FOOD FOR THOUGHT 1

OMG-GMOs: Food for Thought

Danielle N. Miller

Seton Hill University

Composition and Culture

Dr. Wansor

November 22nd, 2016

FOOD FOR THOUGHT 2

OMG-GMOS: Food for Thought

When you last visited the grocery store did you notice the phenomenon that is sweeping

store shelves? Even if you took no notice, you probably bought into it, whether you were

consciously aware or not. If you bought any processed foods, anything containing corn, soy or

canola, you probably bought a GMO. Even if you didn’t buy anything, you at least passed by

nearly 30,000 products containing GMOs (The Facts about GMOs 2016). A genetically modified

organism, or GMO, is any organism that has had the desirable traits of a different species

experimentally incorporated into its own DNA. Most commonly, desirable traits are isolated

from plants or viruses, but there has been success from animal traits as well. As noted in the

International Environmental Agreements, “Genetic modification may also involve the transfer of

genes across different kingdoms of species that conventionally cannot interbreed. Thus, genes

may be transferred from a bacterium into a crop, such as maize, or from mice into fruits” (Zainol

and others 2015, 201). Any number of combinations are possible and the future of

biotechnology in foods is vast. Scientists predict that biotechnology will be able to solve the

global hunger crisis, end the quest for affordable and nutritious foods, decrease global warming,

and deliver cures and vaccines to developing countries. Foods may be genetically modified to

become less susceptible to mold spoilage, which would increase their preservation and

processing qualities. Other advancements include the reduction or elimination of natural

toxicants, such as glycoalkaloids in potatoes or the cessation of allergens resulting from nut

proteins. All of this is achieved through “anti-sense” technology, when undesirable genes are

isolated and destroyed instead of being selected for (Jones 1999). There is no limit to the usage

of genetically modified foods, not only in what we consume, but in what we produce and
FOOD FOR THOUGHT 3

distribute. The development of renewable and sustainable sources of materials is even becoming

a reality, with plastics based in composition on potato starch or canola oil (Jones 1999).

While this may seem like science only capable in the future, in actuality, this is the

science of today and this science is not new. In the simplest of forms, genetic engineering came

from the idea of selective breeding. Selective breeding occurred when farmers realized that

certain strains of a crop grew best in certain soil or weather conditions and that if they chose to

plant certain species, they could increase pesticide resistant and crop yield. Genetic modification

is essentially the modern version of selective breeding. Most of the crops that would have been

bred selectively, like corn, soy, canola, cotton, and sugar beet were among those that were the

first to be genetically modified. The very first genetically modified crop was the tomato in 1994.

The Flavr-Savr tomato was genetically modified to exhibit a longer shelf life than traditional

tomatoes due to its delayed ripening after harvest (Dizon and others 2016). There have been

similar advancements in apples and potatoes, to which the cosmetic damage that results in food

waste has practically been eliminated. Consumers would then be able to buy any fruit or

vegetable with modification, and it would be free of unusual bumps, bruises, or imperfections.

When certain fruits or vegetables are exposed to air, oxidation occurs and discoloration results.

This too would become obsolete along with the need for synthetic chemical preservatives (Jones

1999). But, the prospects of genetic modification go far beyond cosmetic appearance.

At its core, genetic modification may be able to eliminate the needs for pesticides and

produce crops with a higher yield due to resistance to weather and insufficient environmental

conditions. These conditions include lack of water and sunlight, infertile or innutritious soil and

high winds or rain. Farmers commonly utilize pesticides to counteract these effects. Pesticides

can contribute to pest control and the prevention of plant disease. But, there are also negatives.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT 4

As of several years ago, consumers have started to stray from crops that were treated with

pesticides because there was cause for concern over the use of pesticides and the impact on

human and animal health. Pesticide usage has also permeated our waterways with the runoff

from agricultural wastes such as pesticides and fertilizers. Through genetic modification,

scientists have taken the Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t) gene, which occurs naturally in soil, but is

harmful to insect larvae. By implementing this gene through genetic modification, a plant is able

to retain all of its physical and chemical properties as it also gains insect resistance. The B.t.

gene, it harmful to insects and their larvae and prevents these pests from eating the plant or

laying their eggs in any close proximity. According to the Journal of Food Science, “B.t. crops

are currently cultivated in 23 countries and were commercialized in the U.S. in 1996” (Dizon and

others 2015, 289).

