MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 13, 2020

TO: Dr. Tracey K. Parker
FROM: Joseph Ellard
SUBJECT: Controversy surrounding genetically modified foods

To inform government officials on the controversy surrounding genetically modified

foods, the attached report contains information describing the controversies and confusion
surrounding GM products. Illustrations and analyses of recent data regarding public opinion
and the science behind GM products are displayed within. Issues most relevant to the topic of
GM products, as well as issues important in the general discussion of agriculture and food
production are listed in the report.

The issues most relevant to the discussion of GM products are as follows:

 Agriculture
 Biotechnology
 Environmental Impact
 Food Safety
 Government policy
 Medical research
 Production ethics
 Public awareness and opinion
 Sustainability
 Technological advancement

Recommendations made by the report will be action-based, and the conclusion will discuss
the impacts already being made by scholars on the confusion surrounding GMOs.

1
 Public Opinion and The Science Behind Genetically
Modified Organisms

______________
Wes Ellard
November 13, 2020
__________________

Abstract:

The purpose of this report is to clarify public opinion and the science behind genetically modified
products, or GMOs, to government officials. EBSCO, the online academic database, was the primary
research method, but public surveys were also used. The report will include a history and background of
GMOs, an overview of their current both political and scientific state, a data-driven discussion, and
recommendations of action based on data. The differences between genetic modification (GM), genetic
engineering (GE) and biotechnology are also given. The discussion section of the report will regard
production ethics, scientific advancement, medical research, public awareness, public opinion, and
governmental policy. Important topics include sustainability, environmental impact, health concerns,
agriculture, food safety, and biotechnology. GMOs will continue to require research building upon
current knowledge and critical development in GMO policy is necessary regarding the rapidly rising
global population.

2
 Table of Contents
Memo of Transmittal 1
Title Page 2
Abstract 2
Table of Contents 3
List of Figures 4
Summary 4
A background of genetic modification 5
Description of genetic modification 5
History of genetically modified products 5
Current status of genetically modified products 6
The science of genetic modification 6
Passive versus active genetic modification 6
Survey data regarding health concerns of genetic modification 6
Public opinion of genetically modified products 7
Survey data regarding ethics of genetic modification 8
Recommendations 8
Information campaigns and media coverage 8
Food education in public schools 9
Conclusion 9
Existing and future genetic research 9
Works Cited 10

3
List of figures
Figure 1: Timeline of Genetic Modification 5

Figure 2: Gallup genetic modifications health concerns poll 6

Figure 3: Gallup biotechnology awareness poll 7

Figure 4: Genetically modified meat consumption poll 8

Summary
The goal of the report
The goal of this report is to clarify public opinion and the science behind genetically modified
products, as well as evaluate the relationship between the two, providing recommendations for
actions.

Methods
The primary research method used in compiling data for the report was the online academic
database EBSCO.

A background of genetic modification

Genetic modification is defined as selecting two parent individuals with desirable traits to cross
in order to achieve a hybrid with the desired trait. Mankind has genetically modified livestock
and crops since 8000 B.C. Genetics has been studied primarily in the last two centuries alone
and has garnered some controversy.

The science of genetic modification

Genetic modification has come from crossing two individuals and hoping for the desired traits
in their offspring to splicing DNA using a bacteria and growing cells into individuals with 100
percent accuracy.

Public awareness and opinion of GM products

Public awareness of genetic modification is increasing, but public support is decreasing due to
politically minded individuals and confusion.

Public information campaigns, educational programs, and media coverage

The USDA may host public information campaigns, educational institutions may provide genetic
information in their curricula, and public relations projects may be spearheaded.

4
Existing and future research
Extension professionals and scholars are working, but more research must be done.

A background of genetic modification

A description of genetic modification
Genetic modification (GM) in agriculture is a practice used to select crops and animals for
desirable traits. These traits may include classical desirable traits such as larger or more
numerous fruit, subject size, or rapid growth. However, modern genetic work has also allowed
for selection of traits such as pesticide resistance, disease resistance, longer shelf life, slower
ripening, and more. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines genetic
modification as ‘the production of heritable improvements in plants or animals for specific uses,
via either genetic engineering or other more traditional methods’ (2013). Genetic modification
is not to be confused with genetic engineering (GE), which removes specific genes and replaces
them with a prepared desirable trait with significant accuracy. Biotechnology is another
important term, defined by the USDA as the tools used in altering or improving organisms and
products (Zahry et al. 19).

