Research Final Draft: Don’t Forget to Eat Your Genetically Modified Vegetables Kids!

As early as the 1980′s, dramatic advances in molecular biology research have transformed our agricultural industry. Among these advances are genetically modified (GM) crops. GM crops are crops that have been modified or enhanced to contain desired traits. These desired traits can increase resistance to herbicides or even improve the plants nutritional value. Many Americans have grown on this hype of a more efficient and better way to grow crops, overlooking the potential risk of problems or negativity on themselves and the environment. Improvements and enhancements to these crops seem beneficial at first, but can cause long term negative impacts on the environment. Although many technological advances are environmentally helpful, genetic modification of crops causes negative effects on the environment because they increase the use in engineered viruses, they transgress species integrity, and they further the US from sustainability.

Molecular biologists have engineered genes and even viruses to create resistance in modified plants. These modified plants include engineered herbicide-tolerant crops that have become increasingly popular and are soon to be commercially available. Herbicide-tolerant crops are ones engineered to contain genes that help avoid the harmful effects of weed killers (Rissler, 1991). This in turn, entices farmers to use more toxic chemicals on their herbicide-tolerant crops to effectively kill unwanted weeds. Consumers feel that this is beneficial in the success of their crops. They don’t however take into account how an increase in chemicals will affect other crops, other organisms, and even themselves in consumption. Virus-resistant genes are now also being used in GM crops as a way to protect the crops from disease. Disease free crops seem beneficial and are even proven to be, but only in short term durations. In the short term, there is a reduced loss of crops due to viruses. Long term effects however show that viruses can evolve and increase resistance to the modifying genes. These now stronger viruses can easily attack and destroy the modified crops as well as surrounding crops and organisms (Rissler, 1991). In a recent study involving the use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter, results showed that this virus had the potential of reactivating dormant viruses and even creating new viruses in the GM crops or other organisms it transferred to (Institute for Science in Society, 1999).

For GM crops as well as other organisms, engineered genes and viruses can be troubling and harmful. As the use of virus and herbicide-resistant crops increase, so does the use of toxic chemicals. This increase may result in higher crop yields, but can also lead to contamination of food, water, and our environment (Rissler, 1991). For humans and other organisms, the increase in GM crops not only poses a threat of contamination, but of new protein allergies with unknown symptoms or effects (Dearman & Kimber, 2009). A recent proposal involving the modification of Brazil nuts was published but then quickly abandoned due to the fear of developing unknown allergenicities (Whitman, 2011). Another threat of contamination was also recently shown in a preliminary report on the effects of Bt corn’s pollen on monarch butterflies. The pollen from the genetically modified corn was toxic to some including the monarch butterfly, which had the potential of threatening over 50% of its population (Mellon & Rissler, 2003). This strain of corn was also shown to kill caterpillars. Toxins from the crop would build up in the epithelium cells and eventually kill the cells and then the caterpillar (Gahan, 2011). The viral effects and toxicity of GM crops can also harm many other organisms that consume the crops. Most common organisms studied in these harmful situations include birds and deer (Lemaux, 2009). In plants, risks associated with GM crops include GM plants themselves becoming weeds. Weeds are considered plants that are useless and non-beneficial to humans and other organisms. This is due to reverse effects of modification and resistance, rendering them useless (Mellon & Rissler, 2003). Viruses and genes can also be transferred or spread to other plants leading them to become weeds as well. Potential effects on soil have also risen, which include decreased fertility as well as a decrease in the soil microorganism, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). These AMF are critical among soil in providing benefits to the growing crops. Destroying these fungi would end up harming both the non-engineered and engineered crops (Liu & Lianfeng, 2008).

Diversity is among one of the most important aspects of our environment and our organisms. Genetic engineering of crops is threatening this diversity in the way of transgressing species integrity. With genetic modification, there is the introduction of new genes and modifications. The introduction of new genes raises the problem of horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is one of the most serious hazards of transgenic technology (Ho, 2002). It involves the spread of genes between organisms without reproduction (Suurkula, 2004). Transgenic DNA in GM crops can be spread by being taken up by viruses and bacteria as well as plant and animal cells (Ho, 2002). What makes Transgenic DNA different from ordinary DNA is its optimization for horizontal gene transfer. DNA from GM crops has the potential to cross species barriers and construct new combinations of genes as well as amplify newly existing gene products (Ho, 2002). The most common form of a horizontal gene transfer is through bacteria. Bacteria has the potential to uptake DNA directly from its surroundings, obtain genes from infecting viruses, and also take up genes through mating (Suurkula, 2004). The easiest of these methods is to obtain DNA is through direct uptake from its surroundings. In previous studies, bacteria can uptake this DNA through debris of GM crops and even through dead cells of excretions of GM foods, both of which survive in their surroundings for many hours (Suurkula, 2004). This uptake of DNA allows bacteria to spread harmful viruses and mutations to crops leading them to become useless or die.

