week 8 eng221 peer review

Solutions and Advantages

Modifying Genetically Modified Organisms Regulations

James Cordell Washington

Prof. Catherine Cousar

Strayer University

Augusta, Ga Campus

ENG 215 Research and Writing

21 August 2017

Solutions and Advantages

Modifying Genetically Modified Organisms Regulations

The manipulation of plants and animals has been around almost as long as human kind has been around. Perpetual processes like selective breeding are examples of this. These processes allow certain individuals of a specific plant or animal to be bred to produce a desired result in the offspring. Today, plants and other organisms are now being scientifically altered by adding genes from diverse organisms in order to get certain results. This is commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The various alterations that occur at a molecular level has netted what many in the science community call ground breaking advantages; but, there countless disadvantages as well. More recently, GMOs have garnered national and international attention. More than 20 years ago, the United States began to embrace this technology, yet most of its citizens are unaware of precisely what GMOs are, how they are produced, and the potential benefits and/or hazards. It is important to find out if the use of this GMO production is more beneficial to human society than it is harmful. Because there are so many unknowns regarding GMO production, it has remained an extremely controversial topic worldwide. It has become glaringly vital to understand GMOs, the hazards and benefits, and determine if the US has instituted effective legislation regarding regulating GMO technology and products.

Every day it is probable that one will see an example of selectively enhancing and/or improving desired characteristics in different organisms by humans. GMO production is the most modern and comprehensive form of this science, but it began thousands of years ago, when man began purposefully breeding animals, like dogs, in order domesticate them. Basically, humans bred out any unwanted traits and enhanced traits, like loyalty and a protective nature, to make efficient animal companions. Eventually, humans began doing the same with plants. Nowadays, every time a person looks at a “pure-bred” domesticated dog, or eats a seedless fruit, like seedless grapes of certain types, he or she is witnessing human-induced selective breeding. However, as recent as 20 to 30 years ago, genetic enhancement of living things has grown exponentially. This technology essentially is where scientists transfer the genes of one organism to another using a sort of “cut and paste” methodology. First, a desired trait is targeted. For example, the trait could be a specific gene that allows a plant to be resistant to insects. Once the gene for that desired trait is identified, it is microscopically “cut” out, transferred to the desired organism/plant, and “pasted” into the genome of the new plant, using certain marker genes as the vector. Once the new gene is incorporated into the new organism/plant cell, the plant can now be bred with the new strand of DNA being passed down the generations (Key, 2008).

Using gene transfer technology presents several areas of concern and controversy. The use of this technology is decades old, yet many scientists have stated that the research on the long-term effects of GMO production isn’t sufficient enough for it to be so widely used. The United States and Canada are two of the world’s leading advocates for the use of gene transfer technology. It is reported that an estimated 70 percent of all processed food in the United States alone have at least a single GMO ingredient. It is also said that nearly 90 percent of all crops produced in the United States have been “touched by science” in same form or fashion (Lombardo, 2015). This circumstance presents a looming issue: human health. In recent years, more and more studies began being done on GMOs, and the overall effects has been compared to those of smoking. There is no clear, concise connection to some of the ailments that have been attributed to GMO production, like increased allergies among children, the potential cause of certain types of cancer, etc. But, the fact that there is no distinct link does not prove that GMOs are safe. The Federal Drug Administration has approved GMO crops in the United States, but did so with little research and no substantiating evidence that the benefits outweigh any potential threats. There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMO foods, and scientist have stated that the mere presence of scientific conflict means GMO products should not be consumed. Studies have shown and proven that even genetically modified crops that are fed to animals show potential adverse health effects in those animals, which could be transferred to humans upon consumption. GMO crops have also been known to be the possible cause of certain allergies (especially in children), certain cancers, and have also been known to render antibodies in the body less effective when consumed. Laws relating to foods are designed to be precautionary, meaning no food or additives are approved for consumer consumption until it has been deemed scientifically safe within a certain degree of certainty; currently, there is no GMO additive or product that meets the criteria of “safe (Miller, 2015).”

