The Misconceptions about GMOs

Despite the common misconception that commercially produced fruits and vegetables today lack the flavor and nutrition of those before the use of genetic modification, evidence shows that modern produce is actually "tastier" and higher in essential nutrients. With the breakthrough of genetics and understanding of DNA, scientists have identified the genes responsible for the beneficial traits of our favorite produce, which agriculturalists have used in selective breeding in hopes of achieving more desirable crops. Even more recently, the direct manipulation of DNA to add or alter specific traits of a plant genome has been practiced and refined into the successful method of genetic engineering, yielding more nutritious and resource-efficient produce than traditional cross-breeding could ever hope to accomplish. However, most people today maintain a fear of consuming genetically modified foods due to common misconceptions about 'Frankenfoods,' so the majority of the public has little understanding of the health and environmental benefits genetic engineering can offer in contrast to conventional breeding methods, making it clear that the scientific community has a responsibility to educate consumers to ensure the continuance and growth of this vital field.

Photo by nutrilover

In order to overcome the common misunderstandings and fears of genetically modified foods, people must first understand the universality of the mechanisms involved in the combination of genetic material, whether by the intended breeding of selected organisms or the direct manipulation of genetic material. A crucial factor to understand is the definition of 'mutation' and the versatility of this word. A genetic mutation is any change in the DNA sequence of an organism, whether it produces an overall harmful or beneficial effect. The problem with this word is that it has many negative connotations, giving the impression that anything 'mutated' or genetically altered is detrimental, which is in fact far from the truth. According to the Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and the National Research Council, "any time genes are mutated or combined, as occurs in almost all breeding methods, the possibility of producing a new, potentially hazardous substance exists." Regardless of the method used to reproduce and sustain actively producing plants, the interaction and exchange of genetic material between two species, and the inevitable chance of inducing a mutation, is equivalent. The process of interaction between genes is universal among organisms of all species, regardless of the methods by which they were induced. 

Photo by Gravitywave

As a matter of fact, according to a group of geneticists working for the Society of Toxicology, "the extent of the genetic changes resulting from such conventional breeding techniques, which is generally undefined, far exceeds that typically produced by transgenic methods," due to the sheer number of genes involved in each case. In genetic engineering, generally one gene at a time is selected for transfer into a genome, and several analyses specific to that single gene can then be done to confirm its correct placement. In contrast, conventional breeding involves the interaction of the entire genomes of two species, "transferring thousands of unknown genes with unknown function along with the desired genes.” So while genetic engineering "could be used to transfer only the beneficial genes” into a genome, conventional breeding is the blind mixing of two complete and separate array of genes in hope of creating an enhanced product, with no direct method of actually identifying the sequences made.

To see the advantage of genetic engineering over conventional breeding more clearly, it's crucial to also consider the subsequent regulations placed on these methods before commercially releasing their products. “In the United States, the plant breeding community is largely self-monitored. Regulatory agencies do not evaluate conventional new crop varieties for health and environmental safety prior to commercial release." Further stated by the Danish International Development Agency, before the introduction of genetic engineering, "plant breeding was not subject to a great deal of regulation...little attention has been paid to the possible food safety or environmental impacts of new plant varieties derived from conventional breeding." However, with the introduction of genetic engineering also came the beginning of regulation on newly bred crops, and this correlation is the ultimate source of the misconception that genetically modified foods are 'harmful'. In reality, however, the advent of genetic engineering merely brought light to the fact that any crop or animal that is manipulated genetically, whether by selective breeding or genetic modification, must be assessed for consumer safety. A genetically modified plant, prior to being approved for release must be assessed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service agency within the US Department of Agriculture, and may also be assessed by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental protection agency, depending on the intended use of the organism. After approval by these federal agencies, individual states and counties still have authority in denying any genetically modified food from release to the public. Since genetic engineering has been unanimously accepted by nearly all geneticists worldwide as being equally safe or safer than conventional breeding, the remaining fact that genetic engineering is more closely regulated than conventional breeding should seem highly alarming to the community. With the given facts, it is clear that plant breeders especially in the United States are given ample freedom to cut corners in testing their produce, indicating that people need to shift their focus from critiquing genetic modification practices to tightening those of conventional methods. 