At first, this transfer of genetic material seems beneficial in that it spreads the good genes in providing resistance. This horizontal transfer can actually cause long term harmful risks to the environment. These risks include antibiotic resistant genes, disease associate genes, and even the spread of transgenic DNA into human cells (Winter, 2008). Risks involving antibiotic resistant genes have been seen in studies involving the Atwbc19 gene. This gene has been reported resistant to the antibiotic kanamycin, which can be harmful to humans if horizontal transfer occurred (Byung-guk, 2010). Disease associate genes can spread and recombine to form new viruses and bacteria that can cause disease among the crops and other neighboring organisms. The spread of transgenic DNA into human cells can have lethal effects including the development of cancer and other harmful diseases (Ho, 2002). The transfer of transgenic DNA into human cells has been shown in recent research involving the consumption of hamburgers and milk shakes. Human consumption of these foods, which included the ingredient GM soya flour, lead to transferred DNA into the bacteria of the intestine (Ho, 2002). Although, this transfer was found to be harmless, other horizontal transfers among humans may not be, leading to potential diseases and or death.  Looking at horizontal transfer as a whole, it crosses boundaries quickly, potentially leading all plants into becoming engineered plants.

Conventional farming involves high-yielding plants, mechanized tillage, and synthetic fertilizers. Today it also involves genetically modified crops. This conventional way of farming drives farmers away from living off of the natural environment. It also drives the US away from sustainable agriculture. Success in sustainable agriculture involves farmers using a variety of cultural, biological, and mechanical methods to avoid or reduce pest problems (Rissler, 1991). This can be done with the help of ecological, biological, and agronomic information. Genetic engineering of our crops drives us away from this sustainability. It continuously keeps the US dependent on chemicals, viruses, and technology to keep our agriculture strong. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization’s (FAO) outlook for 2017 states that the rapid growth in genetic modification as well as other production changes have seriously harmed the health of humans and the environment (Sustainable, 2008). Future projections across the world involving the decrease in sustainability as well as the increase in GM foods display vulnerability and decreases in food supplies (Sustainable, 2008). Researchers have also found that knowledge on the sustainability of resistance-modified crops is incomplete (Gahan, 2011). There is no knowing how long it will take for these crops to be destroyed by their own modifications. To overcome these projections and harm, sustainable farming must be put into effect. In doing so, dependency on chemicals and technology would decrease and allow for stable food production into the future.

Apart from being unsustainable, conventional farming of GM foods is less productive than organic farming. Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developing countries, agricultural yields could double or even triple using organic methods over genetic engineering (Bailey, 2007). In addition to greater yields, production could be accomplished using existing organic fertilizers, without using additional farmland. This research has potential to help not only the US, but developing countries as well in increasing their crop yields. Organic farming is sustainable, and helpful for the environment. Genetic modification of crops can be very detrimental to the environment. In the case of herbicide and pesticide-resistant crops, the increase in toxic chemicals can create dead zones. These dead zones are low oxygen areas where organisms cannot survive (Bailey, 2007). GM crops can also contribute to soil erosion, greenhouse gas emission, and loss of biodiversity (Bailey, 2007). Genetically modified crops in combination with conventional farming are only a quick fix to the US agricultural problems. With organic farming, there is no need for processing, genetic updating, or planning ahead.

Researchers and skeptics can continue to prove the negative effects of GM crops, but must provide attainable solutions to make widespread changes. In recent years, research has been done in regulating GM foods as well as digressing their use in conventional farming. Coming back to sustainable farming, methods often utilize natural populations of predatory and parasitic species to control potential pest species from crops (Stayley, 2011). This is an easy solution to pesticide-resistance crops and can be as simple as placing ladybugs on plants to kill detrimental aphids. Organic fertilizers are also a successful replacement to genetic modification. In a 19 year experiment in North China, organic fertilizer was used as an alternative nutrient source and proved successful in crop yield as well as improved soil fertility overtime (Xiaoyuan, 2010). Genetic modification is a short term solution and compared to organic fertilizers, cannot improve the crops or soil. While ridding the agricultural industry of genetic modification takes time, there is new research in testing and regulating modifications for the safety and sustainability of the plants. Genetically modified traits are most commonly dependent on sRNA or regulatory proteins such as transcription factors (Parrott, 2010). In Korea, safety evaluation systems have been developed to detect unauthorized genetically modified foods, which can be harmful to the environment as well as in human consumption. Detection methods for these unauthorized GM crops include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods and immunoassay, both of which look for modifications in gene markers and expressed proteins (Hae-Yeong, 2010). Using methods such as gel-free mass spectrometry, modified crops can be tested for known allergen proteins and improve researchers ability to predict allergenicity on a structural basis (MaryJane, 2009). This will decrease fear and increase safety in the production of GM crops used for human consumption. Keeping up with current regulations and testing, while developing sustainable solutions will enable the US to digress from genetic modification while keeping current GM crops from becoming detrimental to the environment.

