Earth and Life

Science
Genetic Engineering / Genetically modified organisms

Jilliane C. Berba

HUMSS 11-10

Genetically modified organisms or GMOs has been and still is a highly controversial
topic. Yet, despite the debate, GMOs are found in all sorts of food products — often without
labels. Since, we intake these foods, they have a direct effect on our health. Therefore, it's
important to understand the science behind these foods.

It is already a fact that our population is steadily, and only increasing in huge numbers.
That is why a lot of critics and scientists are in fact in favor of genetic engineering or GMOs.
Let us start with the benefits of GMO: (In agriculture) increase of 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. Advances have also been made in developing crops that mature
faster and tolerate aluminum, boron, salt, drought, frost, and other environmental stressors,
allowing plants to grow in conditions where they might not otherwise flourish.
There is also a lot of commercial products already approved and are in the market that
undergo genetic engineering, for an instance soybean for herbicide tolerance, corn for insect
resistance, etc. There is also some still waiting to be approved and are still in development, like
rice for vitamin enrichment, and salmon for faster maturation.

Although there are still a lot of controversies and risks surrounding GMO, because
despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are
unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene
expression. After all, such alterations can change the organism's metabolism, growth rate,
and/or response to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the
GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate.
Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in
genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora.
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 these
claims are correct, it is argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and
environment, because monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers (who can
afford the costly seeds) will dominate over the diversity contributed by small farmers who can't
afford the technology. However, a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average,
two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream,
whereas only one-third accrues upstream. These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial
and developing countries. Therefore, the argument that private companies will not share
ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence from first-generation genetically modified
crops.
As cellular biologist who specializes in vision David Williams says that “A lot of naive
science has been involved in pushing this technology.” he also added: “Thirty years ago we
didn't know that when you throw any gene into a different genome, the genome reacts to it. But
now anyone in this field knows the genome is not a static environment. Inserted genes can be
transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later.” The result, he
insists, could very well be potentially toxic plants slipping through testing. Williams concedes
that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM
crops. But he says this is only because the field of plant molecular biology is protecting its
interests.
Whether Williams is right or wrong, one thing is undeniable: despite overwhelming
evidence that GM crops are safe to eat, the debate over their use continues to rage, and in
some parts of the world, it is growing ever louder. Skeptics would argue that this
contentiousness is a good thing—that we cannot be too cautious when tinkering with the genetic
basis of the world's food supply.

The most recent organism that was genetically modified were potatoes, which was
approved in America back in 2015; and apples, which were also approved in 2015 in both the
U.S and Canada.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved commercial planting of two types of
potatoes that are genetically engineered to resist the pathogen that caused the Irish potato
famine. The approval covers Idaho-based J.R. Simplot Co.'s Ranger Russet and Atlantic
varieties of the company's second generation of Innate potatoes. Company says the potatoes
will also have reduced bruising and black spots, enhanced storage capacity, and a reduced
amount of a chemical created when potatoes are cooked at high temperatures that's a potential
carcinogen.
"We obviously are very proud of these," said company spokesman Doug Cole.
Cole said the new varieties of potatoes can be kept in cold storage longer. Conventional
potatoes can turn a dark color when cooked after they were kept cold for too long. The
enhanced cold storage could have significant ramifications for the potato chip industry by
reducing trucking costs, Cole said.
The company's second generation of Innate potatoes follows the first generation that has
been selling to consumers for more than a year. Those potatoes, marketed under the White
Russet label, have reduced bruising and reduced potential carcinogens when cooked, but not
resistance to late blight or enhanced cold storage.
Cole said about 40 million pounds of the first generation potatoes have been sold to
consumers in more than 35 states. He said that's about 1 percent of all potato sales. Of the 40
million pounds, he said about two-thirds went to produce sections of stores.
There is no evidence that genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, are unsafe
to eat, but for some people, altering the genetic code of foods presents an ethical issue.
McDonald's has rejected using Simplot's first generation of Innate potatoes for its French fries.

After years of development, Genetically modified apples finally hit the shelves of U.S just
this 2017. The fruit, sold sliced and marketed under the brand Arctic Apple, hitted a cluster of
Midwestern grocery stores as early as February 1, 2017. The limited release is an early test run
for the controversial apple, which has been genetically modified to eliminate the browning that
occurs when an apple is left out in the open air.
 Critics and advocates of genetic engineering say that the apple could be a turning point
in the nation’s highly polarizing debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While
genetic modifications have in the past been mainly defended as a way to protect crops, the
Arctic Apple would be one of the first GMOs marketed directly to consumers as more
convenient.
Industry executives predict the apple could open a whole new trade in genetically
engineered produce, potentially opening the market to pink pineapples, antioxidant-enriched
tomatoes, and other food currently in development.
“We see this as less about genetic modification and more about convenience,” said Neal
Carter, founder of the company that makes the Arctic Apple. “I think consumers are very ready
for apples that don’t go brown. Everyone can identify with that ‘yuck’ factor.”
GMO critics say they are hopeful, however, that consumers will continue to show
skepticism about the produce. Despite a growing consensus in scientific circles that GMOs pose
little risk, environmental and consumer groups have successfully mounted campaigns against
GMOs over the past 30 years, successfully limiting the practice to commodity crops like
soybeans and corn.
Anti-GMO groups have successfully pushed for GMO crop bans in places like Boulder
County, Colo., and Sonoma County, Calif., and several major food brands have agreed not to
use GM ingredients. Critics have also questioned how consumers will be able to judge the
freshness of sliced apples when they don’t brown.

With all these debate about the benefits and risks of SMO, I personally think that
genetically modified food or organisms is still quite unsafe and is very skeptical for us, the
consumers – as our health is at risk and is on the line.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/Genetic-approaches-to-crop-improvement-responding-
to-16096

https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/Call-for-tighter-controls-on-transgenic-foods-99234

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-
crops-and-732

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/gm-potatoes-get-usda-ok-n675856

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/genetically-modified-crops-a-success-story-or-
not.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGenetically%20Modified%20Food

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44747/title/Drug-Produced-in-GM-Chicken-
Approved/

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/health/apples-genetically-modified-on-sale-soon/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/23/the-apple-that-never-browns-
wants-to-change-your-mind-about-genetically-modified-foods/?utm_term=.9fbaaf9a96f8

https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14321944/gmo-non-browning-apples-on-sale-us-arctic