Home

This writing assignment was completed in English 212: Technical Communication.  Its purpose was to choose from a list of relevant topics, conduct research with a perspective covering both sides of the issue, and collaboratively write an objective report.

Genetically Engineered Foods

Do we really know everything that is in our food today?  Modern technology has brought about the ability for scientists, researchers, and common farmers to alter the most important necessity in our lives, our food.  Genetically engineered foods are also known as biotech, bioengineered, and genetically modified (GM), and genetically modified organisms (GMO’s).  Many issues surround the modification of the foods we eat today.  Some people question the safety of altered foods, whether it is human consumption or potential effects on the environment.  Others argue that genetically modified foods have been consumed for years with no negative effects.  Still others proceed with caution in an attempt to notify the public of potential risks by having altered products properly labeled.  With this in mind, genetically engineered foods are a controversial issue.

Genetic engineering is not a new process.  Farmers have practiced it since the 1500s, by crossing different seeds to create new variations of the plants that are less susceptible to certain pests or diseases by modifying the genetic makeup of the plant.  These hybrids are no more dangerous than the original plants that they were derived from; in fact, they are often more likely to be healthier plants with more beneficial qualities than the originals (Henkel).  Scientists have found different ways to alter plants and animals.

          One way of altering plants or animals is by irradiation.  This process uses high doses of electricity, in the form of electron beams, to reduce harmful components of uncooked meats.  Its intention is to reduce the risk of E. coli and salmonella.  People who support the irradiation process believe microwaving or canning food ruins the nutritional value more than irradiation.  Consumers Reports magazine comments about irradiated meats, stating that if such meats were used in large settings, such as cafeterias, it “could help reduce widespread food-borne illness” (Liddle). 

          However, opponents of the irradiation process argue that if people were to cook meat properly, then there is no need for irradiated products.  Adversaries also contest that studies need to be done relating the harm to humans and long-term consumption of irradiated meat products in order to ensure safety.  Meat products are not the only cause for concern.  In 2000, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was forced to destroy thousands of barrels of soybeans after they had been stored with genetically modified corn.  The corn was engineered to repel pests and was not completely removed from plots of land that the soybeans were planted in.  The corn was only meant for animal feed and was not intended, nor tested for human consumption safety. Unknowingly, the soybeans that contained remnants of the corn were shipped to restaurants and stores.  Once traces of corn were discovered, recalls of the tainted food occurred all over the United States (Liddle). 

One of the main reasons for support of GM foods is the increased and improved varieties of food.  However, critics claim that the potential improvements are not worth the health, environmental, and economic risks.  For example, in May of 1994, the first whole food created through biotechnology was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (Stone).  Its developer, Calgene, claimed that the Flavr Savr tomato would stay fresh for up to ten days, which is a week longer than regular tomatoes.  Tomatoes have always been a bother for producers because they must be picked while they are still green. At this stage they are firmer and do not damage as easily.  The tomatoes are then sprayed with ethylene, which turns the tomatoes the proper red color, making them appear to be ripe when they actually are not.  The fruit is not affected by the ethylene in taste or nutritional value, and the tomato still tastes as unripe as it would otherwise (“Flavr Savr tomato and GM tomato puree”). 

Though the future of the Flavr Savr seemed optimistic, a few health concerns alarmed the public.  For example, the tomato contained certain genes that were resistant to an antibiotic called kanamycin, which is used in several medicines.  It was feared that consumption of Flavr Savr would lead to people’s resistance of the antibiotic, thus making a number of medicines useless.  A second concern was that there was a latent risk of the tomato causing stomach lesions.  Three studies were done with lab rats testing the GM tomato, and while one test was unproblematic, in the other two, either microscopic or clearly visual lesions developed in some of the rats who consumed the Flavr Savr.  Although these findings were downplayed and not made public by the FDA, they should have been more carefully looked at before the approval of the Flavr Savr tomato.  These major safety concerns were the main reason that the first whole GM food was unsuccessful.  It was only sold in California, and a few places in the Mid-West.  The food was withdrawn from stores less than a year after it arrived (“Flavr Savr tomato and GM tomato puree”).