Genetically modified crops have and will continue to cause nothing but problems for humans and the environment. Misleading short term results of these somehow successful crops have led to assumptions and hype within the US. The US should really be looking at the long term effects of GM crops and GM foods as a whole. Herbicide and virus-resistant crops can lead to stronger viruses and widespread diseases, hurting both organisms and the environment. The only benefit of these crops is to the chemical companies that promote them. These modified and transgenic genes can also spread, harming other plants and humans, as well as decrease the diversity among our environment. Modification of crops also drives the US as well as the rest of the world farther away from sustainability, causing us to rely on the constant update of its technology. It makes agriculture and its food supply unpredictable and undependable within the future. The US should stop looking for quick fixes to its agricultural problems and stop promoting its nutritionally enhanced foods and start promoting what the US desperately needs; natural agricultural sustainability.

References

Bailey, L. (2007, July 10). Organic farming can feed the world, u-m study shows. University of Michigan News Service. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from http://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936

Byung-guk, K., Xia, Y., Osburn, L. D., Stewart Jr., C. N., & Zong-Ming, C. (2010). Transgenic hybrid aspen overexpressing the Atwbc19 gene encoding an ATP-binding cassette transporter confers resistance to four aminoglycoside antibiotics. Plant Cell Reports, 29(6), 643-650. doi:10.1007/s00299-010-0850-8

Dearman, R. J., & Kimber, I. I. (2009). Animal models of protein allergenicity: potential benefits, pitfalls and challenges. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 39(4), 458-468. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2008.03194.x

Gahan, L. J., Pauchet, Y., Vogel, H., & Heckel, D. G. (2011). An ABC Transporter Mutation Is Correlated with Insect Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac Toxin. Plos Pathogens, 7(2), 1-11. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1001248

Hae-Yeong, K., Jae-Hwan, K., & Mi-Hwa, O. (2010). Regulation and detection methods for genetically modified foods in Korea. Pure & Applied Chemistry, 82(1), 129-137. doi:10.1351/PAC-CON-09-01-21

Ho, M. (2002, July 22). Recent evidence confirms risks of horizontal gene transfer. The Institute of Science In Society. Retrieved October 03, 2011, from http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FSAopenmeeting.php

Institute for Science in Society. (1999, November 1). Dormant viruses can be reactivated with genetically modified organisms [Press release]. Retrieved October 01, 2011, from http://www.psrast.org/camvmahopr.htm

Lemaux, P. G. (2009). Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist’s analysis of the issues (Part II). Annual Review of Plant Biology, 60(1), 511-559. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092013

Liu, W., & Lianfeng, D. (2008). Interactions between Bt transgenic crops and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: a new urgent issue of soil ecology in agroecosystems. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science, 58(2), 187-192. doi:10.1080/09064710701478339

MaryJane K., S., Christal C., B., Gregory S., L., Laura, P., & Susan A., L. (2009). Safety Assessment of Biotechnology Products for Potential Risk of Food Allergy: Implications of New Research. Toxicological Sciences, 110(1), 31.

Mellon, M., & Rissler, J. (2003, June 12). Environmental effects of genetically modified food crops- recent experiences. Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/environmental-effects-of.html

Parrott, W., Chassy, B., Ligon, J., Meyer, L., Petrick, J., Zhou, J., & … Levine, M. (2010). Application of food and feed safety assessment principles to evaluate transgenic approaches to gene modulation in crops. Food & Chemical Toxicology, 48(7), 1773-1790. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2010.04.017

Rissler, J. (1991, January). Biotechnology and pest control. Global Pesticide Campaigner. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from http://www.psrast.org/herbic.htm

Staley, J. T., Girling, R. D., Stewart-Jones, A. A., Poppy, G. M., Leather, S. R., & Wright, D. J. (2011). Organic and conventional fertilizer effects on a tritrophic interaction: parasitism, performance and preference of Cotesia vestalis. Journal Of Applied Entomology, 135(9), 658-665. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0418.2010.01604.x

Sustainable Food and Farming . (2008). Future Survey, 30(11), 2.

Suurkula, J. (2004). Horizontal transfer – an introduction. Genetically Engineered Food – Safety Problems. Retrieved October 03, 2011, from http://www.psrast.org/hrtrintr.htm

Whitman, D. B. (2011). Genetically modified foods: harmful or helpful? In CSA Discovery Guides. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www.fhs.d211.org/departments/science/mduncan/bioweb/Biotechnology/Genetically%20Modified%20Foods.pdf

Winter, G. (2008). Nature Protection and the Introduction into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Risk Analysis in EC Multilevel Governance. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 17(2), 205-220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9388.2008.00599.x

Xiaoyuan, Y., & Wei, G. (2010). The role of chemical and organic fertilizers on yield, yield variability and carbon sequestration— results of a 19-year experiment. Plant & Soil, 331(1/2), 471-480. doi:10.1007/s11104-009-0268-7

Advertisement