Further looking at the possible advantages of genetic engineering in its highly specified and improved products, it seems evident that it should be favored over conventional practices. Genetic engineering, with its precise and controllable methods, ensures the accurate transfer of certain desired genes and creates the potential of producing "super" fruit infused with higher amounts of essential vitamins, antioxidants, and flavor-creating sugars and acids. According to researchers at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2012, a study performed by researchers at the UCLA School of Medicine has confirmed "for the first time, genetically engineered tomato plants produced a peptide that mimics the actions of good cholesterol when eaten." After genetically modifying tomatoes to express a gene similar to that of HDL or "good" cholesterol expressed in human genomes, mice lacking this gene were fed the modified tomatoes and were found on conclusion to have "less inflammation and reduced atherosclerosis (plaque build-up in the arteries)." Additionally, studies have shown that insect-resistant crops created via genetic engineering have reduced the use of pesticides globally by 286,000 tons as of 2006, decreasing the environmental impact of herbicides and pesticides by 15%, according to PG Economics, a UK company specializing in plant biotechnology and agricultural production. According to the Irish Times, genetically modified plants have also been used in cleansing contaminated soils, by creating transgenic plants with the added genes of some proteins used by bacteria in breaking down metal pollutants and organic solvents like pesticides. Clearly, the benefits to be gained by consuming genetically modified foods are vast on both the individual and the global scale. 

In spite of discernible evidence for genetic engineering being a remarkable tool with enormous scientific potential, competitive criticism fueled by current markets and traditional plant breeders remains a factor in advancing this field. Author of the Nature article 'You say tomato' epitomizes the taboo of genetically enhanced produce, in this case specifically tomatoes. The author mentions a previously unsuccessful attempt to market genetically modified tomatoes and attributes the failure to "the public's fear of 'Frankenfoods'," and concludes that "it is not necessary to go down the genetic-modification path again" but is enough to know simply "which genes sitting on what part of the genome control which traits - because this helps to avoid undesirable knock-on effects of interbreeding for a particular characteristic." While the author rightfully agrees that "undesirable knock-on effects" are quite common in cross-breeding, he also suggests that merely knowing where desirable traits are located allows plant breeders to target these genes, whereas this 'guessing-game' is highly impractical, costly, and time-consuming. The solution to the "public's fear of 'Frankenfoods'" should not be to simply abandon genetic engineering, as the author suggests, but to educate the public on possible advantages genetic modification can offer.

Genetic engineering by mechanical means is a resourceful and effective way of achieving results in a shorter period of time, while also intently testing and analyzing the results of these experiments. Having the tools to test and analyze these results actually minimizes the chances of adverse mutational effects that could otherwise easily go undetected in plants and animals created via conventional breeding. Therefore, instead of shying away from the use of genetic engineering due to the public misconception of it being harmful, the focus should be re-shifted in an attempt to educate the public on the advantages of genetic engineering, and to allow it to become recognized as a tool with tremendous potential in human and environmental health.



Works Cited

American Heart Association. "Genetically engineered tomatoes decrease plaque build-up in mice." ScienceDaily. (2012) Web. 7 Feb. 2013. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121105114616.htm

Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health, National Research Council. "Unintended Effects from Breeding." Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (2004) Web. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=43

Krishna, Vijesh V., Matin Qaim. “Bt cotton and sustainability of pesticide reductions in India.”Agricultural Systems. 107. (2012): 47–55. Web. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X11001764

Strange, Amy. “Scientists engineer plants to eat toxic pollution.” The Irish Times. (2011) http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0913/1224304027463.html

"The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology." Oxford Journals: Toxicological Sciences. 71.1 (2003): 2-8. Web. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full

"You say tomato." Nature. 485 (2012): 547. Web. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7400/full/485547a.html