provide more relevant information to the
public and even make the subject of GMOs more transparent.
Sinemus also includes a very interesting strategy using improved
psychological approaches to categorize individual communication
interactions. Sinemus provides three example classifications (that would help

anyone trying to provide information on GMOs) of people including a person

that is active, passive, and an avoider. The active person is engaged in the
subject and has knowledge of current developments concerning GMO
production. The best communication strategy in this case would be to make
complete assurance that the information provided is completely accurate
and current. For these active individuals the communicator must be
extremely cautious and make sure they know how to correctly represent the
subject. In the case of the passive individual, communicators can correctly
target these individuals by displaying the benefits of GMOs, using subject
material that can directly impact their life, and providing information that is
both interesting and mentally stimulating. For the final classification, the
avoider, Sinemus portrays an individual that does not pro-actively search for
information and lacks the desire to analyze an new developing GMO
productions. A typical response from this individual might include, "What can
we generally eat that is safe nowadays?" For this individual, the
communicator needs to display the benefits of GMOs in the food industry
(and even to the safety and quality of the food that they eat) and
enthusiastically encourage them to be involved with current issues.
The author also makes a definite point to reflect on when she assess
the value of communication in the development of GMO technology.
According to Sinemus, communication is one of the most important elements
when it comes to the approval of an innovation. She points out that if the
public rejects GMO technology then the technology itself will not have any

value. Therefore, well implemented communication strategies will become a

necessity if GMO technology is to grow and thrive. Although, instead of
"convincing the public," the communicators should target their audience (by
their psychological, cultural, and national indicators) and focus upon the true
benefits of the technology.

"Crop Case Study: GMO Golden Rice in Asia with Enhanced Vitamin A
Benefits for Consumers"
In this article the authors David Dawe and Laurians Unnevehr unveil a
brand new benefit of GMO technology, that could be implemented by United
States companies, to solve a major Asian food problem. This problem is
comes in the form of a Vitamin A deficiency that has been found in the lower
income populations of Asia. However, with a new genetically modified rice
named "Golden Rice" (GR), U.S seed companies might have found the
answer to this deficiency through a major Asian staple.
The new GR seed product uses a uniquely added beta-carotene (which
happens to be a precursor for Vitamin A production in the body) to generate
a higher percentage of Vitamin A in the rice product. According to recent
research studies (discovered by Dawe and Unnevehr), this product could
alleviate the Vitamin A deficiency in India by 5-54 percent depending on the
product acceptance and consumption rates. However, as with most new
biotechnological innovations, the product already has its skeptics.

Dawe and Unnevehr attribute these skeptical reactions to a variety of

misconceptions that surround the GMO debate. The first point that the
skeptics provide is that GM food products are not safe for the general public,
poor for the human health, and bad for the environment. Another point
states that the seed companies are using this low income population as
"guinea pigs" to test a new GM product. The go on to say that the product
will either not have enough Vitamin A to even begin to solve the deficiency,
or there will be too much and lead to a Vitamin A toxicity.
Luckily, the product is still in development and could take a full five to
ten years to be fully integrated into the Asian food industry. With this amount
of time the seed companies should have an adequate amount of time to
answer any of these skeptics and workout any "kinks" that might lead to
lower product safety, quality, and efficiency.
In addition a few of the seed companies have been able to produce a
new GM rice product (name GR2) that may be a large improvement in the
area of consistency. This new product seems to have a more consistent level
of beta-carotene that would continue throughout the storage and cooking
stages. However, as with all biotechnological advances in the realm of GM,
there must be extreme caution and a plethora of testing to make sure that
the product will be a viable option to meet the deficiency concerns.
Fortunately, even though the product development could take years to be

implemented safely, it provides the groundwork for other future GM products

and gives biotechnology a better reputation in the international market.

Methodology/Empirical Data/Analysis
This section will include studies about a diverse range of GMO food
products (including modification to plant and animal species) and consist of
graphs, charts, and other empirical data that will be subsequently analyzed.

In this first chart, which shares some interesting empirical data on GM

seed products, it is easy to notice the amazing growth in GM seed production
over the represented years in this particular chart. This chart displays the
growth of the GM cotton, corn, and soybean industry, as the percentage
across all seed products has risen substantially. This chart also gives the
general public an extremely revealing revelation about the very food
products that they already eat on a daily basis. Many U.S citizens would be
very shocked to know that GM crops make up such a large portion of our
entire crop yield.
If the percentage of GM crops continues to rise, it will also be
necessary to provide more adequate communication and labeling to the
consumer who is purchasing the food product. If communication is not
provided, and the general public decides that the GMOs are unsafe for use in
foodstuffs, then the GMO industry could collapse and lead to massive
unemployment for those employed in this section of biotechnology.