A history of genetic modification (Figure 1)

Humans began domestication of livestock and crops and selecting for desirable traits circa 8000
B.C. In 1863, Gregor Mendel discovered that traits were inherited predictably, earning him the
moniker of “the father of modern genetics,”. He was certainly not the first to practice gene
selection, but the first to write his findings down, and he devoted his life to his work. In the
term “genetics” would not be coined until 1906. Most of the genetic research has taken place in
the last two centuries, including the introduction of perfect cut/paste gene editing by Stanley
Cohen and Herbert Boyer known as CRISPR (Talbot 41), and the introduction of the FLAVR SAVR
tomato in 1994 (Agricultural Research, 6). A brief timeline of genetic modification is shown

below:

5
 Figure 1: Timeline of Genetic Modification (Agricultural Research 6).

Current status of genetically modified products

GM products are currently surrounded by controversy, fed by politically interested individuals. This
includes both politicians and individuals who may be affected by policies regarding GM products and
biotechnology (Merkley 24). Globally, GM products are subject to labeling laws and bans. GM products
make up a large portion of agricultural products in the western hemisphere.

The science of genetic modification

Passive versus active trait selection (Figure 2)
According to Dr. David Weaver of Auburn University, wheat, barley, lentils, flax, chickpeas, and
peas are the six “founder crops” first widely planted by ancient humans, who selected these
crops for their easy cultivation, yield, and hardiness. This basic trait selection was done by
identifying desirable traits of two individual organisms and cross pollinating them or planting
them in abundance to achieve hybridization. The USDA defines hybrid plants as the offspring of
any separate plants with different genotypes (2013). This traditional selection is known as
passive trait selection. The modern western agricultural industry has seen a shift away from
passive selection, toward active, precise trait selection. Active selection is synonymous with
genetic engineering. It includes gene editing with copy/paste-like precision. This possible using
biotechnology known as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/Cas9, or
CRISPR (Shew et al. 1). CRISPR uses a bacterial protein called Cas9 to reproduce exact genes,
which can be inserted into the desired organism. Some people are directly opposed to the use
of biotechnology in food production, however, with one poll showing that 76 percent of
individuals surveyed believed that genetically modified foods posed serious risks to their health
(Runge et al. 587). Below is the Gallup poll mentioned earlier:

6
 Figure 2: Gallup genetic modification health concerns poll (Gallup).

Despite the belief that GM products may have negative effects on human health, several
studies have shown that these beliefs are largely unfounded, often citing studies in which the
data gleaned in the studies and the authors’ conclusions regarding the data contradict each
other (Panchin et al. 213).

Public awareness and opinion of GM products

Public awareness of genetic modification (Figure 3)
For most of history, genetic modification was unstudied and unnamed. Farmers selected
livestock and plants that had desirable traits to produce the next generation of their products.
This was genetic modification, but the people were unaware of the science behind their
selections, or that farmers did this altogether. With the advent of modern GM strategies,
government policies, and the 24-hour news cycle, awareness of genetic modification and
biotechnology has increased. A study showed that in 1999, 50 percent of those polled
answered that they had heard a great deal or some about biotechnology. The same study
showed that in 2001, there was a nine percent increase in the number that answered in these
categories (Runge et al. 584). The poll, questioning how much participants had heard about the
topic of biotechnology, including genetic modifications, is shown below:

Figure 3: Gallup biotechnology awareness poll (Gallup).

Public opinion of genetic modification (Figure 4)

7
While public opinion of genetic modification is diverse, there is a significant amount of
confusion regarding the term “genetic modification,”. As mentioned earlier, the USDA defines
genetic modification differently from genetic engineering. Public support of genetically

modified meat is lower than public support of biotechnology, according to a poll, which asked if
participants would consume genetically modified meat, shown here:
Figure 4: Genetically modified meat consumption poll (Runge et al.).

This could be because of linguistic confusion, as the public has similar perceptions of genetic
engineering and genetic modification (Zahry et al. 24). While some may see genetic engineering
as unnatural and morally wrong, they may be confusing the two terms as synonymous. The
reality is that a significant portion of food eaten in the western hemisphere is genetically
modified. This is because of the ‘traditional means’ identified in the background of genetic
modification section of this report, as well as modern biotechnology. Several countries,
particularly in Europe, have banned GM products due to confusion surrounding their labels
(The Economist 1). Other countries require labels for GM products due to public request.
However, the confusion of these two terms may have led to confusion in the general market.
Companies may place non-GMO labels on products for which there are no GM alternative on
the market, allowing them to upscale prices. This public confusion has also led to scientific
roadblocks, as with golden rice, a GM breed of rice rich in Vitamin A. Golden rice was meant to
assist with the disproportionate amount of poor eyesight in east Asian countries, but because
of public misunderstanding of GM products and a lack of expert support, golden rice failed
(Paarlberg 1.).