Opponents of GMOs have argued for years that the science is harmful not only to humans, but to the environment as well. This is another glaring issue presented by this technology. Since the technology calls for the genes of a crop to be altered, this means the pollen/seedlings of said crop will also be “contaminated” with the new gene. This contaminated pollen could, and often does, cross pollenate with other organisms, creating those same traits in natural plants like weeds. The result is the creation of certain types of “super weeds,” made to be just as resilient as the GMO crops. In some instances, this cross contamination has led to land being rendered useless for crop farming after a single, or a few, cycles of the crop’s growth (Lombardo, 2015).

There are profound differences in the idea of genetic engineering across the world, specifically between the United States and countries in Europe. In the 1980s/1990s, when the technology came into prominence, Europe largely rejected its use, choosing to adapt the more “natural” form to crop farming. The countries of Europe were identified with type of “anger” toward any idea of manipulating nature. On the contrary, the US and Canada have embraced the technology and its promise of a more sufficient method of crop production. However, due to much of the genetic engineering community being uncertain of its benefits, many believe that the technology has fallen short of that promise. In a recent 2016 article in the New York Times, comparisons that have been done of the regions of the US where GMO production is high to areas where it is non-existent (like Western Europe), have shown that no distinct evidence exists to show GMO production yields the positive results that were previously predicted (Hakim, 2016). The advantages of GMO production state that GMO products are good for the environment, modifications elicit disease resistance, products have longer shelf life that organic products, and food is more affordable because it can be produced more abundantly. These purposed advantages have led to the use of GMO technology at a much higher rate than it can be regulated. This is a highly volatile issue. The US currently has no federal legislation specific to GMOs; instead, GMO regulations are “addressed” in regulations related to health, safety, and the environment. There are currently no laws governing the labeling of GMO products either (2011).

Studies show that GMO regulations in the US are far more favorable to the GMO development industry than other countries. Its significant role in the US’s economy has led to America being the leading producer of GMO products in the world, accounting for over 40% of the world’s GMO production in 2012. The US’s position on GMO production seems to rely heavily on the public’s overall understanding of the technology being very low. Lack of knowledge means no push from the public for governmental regulations, which has effected international relationships with other countries. Europe seems to be on the opposing side in the GMO vs organic conflict. In the last few years, many countries in Europe have determined that GMOs yield no major gain in any way, and instead choose to focus more on organic consumption. Because GMO acceptance in Europe, and other similar regions of the world, is low, strict regulations have been introduced to govern GMO production. Many countries have also passed laws restricting the importation of food products from the US due to the high concentration of GMO additives. Most of the crops and processed food produced in the United States have been banned from export. This obvious impact on the economic structure of the US in relation to its foreign allies creates complications regarding international diplomacy with countries like France, Germany, etc (2011).

Many countries have accepted GMO technology because of its obvious advantages, but many consumers would rather have natural alternatives versus a scientifically unproven process. Not only is the technology itself controversial, but it is widely considered unethical. No regulations regarding GMOs, including no regulations enforcing labeling of GMO products, means there is virtually no way for a consumer to know if a genetically altered crop/organism is being purchased or consumed. No clear labeling process keeps populations blind about what is being eaten, and could have catastrophic long-term effects on human health and the environment, especially if capitalistic agendas take precedence over population health. Purposed regulations are in high demand for much of the uncertain population, as well as other solutions, such as more comprehensive research in the field.

The most obvious solution for the many controversial issues with GMO production is more governmental regulations. To date, there is no scientific consensus on the how safe GMO production is for human consumption. A federal policy statement published in 1984 stated that “existing laws as then implemented, supplemented with new regulations, were adequate to address regulatory needs,” meaning the already established laws addressed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Inspection Agency were sufficient in regulating GMO (Acosta, 2014). The loopholes allowed certain proponents of GMOs to circumvent certain policies that don’t specifically address the technology by not enforcing substantial, valid evidence of its safety. Newly introduced laws that specifically enforce GMO labeling is enough to trigger a potential improvement in overall public health. Labeling allows the consumer to consciously choose GMO or organic. Most citizens have admitted that, when given the choice, organic is preferable. And studies have shown GMOs to be, at the very least, a potential cause of the rise in childhood allergies, as well as making the body more resistant to antibiotics (Lombardo, 2015).