Are genetically engineered foods safe?  According to James Nicholson, “millions of Americans, Canadians[…]have been eating genetically modified food for nearly a decade without one proven case of an illness, allergic reaction, or even the hiccups[…]Mankind has been genetically altering food throughout human history” (Coleman 14-17).  However, these foods are also being structured to contain vaccines in an edible form.  According to an article from the Health and Wellness Resource Center, potatoes were being genetically altered, producing a hepatitis B protein.  Even though trials showed positive results, the project was abandoned because a fear lingered that the potatoes carrying the vaccine might be confused with normal potatoes, thus causing dangerous results ("Why vaccination by potato got chopped").  Because of this, people have joined together to fight against unlabeled genetically enhanced foods so that the public can be aware of the dangers.  The fact is, although many people have consumed genetically engineered foods, risks may still exist.

Furthermore, genetically engineered foods impact the environment.  While the population of the world is rapidly rising, the amount of land available, especially land for farming, is not.  In order to keep up with this rapid population growth, something must be done to improve the effectiveness of farming and feed more people by growing food on the same amount of land. America genetically engineers 68% of soybeans, 70% of the cotton crop, 26% of the corn crop, and 55% of canola (Coleman 14-17).

          Consequently, a price must be paid for these modified crops.  Because these crops are structured differently, they may need more chemicals than normal to survive.  Also, these hybrid crops affect the soil.  Moreover, because these crops are engineered to be immune to certain pesticides, other plants may be exposed to this and then would have to be treated with toxic weed-killers.  Economically, the altered food is beneficial, but only at the expense of the environment (“Seeds of Change”).

The United States of America is not the only country concerned about the effects of GM foods on the environment.   The Green Parties of Europe are recognizing the existence of various concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods.  They say that these foods cause dangerous hazards to the consumer and the environment.  Some of the dangers are “new toxins and allergens in foods, the creation of herbicide-resistant weeds, loss of bio-diversity in crops, pollution of soil and artificially induced characteristics and inevitable side-effects” (Fagan).   Therefore, the Green Parties of Europe call upon the European Parliament and the European Commission “to remove all the GM foods from the EU markets, to ban their further introduction and to clearly resolve that no GM food will be considered for further approval unless and until it has been definitively demonstrated to be safe for the consumer and the environment” (Fagan).  With this action taken, the Green Parties hope that no more modified food will be sold on the market until it has been completely tested to be safe for everyone and everything.

According to John B. Fagan, genetically engineered foods are not necessary. He says that “we, the people, already have the ability to feed the world’s population without the risks of modified foods.”  Fagan thinks that genetic engineering is the greatest danger of any technology that has been introduced to the world.  To protect the environment, a ban on all genetic engineering that can release organisms into the environment is necessary.  Fagan’s greatest concern is the global threat to humanity’s food supply.  Companies carry out experiments to introduce genetically engineered foods into the food supply.  Because of these experiments, numerous people are exposed to health risks and it can also lead to global food shortages.  The Green Parties of Europe are very concerned about the genetically engineered foods and they have come to the conclusion that it is not the answer to world hunger (“GMO Genetic Engineering”).

Additionally, the world’s population is rapidly growing.  If one were to be a farmer, could that person imagine tending to a field the size of Rhode Island?  Farmers are feeling the pressure to produce more and more food products to be consumed by the ever-increasing population.  These farmers constantly need to find new ways to ship out more food faster and more efficiently.  Some people may argue that we need more farmers, or stricter regulations on how much to produce.  However, others see genetic engineering as a solution to this problem.  With this idea in mind, farmers may be able to produce crops and foods at an increased rate with higher output margins.  While the population of the world is rapidly rising, the amount of land available, especially land for farming, is not.  In order to keep up with this rapid population growth, something must be done to improve the effectiveness of farming and feed more people by growing additional food on the same amount of land.  Scientists and farmers can now make alterations to a plant in one generation that previously took several generations of hybrid modifying to see the same results.  Using the technology that is now available, the challenge of fighting world hunger can be faced (Allen).

Genetically modified foods are in most cases as healthy as pure food, and in some instances, they may even be healthier (Henkel).  Vitamins and other nutrients can be modified into food that would otherwise have very little nutritional value, which would prevent many diseases and health risks, especially in peripheral countries, where low technology and food scarcity have taken their toll on health and productivity.  Advocates for genetically modified and engineered food believe that this technology may be revolutionary in the fight against world hunger while providing many health benefits to the world (Henkel). 

