IS Report.docx€¦ · Web viewGMO STUDY Saleel Huprikar. 16. A STUDY OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS. By: Saleel. Huprikar. Acknowledgements. I would like to thank the following

A STUDY OF GENETICALLY

MODIFIED ORGANISMS

By: Saleel

Huprikar

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people for taking the time to share their

GMO STUDY Saleel Huprikar

experiences with GMOs with me: (the names have been hidden for privacy reasons).

Mr. Technological Lawyer

Mr. Consultant Food Security & International Development advisor at ICF International

Mr. Governmental Affairs Liaison at Amy’s Kitchen

I would also like to express my gratitude to Mrs. Judi Luepke (Science Department

Chair for Deerfield High School) for supervising and providing guidance for my

Independent Study, and my parents for providing help and encouragement along

the way.

Table of Contents

Abstract----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3Interview with Mr. Technological Lawyer--------------------------------------------4-5Interview with Mr. ICF Consultant----------------------------------------------------5-7Interview with Mr. Government Liaison ---------------------------------------------7-8IL State Bill 1666------------------------------------------------------------------------9-14

William Kling--------------------------10Patty Lovera---------------------------11David Miller-----------------------12-13Katie Pratt-------------------------13-14

Survey on Views of GMOs------------------------------------------------------------14-15Pros and Cons of GMOs (Overview) ---------------------------------------------------16Conclusion-------------------------------------------------------------------------------16-17Bibliography-----------------------------------------------------------------------------18-19Abstract

The term GMO stands for “Genetically Modified Organism.” A GMO is created by manipulating

2


the genome of an organism at the molecular level to produce certain physiological traits and

biological products (Diaz, 2013). The concept of GMOs comes from the principle of

Recombinant DNA which refers to DNA that is utilized from two different sources to create a

plasmid that is then used to transform organisms genetically. GMOs first made headlines in the

early 1980’s when a genetically modified bacterium was patented and used to consume crude oil.

The FDA approved of Genetically Modified Organisms in 1982 when E. Coli bacteria was

genetically modified and turned into humulin (a form of insulin) which was used to treat

diabetes. By 1999, there were over 100 million acres of land that were filled with GMO food

crops and they were becoming a sensation in the world marketplace (Karimi, 2013). While

GMO’s were starting to help various economies grow, the opposition to this type of organism

began to rapidly intensify as well. The opposition claims that GMOs hurt the environment and

are detrimental to the health of humans. Additional problems, according to the opposition, are:

the lack of biodiversity, the presence of new allergens, and the increase in toxins (Genetically

Engineered Foods, 2009). However, there are people on the other side of the spectrum who fully

support GMOs and believe that they will help advance science for future generations to come.

According to pro-GMO activists, some of the benefits of GMO’s include: fighting world hunger

and fighting pesticides and viruses (Erdosh, 2014). It is evident that this has become a very

controversial issue with no possible end to it in sight. Both, the pro and con sides, have very

strong arguments. This is the reason I decided to interview individuals with pro-GMO and non-

GMO views to get their perspectives on this ongoing debate.

Mr. Technological Lawyer (PRO-GMO)

Mr. Lawyer is a non-patent, technological lawyer who represents various companies to license

different types of technologies. He is involved in writing agreements and negotiating to complete

3


complex transactions. The company that he has represented quite often is Monsanto, a chemical

company based in St. Louis, Missouri. He told me that Monsanto has been working with plants

and genetically transforming them by taking an attribute of one plant and putting it into another

plant. An example of what this company has done is it has discovered a gene that makes plants

resistant to the chemical Glyphosate which generally kills off anything that is green. The

company is continuing to work on various biotechnologies, and Mr. Lawyer believes that GMOs

will be a major component of and contributor to the future of agriculture around the world.