Some crops have attributes that allow them to grow and prosper in seemingly impossible

environments. GMOs are at the forefront of new knowledge and advancements that allow

scientists to understand how crops respond to environmental stress and how varieties can grow in

inhospitable locations (Jones 1999). At the very least, GMOs help us to understand the very

traits that make this all possible and bring us closer to developing a smarter way to widespread

food production. Studies have made it clear that there is a drastically increasing need for higher

and more diverse crop yields due to population growth, global hunger, and environmental

factors. High and profitable yields are currently being diminished by the lack of accessible and

suitable agricultural acreage (GM Crops and the Environment 2016). This gross need has been

facilitated by an expanding housing population, exhausted land, and terrain not suitable for the

growth of that certain crop. There is hope with biotechnology, though. GM crops can be

engineered to withstand long periods of cold, hot, flooding, or droughts. A success story comes
FOOD FOR THOUGHT 5

as an anti-freeze gene from the artic flounder was isolated and introduced into tobacco, potatoes,

tomatoes, and strawberries (Dizon and others 2015). Farmers would no longer need to worry or

exhaust fortunes of money on protecting their crops throughout the seasons.

For some, meals are not a given from day-to-day. In many cases, families are unsure

when or where they will receive their next meal. This only goes to emphasize the importance of

quality, nutritious food in order to address the unfortunate reality of malnutrition in the

developing word. In many developing countries, there is access to only one main crop which

becomes the staple of an everyday diet. Unfortunately, there is little nutritional value to these

crops. For example, “rice is a major staple for almost half of humanity, and unfortunately white

rice grains are a poor source of vitamin A” (Dizon and others 2015, 290). Researchers have been

able to develop a white rice grain variety that includes B-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A, in

its genes. This so-called “Golden Rice” may be able to prevent the number one leading cause of

blindness, vitamin A deficiency. The sad truth is that vitamin A deficiency is completely

preventable and treatable, but these parts of the world lack access to basic diagnostic tests and

healthcare services. Vitamin A deficiency causes the deaths of 2.8 million people annually due to

health complications and immune deficiency (Dizon and others 2015).

In African countries, the staple of choice is the cassava plant instead of rice. In fact, the

cassava plant provides almost half of the daily calories in a typical African’s diet (Dizon and

others 2015). The cassava plant and rice share their attributes of accessibility and cost

effectiveness, but also in their underwhelming content of nutrients. As with the “Golden Rice”,

GM cassava has increased vitamin A, but also higher levels of minerals and protein. These

attributes can prevent blindness, anemia, and infections.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT 6

Genetically modified crops have also peaked interest as a delivery method for vaccines

and drugs. In the future, cattle and sheep may be genetically modified to produce

pharmaceutical chemicals in their milk that are equivalent to a traditional vaccine. With this

development, young children would be able to bypass traditional doctor’s visit and instead drink

a glass of milk a day. In turn, the cost of vaccines would greatly decrease with a much higher

rate of accessibility (Jones 1999). There is further hope that abundant crops, like bananas in

subtropical climates, will be able to produce and deliver vaccines in tropical regions where

healthcare is vastly underserved.

Taking all of this into consideration, it is important to note that genetic modification

presents solutions to many social, environmental, and economical concerns. However, this

cannot overshadow the importance of considering that there may be undiscovered concerns with

the manipulation of genes. In terms of science, we will not know if or how detrimental GM

crops and the longstanding effect of their implementation without further research. In terms of

time, GMOs are not “new” to the marketplace except in their comparison to other revolutionary

technologies. Longstanding concern surrounding GMOs should be partially dispelled based

upon the scientific evidence promoting their implementation. In 2010, the European

Commission releases an analysis containing over 50 different studies on GM foods over a 25-

year span that showed biotechnologies posed no greater risk than current manufacturing

processes (Dahl 2012). Peggy Lemaux, a specialist in Plant and Microbial Biology at the

University of California-Berkeley, stated “I have not found any evidence of any genetically

modified product on the commercial market now causing any more health problems than

conventional or organic foods” (Dahl 2012, 360). While many bans have been attempted

against the production and distribution of these products, there are no conclusive evidence that
FOOD FOR THOUGHT 7

flags concern by the scientific community. In fact, most of these bans are rejected, like the one

proposed by France in 2010 on MON 180, an insect resistant strain of maize, which was vetoed

by the European Food Safety Authority because of flawed studies or rigged results (Dahl 2012).

It is important to remember that Americans were once skeptical of microwaves and pasteurized

milk as opposed to now when they are commonplace. The doubt that surrounds GMOs is not

new and should be investigated in the interest of human and global health.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT 8

References

Dahl, R., (2012). To Label or Not to Label. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120 (9), 359-

361.

Dizon, F., Costa, S., Rock, C., Harris, A., Husk, C. and Mei, J (2016). Genetically Modified

Foods and Ethical Eating. Journal of Food Science, 81: 287-291.

GM Crops and the Environment (2016). Retrieved from http://isaaa.org/resources/publications/

pocketk/4/.

Jones, L., (1999). Genetically Modified Foods. British Medical Journal, 581:584.

The Facts about GMOs (2016). Retrieved from http://coalitionforsafeaffordablefood.org/.

Zainol, Z.A., Nordin, R. and Akpoviri, F.I. (2015). Mandatory labelling of GM foods.

International Environmental Agreements, 199:216.