GMO production has been proven, in many instances, to cause harm to the environment. Of its proposed advantages, one of the more appealing is that, because GMO crops require less chemicals to flourish, the environmental impact is less than that of more naturally grown crops that pesticides are used on. GMO crops also were supposed to provide enough sustainable crops to feed the world’s ever-growing population (Lombardo, 2015). However, studies presented by the New York Times have shown that GMO producing countries like the US and Canada yield no more, and in some cases less, food per acre than countries in Western Europe that don’t use GMO technology. And over the last 2 decades, the use of pesticides and herbicides have increased by over 20% in the US, while that usage in France – a non-GMO country – has decreased by 65%. This leads many to question the US’s motive in GMO production Most of the companies that produce GMOs produce the pesticides, herbicides, etc. and they conduct internal research of the products to determine safety. Many times, a third party that has a vested interest in the GMO production conducts the research. The conflict of interest in these circumstances is glaring. Newly created laws enforcing 3rd, neutral parties and/or independent research to be conducted and validated before the introduction of any GMO products would positively affect the environment from the lasting effects of pesticide use and land being rendered barren by certain crops (Hakim, 2016).

As GMO products are not widely accepted in Europe and similar countries, the US has seen a major impact on the diplomatic relationship regarding international trade. Much of the US’s economic wealth is based on GMO production and exportation, while countries in Europe have strict laws restricting the importation of GMO products. This is especially true because of the lack of GMO labeling regulations in the US. And because there is no crop yield advantage, and the negative health implications are so apparent, much of Europe and many other of the USs Eastern trade partners have chosen to avoid GMO production and, instead, take the more organic route. If the US wants to improve on the international relationships, stricter regulations are needed. Most people simply don’t trust the technology enough to choose it over natural/organic products.

The long-standing controversy over genetically modified organism is entering a new phase, since most of the research done is relatively new. Because it is so new, the scientific reach for validity is limited. While GMO products have to meet the same safety requirements as other natural products, many opponents of GMOs say the safety concerns are greater because they are unknown. The many economic, political, health, and environmental issues introduced by this technology has created mixed emotions in the US among its citizens. The public ignorance to what foods are GMO-enhanced and what’s dangerous about GMOs is only surpassed by the public ignorance to what GMOs are. Taking an in-depth look at the circumstances surrounding GMOs, it is evident the impact is more negative than positive. That’s not to say there is no good to come from GMO technology/production; but more research and stricter regulations are needed to better facilitate its use. The introduction of federal regulations would improve on international relationships with countries who are opposed to such unknown and unnatural technology. It would also advance public health by allowing consumers to actively choose safer, more natural alternatives, and improve on the environment by reducing the amount of pesticides and other poisons used in GMO production.

References

Acosta, L. (2014, March 01). Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United

States. Retrieved August 18, 2017, from https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php

Diaz, J., & Fridovich-Keil, J. (2016). Genetically modified organism (GMO).

In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/science/genetically-modified-organism

Hakim, D. (2016, October 29). Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically

Modified Crops. August 19, 2017, from www.nytimes.com,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-

short.html

Key, S., Ma, J. K.-C., & Drake, P. M. (2008). Genetically modified plants and

human health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(6), 290–298.

http://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372

Lombardo, C. (2015, May 19). Disadvantages and Advantages of Genetically Modified Crops Retrieved from http://thenextgalaxy.com/disadvantages-and-advantages-of-genetically-modified-crops

Miller, A. (2015, April 29). Are GMOs Really That Harmful to Eat? Retrieved August 18, 2017, from USNews.com, http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/04/29/are-gmos-really-that-harmful-to-eat

U.S. Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops. (2011). Retrieved August 18, 2017,

from https://fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse-agriculture/2.-agricultural- biotechnology/us-regulation-of-genetically-engineered-crops.html