I asked Mr. Lawyer why he thinks people oppose GMOs and one of the reasons he brought

forward was fear. Some people believe that consuming GMOs may lead to all kinds of

unforeseen negative heath conditions. However, he countered this argument by saying that when

one consumes GMO products, one is digesting it; it doesn’t alter the genome of the person (no

mutations), which would cause disease. Furthermore, he said that ever since GMOs have been

introduced, there have been no documented cases of people having negative reactions to GMOs

after consumption. Another argument used by the opposition is a Charles Darwinian-argument---

organisms will evolve over time and become tolerant to certain aspects of the ecosystem, so

GMOs are unnecessary and worthless. Mr. Lawyer’s response to this was that while this may

make sense, why should humans wait for long periods of time for organisms to evolve when

organisms can be genetically modified in short periods of time to become more tolerant to

various aspects of the ecosystem?

Mr. Lawyer, to reiterate, is a big believer in GMOs and one of his contentions is that it can help

feed the world. Mr. Lawyer said that the con side claims that food productivity has increased a

4


great deal, as a result of inventions in the agriculture industry during the Industrial Revolution

(1800s), and that continues to be the case today. Mr. Lawyer did admit that the food trend has

surpassed the population trend for quite some time, but he refuted this argument by mentioning

that not all of the places in the present-day world have food surpluses. For example, places like

Africa and Asia have major and dangerous food shortages that need attention immediately. He

also stated that the world population continues to grow at a very high degree and that over time,

there will be food shortages all over the planet if this dilemma isn’t addressed properly and

quickly. That is why, according to Mr. Lawyer, it is crucial that the food production trend keeps

pace with the population trend which can be done with bio-engineered crops. These crops,

according to him, are very efficient and would positively impact the world a lot faster than

conventional crops. Ultimately, he said that humans take risks every day and while the

production of GMOs and the research that goes into it are very expensive, it’s something worth

investing in because it can increase the chances of improving and saving peoples’ lives (the

benefits outweigh the costs).

Mr. ICF Consultant (PRO-GMO)

Sudhir Wanmali is the Senior Food Security and International Development advisor at ICF

International in Calverton, Maryland. He also works for the International Food Policy Research

Institute (IFPRI). Like Mr. Lawyer, Mr. ICF Consultant is also a big supporter of GMOs and he

emphasizes that this kind of technology will be the future “face” of the agriculture industry. He

talked about how this kind of technology can be utilized to solve the world hunger predicament

that confronts us in current times. While it is virtually impossible to completely eradicate this

problem since 7% of the world’s population starves daily, he said that GMOs have the capability

5


of reducing the percentage of those who go hungry by half. He told me that GMOs facilitate

huge increases in productivity and are less susceptible to natural and biological shocks (climate,

soil types, weather, pests), unlike ordinary crops. He thinks that this is the kind of technology

that governments of developing countries (i.e. Bangladesh) can employ to feeds its citizens. In

fact, Bt brinjal (a genetically modified nutrient seed) was just recently introduced into

Bangladesh after being approved by the country’s parliament, and it has been working

effectively in terms of making the crop more accessible to the poor and promoting their

agriculture industry.

Mr. ICF Consultant did acknowledge that there are many people who are skeptical about this

genetic technology and that Europe is strongly against GMOs. However, Mr. ICF Consultant

personally believes that these countries are actually envious of the United States because GMOs

were first developed in the US, not in Europe. Furthermore, he thinks that the EU instituted a ban

on GMOs to retaliate against the influences that the US has had worldwide. He doesn’t think that

these genetically modified organisms are harming the biosphere in any way, unlike what the

European Union has stated numerous times. Mr. ICF Consultant understands the risks that are

involved when working with GMOs. That is why he supports the idea of utilizing appropriate

biosafety regulatory systems to prevent people from becoming vulnerable to this type of food.

Recently, IFPRI has been promoting Programs of Biosafety Programs (PBS) in places such as

Africa and Southeast Asia--areas where the problem of world hunger is largely prevalent. GMOs

can come in more than one form and can perform more than one function; one can develop

GMOs that are nutrient-enriched, drought-tolerant, or disease-resistant. Lastly, he emphasized

that GMOs are going to help the world in the future by bridging the “gap” that exists between the

6


food and population trends.