This next chart also gives the general population some interesting
thoughts to consider when judging the different aspects of GM technology.
One of the most interesting aspects of the chart is the fact that there are
currently 28 countries that are currently implementing GM practices into
their own food industry. Furthermore, the research study shows that
developing countries, not the suspected industrial countries, are practicing
GM in a slight majority. This would help to describe one of the most
important benefits of this technology, which is to increase the efficiency of
crops to feed alarming population growth rates. As many know, "we can feed
the world in theory and not in practice." However, this revolutionary

biotechnology might help to bridge the gap and bring the goal of feeding the
entire world population even closer.

This third graph displays the amazing yield rates that have been
stimulated by GM biotechnology over the past 50 years. Although most of
the yield increases in the first 35 represented years can be attributed to
better crop management practices and fertilizer, pesticide, and insecticide
use, the final 19 years display the amazing effects of GM. This graph really
helps to silence some of the critics of GM technology and really display the
actual facts about increased production. If yield rates continue to grow in this
manner over the next 10 to 20 years, imagine the impact that we might be
able to have upon the issue of world hunger. Some critics may still argue the

safety of the GM foodstuffs, but it's hard to argue with the increased
production.

Results
Looking back at the entire realm of information presented in the report,
I feel that the results of the GMO research encourage that these products are
extremely beneficial to the world population. With the population continuing
to increase more each and every year it will be necessary to find some type
of alternative solution, and it seems that GM might well be a viable option.
Although there have been many skeptics and criticism of this developing
biotechnology, the large variety of food products engineered with the
technology appear to be more efficient, of better quality, and in some cases
safer for the consumer and the environment.
So far within the years that GM practices have been implemented in
the food production process, there hasn't been any major health or safety
problems to arise with the technology. Instead, the majority of results that
have been presented (both from the industry leaders themselves and by unbiased third party sources) display only positive effects that this
biotechnology has had, especially in the case of third world countries. There
have actually been over 2000 studies (genetic literacy project) conducted
that address the safety of the current GMO products in existence, and to this

date, scientist haven't been able to find one bit of evidence that links GMOs
to safety hazards.
In addition the results also imply that the research and implementation
of these technologies will continue to grow over time and could eventually
reach a point of "normalcy" within the food industry. Therefore, it is
necessary that the general public be correctly informed (not lied to and
mislead) so that they can understand the need for these technologies, and
become comfortable knowing that these GMOs are present in the very food
products that they eat.

Conclusions and Recommendations

To conclude, from the research represented in this report, it seems that
GMO biotechnology is extremely beneficial to food production across the
world. With increased testing and development, agriculturalist will finally
near the goal of providing an adequate amount of food for the entire world
population. However, at this current standpoint (even though these
technologies have been implemented for a lengthy amount of time already)
it seems that there is a lot of public discontent. Luckily, the main forms of
this discontentment appear to be caused by a lack of correct information
about the technology, which is a solvable problem. The main solution that

could used (which was discussed previously in the report) would be audience
targeting when providing information about GMOs to the general public.
Again the best way to target the audience is to use psychological, cultural,
and national differences to decide which type of information is appropriate
for each individual communication interaction. This way, even people with
major differences in these categories, can have an active and accurate
knowledge about GMO technology.
In addition to better communication strategies, I personally
recommend that there is an increase in studies (mainly concerning safety,
sustainability, and quality) for GMOs. However, scientists must make sure
that these research studies are well documented and can be presented to
the public in a manner that will lead to a clear understanding. If the studies
cannot be presented clearly, people that currently oppose the biotechnology
(for whatever personal reasons) will almost certainly twist data to support
their own agendas.
Finally, I feel that this technology is something that all people should
investigate, whether they currently support or oppose it. The fact is that
these biotechnologies are already being implemented in our the food
production process across the world (as was evident in the empirical data
section). Instead attempting to twist information to support one side or the
other, we as the consumer base, should learn the real facts about the food

technologies that are already present in our families diets each and every
day.

Resources

1. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-globalstudies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-inscience/#.UofglsTrw8E
2. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/gmo-farming-cropsmore-popular-than-ever-world-charts
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17703492
4. http://www.agbioforum.org/v10n3/v10n3a04-unnevehr.bak
5. http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/gmo.html

6. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/09/monsanto-is-hap/

7. http://www.gmocompass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/15.genetically_modified
_tomatoes.html

8. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-kelly/genetically-modified-

food_b_2039455.html

9. http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-

gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732

10. http://agbioforum.org/v3n1/v3n1a08-caswell.htm

11.
http://actnaturallyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/wheat_yields_in_developing_co
untries_1951-2004.png