Recommendations
Public information campaigns
The USDA currently has Extension services to inform farmers of new agricultural techniques and
products. To combat the confusion surrounding GM products, a similar service could be started
for the purpose of informing the general public in detail about GM products, clarifying that
there is a lack of evidence supporting that they cause health issues, as well as that much of the
food consumed daily in the western hemisphere is genetically modified.
8
Educational programs
As genetics is currently part of the United States biology curriculum, a section each year could
be used to teach students about genetic modification, genetic engineering, and biotechnology.
This could help to demystify GM products and clarify terms for the parents of students. School
FFA and agricultural programs could also host information campaigns within their school to
clarify the benefits and pitfalls of GM products.

Media Coverage
Agriculture is generally covered in the media when negative things happen, such as disease
outbreaks, droughts, and food shortages. However, if public relations professionals from
agricultural organizations could organize press conference regarding breakthroughs in GM
research, as well as general biotechnological information, awareness of GM products and
biotechnology would increase (Diamond et al.)

Conclusion
Existing work and future research
Studies have shown that some commonly cited authors’ conclusions are contradictory with
their data (Panchin et al.). More research must be done, this time with correct analyses of data.
The confusion surrounding GM products must be put to rest as the world population continues
to grow, creating more food requirement.

9
 Works Cited
"Food fights: 'genetically modified' plants are already commonplace in America. Europeans
would be better off if they embraced them with equal enthusiasm." The Economist, vol.
347, no. 8072, 13 June 1998, p. 79+. Gale General OneFile,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A20790073/ITOF?
u=avl_auburnu&sid=ITOF&xid=5cba513b. Accessed 13 Nov. 2020.
“Genetic Engineering Timeline.” Agricultural Research, vol. 52, no. 9, Sept. 2004, pp. 6–7.
EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=buh&AN=14387116&site=ehost-live.

Diamond, Emily, et al. “Does Providing Scientific Information Affect Climate Change and GMO
Policy Preferences of the Mass Public? Insights from Survey Experiments in Germany
and the United States.” Environmental Politics, vol. 29, no. 7, Nov. 2020, pp. 1199–1218.
EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/09644016.2020.1740547.
Gallup Organization. 1937. “Gallup Poll January 1937 [Survey Question] USGALLUP.37-65. Q07,”
in iPoll. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.———. 2010. “Gallup Poll
December 2010 [Survey Question] USAGALLUP.10DEC03.R01E,” in iPoll. Storrs, CT:
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.

Merkley, Eric. “Anti-Intellectualism, Populism, and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus.”

Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 1, Spring 2020, pp. 24–48. EBSCOhost,
doi:10.1093/poq/nfz053

Paarlberg, Robert. “GMO Foods and Crops: Africa’s Choice.” New Biotechnology, vol. 27, no. 5,
Nov. 2010, pp. 609–613. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2010.07.005.
Panchin, Alexander Y., and Alexander I. Tuzhikov. “Published GMO Studies Find No Evidence of
Harm When Corrected for Multiple Comparisons.” Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, vol.
37, no. 2, Mar. 2017, pp. 213–217. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684.
Runge, Kristin K., et al. “The Polls--Trends Attitudes about Food and Food-Related
Biotechnology.” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 81, no. 2, Summer 2017, pp. 577–596.
EBSCOhost, doi:10.1093/poq/nfw038.

Shew, Aaron M., et al. “CRISPR versus GMOs: Public Acceptance and Valuation.” Global Food
Security, vol. 19, Dec. 2018, pp. 71–80. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.005.

10
Talbot, David. “Precise Gene Editing in Plants.” MIT Technology Review, vol. 119, no. 2, Mar.
2016, p. 41. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=aph&AN=113441420&site=ehost-live.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2013. Glossary of Agricultural Biotechnology Terms.

Feburary 27. Accessed December 10, 2016.
https://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?
navid=BIOTECH_GLOSS&navtype=RT&parentnav=BIOTECH

Weaver, David, Basic Crop Science, 25 August 2020, Auburn University

Zahry, Nagwan R., and John C. Besley. “Genetic Engineering, Genetic Modification, or
Agricultural Biotechnology: Does the Term Matter?” Journal of Risk Research, vol. 22,
no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 16–31. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/13669877.2017.1351470.

11