Mr. Government Liaison (CON: Anti-GMO)

Amy’s Kitchen is a privately held corporation, based in Petaluma, CA, that manufactures natural

and organic convenience and frozen foods. I was able to get in touch with Steve Crider who is

their liaison for Government and Industry Affairs, and he talked to me about his company’s

position on the current GMO controversy.

Amy’s Kitchen is against GMOs because it believes that GMOs are detrimental to the health of

humans and are not improving the environment. Amy’s Kitchen uses the Precautionary Principle

like the European Union---new materials and technologies are checked and have to be proven

safe before commercialization. However, the United States does not require this which,

according to Mr. Liaison, needs to change. He enlightened me by mentioning that the vast

majority of GMO seeds have the “Roundup Ready” trait, which is very dangerous to the health

of humans, animals and the water supply. Furthermore, when animals are exposed to GMO

products, they are not able to reproduce effectively and some have developed cases of dysentery.

When I asked him if he thinks GMOs can be effectively used to combat world hunger, he said

that there are “zero GMO seeds related to higher yield, drought resistance, using less water or

fertilizer, climate change, etc.” Additionally, he talked with farmers in Iowa and they gave him

the breakdown of what the GMO Corn crops, that they produce, are used towards: 20% for

ethanol, 20% for high fructose corn syrup, and 40% for Confined Animal Feeding Operations

7


(CAFOs). Based on these statistics, only 20% of these crops are actually directed towards

combating the world hunger predicament. Currently, there are only two GMO traits in

commercial use: RR and Bt. RR is an antibiotic and Bt is used to obliterate the intestines of plant-

eating insects. Bt is found in a lot of the foods that we eat and are potential allergens which is

why, according to him, more research needs to be conducted to ensure that these ingredients are

safe for humans and animals.

Another aspect of the GMO debate is that it is also an ethical issue. He said that the various

Biotechnology companies around the world try to manipulate genes and change nature, just for

profit; he called this a form of “hubris”. Mr. Liaison also brought up this statistic and said that

this is very worrisome: 70% of the world’s seed companies are now bought and controlled by 5

big Biotech companies. He does not approve of this because these companies are not willing to

share their “intellectual property”. Also, he talked about the social consequences and disruptions

that are associated with GMO production. One major example was the increase in the number of

farmer suicides in India since the introduction of Bt cotton---a genetically modified crop. These

crops are very expensive to produce and their production fails, these farmers fall into debt and

face a lot of adversity, causing them to sometimes take their own lives. With this ongoing

situation, Mr. Liaison’s response is that the production of GMOs comes with a lot of costs, and it

isn’t worth investing in them. Mr. Liaison and Amy’s Kitchen believe GMOs are unsafe and do

not help the world since insufficient research has been conducted on these organisms/crops.

IL SB 1666: GMO Labeling Act

Another aspect of this ongoing and controversial debate is if special food labels should be

8


instituted to indicate whether a genetically modified ingredient is present in a food or not. This is

the synopsis of the bill that was introduced by Illinois Senator David Koehler to the 98th General

Assembly of the State of Illinois in 2013 and 2014:

Creates the Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Act. Sets forth the General Assembly's

findings and the purpose of the Act. Provides that beginning on the effective date of the Act, any

food offered for retail sale in this State is misbranded if it is entirely or partially produced with

genetic engineering and that fact is not disclosed in a certain manner. Provides that the Act shall

not be construed to require either the listing or identification of any ingredient or ingredients

that were genetically engineered, nor that the term "genetically engineered" be placed

immediately preceding any common name or primary product descriptor of a food. Provides that

until the effective date of the Act, any processed food that would be subject to the provision

concerning the labeling of genetically engineered foods solely because it includes one or more

materials produced by genetic engineering is not misbranded provided that the engineered

materials in the aggregate do not account for more than a certain amount of the total weight of

the processed food. Sets forth provisions concerning applicability and the right of action for

violations, damages, and attorneys' fees. Provides that the Department of Public Health shall

adopt rules necessary to implement the Act. Contains a severability provision.

