The 'Nads do GMO's: Background Report

We're talking a lot about food right now: where it's coming from, why, how, etc. etc. Something that we eat a lot of that we don't necessarily ever think about are GMOs: Genetically Modified Organisms. But what the hell are they?

WHAT IS A GMO?

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a plant, animal or microorganism whose genetic code has been altered, subtracted, or added (either from the same species or a different species) in order to give it characteristics that it does not have naturally.

Scientists can now transfer genes between species that otherwise would be incapable of mating, for example, a goat and a spider. This is called transgenesis. Little is known about the long-term effects of such manipulations on both humans and the environment. And while some see GMOs as the way to the future, others believe that scientists have gone too far, tinkering with the essence of life.
In terms of agriculture, a big contender for scrutiny is the company Monsanto. The Monsanto company is using GMO research and technology to modify plants, like corn, to be more able to handle weather problems, grow in high concentrations, etc, and it initially seems like a good idea- until the long term effects are analyzed.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

This is a serious issue because the natural foods that our ancestors lived on are being manipulated and changed... and this could be for the better. But it could also be for the worse. Besides our health, we also have to take into account the effects that GMOs have on the environment and on the economic/political situation today.

Potential negative effects on the environment:

Genes can end up in unexpected places: Through "gene escape" they can pass on to other members of the same species and perhaps other species. Genes introduced in GMOs are no exception, and interactions might occur at gene, cell, plant and ecosystem level. Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided - often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible.

Genes can mutate with harmful effect: It is not yet known whether artificial insertion of genes could destabilize an organism, encouraging mutations, or whether the inserted gene itself will keep stable in the plant over generations. There is no conclusive data on this issue.

"Sleeper" genes could be accidentally switched on and active genes could become "silent": Organisms contain genes that are activated under certain conditions -- for example, under attack from pathogens or severe weather. When a new gene is inserted, a "promoter" gene is also inserted to switch it on. This could activate a "sleeper" gene in inappropriate circumstances. This is especially relevant in long-lived organisms - such as trees. Sometimes the expression of genes is even "silenced" as a result of unknown interactions with the inserted gene.

Impact on birds, insects and soil biota: Potential risks to non-target species, such as birds, pollinators and micro-organisms, is another important issue. Nobody quite knows the impact of horizontal flow of GM pollen to bees' gut or of novel gene sequences in plants to fungi and soil and rumen bacteria. Besides, it is feared that widespread use of GM crops could lead to the development of resistance in insect populations exposed to the GM crops. Planting "refuge" areas with insect-susceptible varieties is advised to reduce the risk of insect populations evolving resistance due to the widespread growing of GMO Bt-crops.

Potential negative effects on human health

Transfer of allergenic genes: These could be accidentally transferred to other species, causing dangerous reactions in people with allergies. For example, an allergenic Brazil-nut gene was transferred into a transgenic soybean variety. Its presence was discovered during the testing phase, however, and the soybean was not released.

Mixing of GM products in the food chain: Unauthorized GM products have appeared in the food chain. For example, the GM maize variety Starlink, intended only for animal feed, was accidentally used in products for human consumption. Although there was no evidence that Starlink maize was dangerous to humans, strict processing controls may be required to avoid similar cases in the future.

Transfer of antibiotic resistance: Genes that confer antibiotic resistance are inserted into GMOs as "markers" to indicate that the process of gene transfer has succeeded. Concerns have been expressed about the possibility that these "marker genes" could confer resistance to antibiotics. This approach is now being replaced with the use of marker genes that avoid medical or environmental hazards.

Potential benefits for the environment

More food from less land: Improved productivity from GMOs might mean that farmers in the next century won't have to bring so much marginal land into cultivation.

GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and industrial processes:Genetically engineered resistance to pests and diseases could greatly reduce the chemicals needed for crop protection, and it is already happening. Farmers are growing maize, cotton and potatoes that no longer have to be sprayed with the bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis- because they produce its insecticidal agent themselves. Scientists are developing trees that have a lower content of lignin, a structuring constituent of woody plant cells. This could reduce the need for noxious chemicals in pulp and paper production. These developments could not only reduce environmental impact - they could also improve the health of farm and industrial workers.

Bioremediation: Rehabilitation of damaged land may also become possible through organisms bred to restore nutrients and soil structure.

Biofuels: Organic matter could be bred to provide energy. Plant material fuel, or biomass, has enormous energy potential. For example, the waste from sugar cane or sorghum can provide energy, especially in rural areas. It may be possible to breed plants specifically for this purpose. And other unexpected, useful products could prove of huge value.

Potential benefits for human health

Investigation of diseases with genetic fingerprinting: "Fingerprinting" of animal and plant diseases is already possible. This technique allows researchers to know exactly what an organism is by looking at its genetic blueprint. One benefit may be that veterinary staff can know whether an animal is carrying a disease or has simply been vaccinated - preventing the need to kill healthy animals.

Vaccines and medicines: Similar to the long-established development of biotechnological vaccines for humans, the use of molecular biology to develop vaccines and medicines for farm animals is proving quite successful and holds great promise for the future. Plants are being engineered to produce vaccines, proteins and other pharmaceutical products. This process is called "pharming".

Identification of allergenic genes: Although some are worried about the transfer of allergenic genes (see Brazil nut example under arguments against GMOs), molecular biology could also be used to characterize allergens and remove them. Indeed, the Brazil nut incident actually led to identification of the allergenic protein.

WHAT IS YOUR CONCLUSION, 'NADS?

So there are good things about GMOs and there are bad things. So what's the conclusion? The 'Nads say, especially in terms of agriculture, that GMO's need to GTFO. There is no denying that there are some great possible outcomes of embracing genetically modified stuff,  but one also can't deny that there are proven (not possible... proven) negative outcomes to switching over to GMO-land. In terms of our health, genetically engineered foods have not been shown to be safe to eat and may have unpredictable consequences. When trans-fats were first introduced, corporations battled to get them onto your grocery shelves – and it is only decades later that this once novel food has been proven to be extremely unhealthful. Many scientists are worried that the genetically altered foods, once consumed, may pass on their mutant genes to bacterium in the digestive system, just like the canola plants on the roadsides of North Dakota. How these new strains of bacteria may affect our body systems’ balance is anybody’s guess. PLUS, the U.S. doesn't label GMO foods... which should lead you to question the sanctity of that food... why can't it be labeled? What's wrong with it that it needs to remain unlabeled?

In terms of the science behind genetically modifying foods, there are proven bad outcomes from that as well. Genetic engineering reduces genetic diversity. When genes are more diverse, they are more robust; this is why a pure bred dog tends to have greater health problems than the dear old mutt. Plants with reduced genetic diversity cannot handle drought, fungus invasions or insects nearly as well as natural plants, which could have dire consequences for farmers and communities dependent on GMO crops for survival. Due to that, GMO crops require massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides... which will later find their way into your food, your stream, your air... etc. Plus, once the mutant genes are out of the bag, there is no going back. Genetically modified organisms contaminate existing seeds with their altered material, passing on modified traits to non-target species. This creates a new strain of plant that was never intended in the laboratory. In North Dakota, recent studies show that 80% of wild canola plants tested contained at least one transgene.

Finally, one of the greatest arguments PRO GMO is that of "ending global starvation." GMO crops are literally made to grow in great numbers in less space and withstand greater conditions that normal crops. However, it's now been proven that GMOs are not the answer for global food security:

Genetically engineered crops have shown no increase in yield and no decrease in pesticide use and in many cases other farm technology has proven much more successful, and even Monsanto agrees that its genetically engineered crops yield less than conventional farming.