As of right now, few regulations exist for genetically engineered foods.  This is evident because companies voluntarily send nutritional and safety information to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for scientific evaluation. This process is not mandatory because U.S. law presently does not require labels on genetically modified foods (“Regulating Genetically Modified Foods”).  The FDA publishes safety guidelines for biotech foods and also seeks expertise outside of the agency.  Labeling genetically engineered foods may lead to a decrease in the risk of allergic reactions from unexpected ingredients.  For the FDA to require labeling, something must be significantly different about the product, but the process of making that product plays no role in the labeling process. Significant changes in the product would include different nutritional properties or an unexpected allergen. Therefore, if an unforeseen ingredient has been added to a genetically modified product, the label will allow consumers to be aware.  Producers, however, feel that labeling may create a negative image of biotech foods.  They believe a label will distract the consumer, causing them to believe that if consumed, the product may be harmful.  Producers do not want their consumers to believe that the altered product is any more dangerous than the conventionally grown product.  The National Restaurant Association’s Steve Grover states, “If there is a safety question, the food shouldn’t be on the market.  If there is no safety question, why are we labeling it?” (Liddle).  Suppliers also view labeling as an unnecessary cost and a hassle for setting standards.

Furthermore, the FDA is the not the only regulatory agency for biotech foods.  The USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also scrutinize them.  The EPA controls the amount of harmful chemicals like pesticides and fertilizers that are used in agricultural products.  While the USDA, “issues permits for field trials and reviews petitions by seed developers to commercially release genetically modified foods” (“Regulating Genetically Modified Foods”).  Even though these three renowned authorities work hard to standardize genetically modified foods, challenges must still be dealt with and agreed upon. 

Genetically engineered foods are surrounded by controversy.  Even though people have been exposed to these altered foods for a while now, problems still exist and caution needs to be taken.  Furthermore, not only are people affected, but the affects spread to the environment as well.  However, some people feel that genetically modified foods have been consumed for years without adverse effects.  The public needs to be informed of modifications made to food so that people can decide whether or not to consume altered food.  In the near future researchers, scientists, and farmers alike hope to help feed a growing global population as we are finding a need to develop a means of increasing production.

Works Cited

Allen Jr., John L. “Intense debate surrounds genetically modified foods.” National Catholic Reporter. 21 November 2003. 24 March 2005

< http://www.findarticles.com >.

Brean, Linda. "Genetic Engineering: The Future of Foods?" FDA Consumer 2003: 28-34. Wilson Select Plus. OCLC. SVSU Zahnow Library, University Center, MI. 22 March 2005.

Coleman, Gerald D. "Is Genetic Engineering The Answer to Hunger?." America 21 Feb 2005: 192. :14-17. Pro Quest. Gale Group. SVSU Zahnow Library. 28 March 2005 < http://0-proquest.umi.com/library.svsu.edu >.

Fagan, John B. Genetically Engineered Food-A Serious Health Risk.1971-1995.  22 March 2005 < http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html >.

"Flavr Savr tomato and GM tomato puree: The Failure of the first GM Foods." Soil Association (2003). 12 Apr 2005 < http://www.soilassociation.org >.

GMO Genetic Engineering: A CALL FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT ACTION.  Maharishi International Council of Natural Law Parties.  26 November 2000.  22 March 2005  < http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung >.

Henkel, John. "Genetic Engineering: Fast Forwarding to Future Foods." FDA Consumer April 1995 Find Articles. Gale Group. SVSU Zahnow Library. 24 March 2005 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_n3_v29/ai_16783326/print

Liddle, Alan J. "Engineering the Future: Interest in Biotech Grows." Nation's

        Restaurant News 2003: 128 - 132. Wilson Select Plus. OCLC. SVSU

         Zahnow Library, University Center, MI. 22 March 2005.

"Regulating Genetically Modified Foods." Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

           Regional Review 2004: 21. Wilson Select Plus. OCLC. SVSU Zahnow

           Library, University Center, MI. 22 March 2005.

"Seeds of Change." Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Regional Review 2004: 12-20. Wilson Select Plus. OCLC. SVSU Zahnow Library, University Center, MI. 22 March 2005.

Stone, Brad. "The Flavr Savr Arrives." National Health Museum 18 May 1994 Wilson Select Plus. SVSU Zahnow Library. 1 Apr 2005 <www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BA/Flavr_Savr_Arrives.html>.

"Why vaccination by potato got chopped." Australasian Business Intelligence 19 Feb 2005 Pro Quest. Gale Group. SVSU Zahnow Library. 28 March 2005 < http://0-galenet.galegroup.com.library.svsu.edu >.