Below are summaries of the testimonies of four speakers who spoke out in the last hearing of this

bill on September 17th, 2013. Two of the speakers are for the passage of this bill while the other

two are against it.

PRO

1. William Kling JD, Professor at the UIC School of Public Health, Senior research

9


scientist for UIC, University of Illinois Extension

Mr. Kling has worked on food policies numerous times in his careers as a lawyer and research

scientist. Several years ago, he worked on the creation of the Illinois Food System Policy

Council Legislation, and he also worked on the Federal level where he rectified the Healthy

Urban Food Enterprise Development Center (HUFED) to help children, families and

communities. He talked about how the regulation of genetically modified crops is a relatively

new issue and has, at the same time, become a major public predicament. According to Mr.

Kling, the fundamental issue is whether consumers are receiving sufficient information,

regarding the foods that they eat. He supports this bill because he believes that with GMO food

labeling, consumers will be able to make healthier and more informed decisions about the foods

they consume. One of his major points was that many people in our country are in full support of

GMO labeling. A poll conducted by ABC News in 2001 revealed that 93% of all Americans

want the Federal Government to coerce food manufactures to provide food labels about any

ingredients that have been genetically modified. Additionally, he talked about the European

Union and it has what is called a Precautionary Principle, where each food is assessed in terms of

safety before its commercialization. All countries in the EU and other countries such as China

and Australia support these safety measures but the United States has yet to join this effort to

make food safer.

2. Patty Lovera, Assistant Director of Food & Water Watch

Mrs. Lovera is a strong supporter of this bill and one of the major points that she emphasized

10


throughout her testimony was that consumers have the right to know the processes that foods go

through before they buy them. She believes that food labels can be utilized to track health

problems that are associated with GMOs because currently, there is no effective way for the

FDA to ensure maximum food safety. She also mentioned how the US is lagging behind 60

developed countries in the world in terms of safety measures since this kind of food label is not

enforced in the United States---this is a dilemma that needs to addressed now, according to her.

Mrs. Lovera also refuted the following argument with a case study from the UK Food Standards

Agency in 2010: the idea that with GMO food labeling, people would not buy products with

GMOs, which would hurt certain companies and manufacturers economically. The case study

revealed that with the institutionalization of food labels, annual food spending in the UK

increased from 0.01% to 0.17%. Adjusted to 2010 US dollars, that would be from 33 cents to

$5.58 which, according to Mrs. Lovera, is a huge “jump” and shows that the spending on GMO

products has not been discouraged. Additionally, there has been an increase in revenue for these

companies. Another point she brought up was that in order to increase safety measures in the

United States, there needs to be an increase in the amount of testing/monitoring that is done

which involves segregating crops for further analysis. She talked about how this would lower

costs in the long run which means this isn’t going to be very expensive for taxpayers. Her last

point was that states need to take responsibility and institute GMO food labeling because it has

become apparent that doing this on the federal level is ineffective. Consumers cannot rely on

companies to release all of this information which is why the state needs to make this mandatory

in order to protect public health.

CON

1. David Miller, IBIO (IL BIO, President/CEO)

11


Mr. Miller believes that GMO food labels are inherently bad and will not make the world better

off. He began his testimony with an emphasis on the idea that biotechnology is a major factor

that helps the Illinois economy grow. Illinois is a leading producer in corn and soy which are, in

general, genetically modified. He pointed out that the production of GMOs has been taking place

for thousands of years and in the current generation, it has become even more precise and safer

since people know very well how to alternate the genome of an organism with more advanced

tools. While he acknowledged that there tend to be negative connotations associated with GMOs,

he stated that GMOs can be beneficial. For example, he talked about how the banana population

in the world is threatened by spores which are very toxic organisms, but by genetically

modifying the bananas, they are able to fight the diseases. This led him to his next point, which

was the fact that GMOs are safe and do no harm individuals. In his testimony, he mentioned that

despite the European Union ban on the production and commercialization of GMOs, there are

some EU countries that admit that GMOs, in fact, have some positive effects on the world. For

example, Germany admits that GMOs may be of higher quality than conventional crops and that

they may be superior with respect to improving the health of many people. Mr. Miller

accentuated that ever since GMOs have been introduced, there hasn’t been a case that involves

someone having a negative reaction to the consumption of GMOs. Another major point Mr.

Miller brought forward was that GMOs can actually help the environment. He talked with a

Nebraska farmer who uses GMOs, and what Mr. Miller learned was that on this particular farm,

there was a 70% reduction in herbicides, less soil erosion and increased efficiency. Mr. Miller

confirmed that people voraciously desire GMO food labels but he pointed out an issue with this.

If GMO labels become mandatory, there actually may be a decrease in consumer spending on

genetically modified products and labeling will be expensive for companies that manufacture

12


them. He mentioned that there is no scientific basis for labeling and that people who are pushing

to label them in the first place, are doing so with hopes of removing these types of food products

from the market entirely. To add on to that, he highlighted that there are 1 billion people in the

world who are underfed or face malnutrition, and rely on GMOs for survival since conventional

crops are not sufficient. If food labels are imposed on GMO products, that will prevent the poor

from getting a hold of them and will continue to increase the number of people who starve every

day.

2. Katie Pratt, Illinois Farmer

Mrs. Pratt is in the 4th generation of her family to farm, and her husband is the 7th generation of

his family to farm. In her testimony, she talked about family legacy and how they have always

reviewed and consulted with experts, historical annals and proven science to increase safety

measures on the crops that they harvest. On the farm, Mrs. Pratt and her family utilize

biotechnology since they work with corn and soybean which are genetically modified to resist

diseases/pesticides, and are used to promote Illinois’s economy. She mentioned eight crops with

commercially available genetically modified seeds: corn, soybean, cotton, canola, alfalfa,

papaya, sugar beets and squash. Mrs. Pratt emphasized that majority of the contents of the meals

we eat everyday comes in the form of these basic ingredients, and that numerous studies have

been conducted to make sure that all of the foods are safe for consumers. As underlined by many

other representatives who are against the passage of this bill, there have been no documented

cases of people having negative reactions to GMOs, which shows that there is nothing that

people should be afraid of. She also wanted to remind people that farmers and scientists are

13


genetically modifying organisms/crops for the greater good. An example of this is the

manipulation the genome of a plant by inserting new genes into it to make it stronger and more

resistant to pesticides/herbicides. Another point that she brought up was efficiency. With regards

to plants, biotechnology has allowed her family to grow more plants with less soil, water, and

fuel. Biotechnology is a tool that is utilized to further their efforts towards preserving the crops

and the environment. Mrs. Pratt’s family is completely against food labels because they believe

that labels are already misconstrued, and that adding another label that concerns biotechnology

will lead to even more confusion because a common definition is not agreed upon. It would

confuse consumers, leading to a decrease in consumer spending on genetically modified foods,

which would hurt companies, farms and the economy.

Research Survey

Survey on Views of Genetically Modified Organisms (a copy is attached)

I created and circulated a 5-question survey regarding the GMO debate, and sent it out to my

peers at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois. I collected 51 responses and the results are

tabulated below.

Q: Are you aware of the current GMO debate around the nation? Yes: 80.39%No: 19.61%

Q: Do you support the use of GMOs in the food supply? Yes: 29.41%No: 25.49%

14


Indifferent: 45.10%

Q: Do you support GMO labeling of foods? Yes: 74.51%No: 5.88%Indifferent: 19.61%

Q: Do you think GMOs present an ethical issue? Yes: 50.00%No: 36.00%Indifferent: 14%

Q: What is your main argument for your position on this issue?These were the top 3 responses:1) I believe that GMOs can be useful in terms of preservation of foods and extending their expiration date as well as lessening the threat that starvation and hunger have on the world, but I don't want food to be genetically modified to the point that a carrot tastes like chocolate.2) GMOs are more efficient than regular, non-modified crops, which means more can be produced and prices may be lowered. Many people in poverty wouldn't buy vegetables if the price was high, so the GMOs effect on prices allow healthier foods to be distributed to lower income households as well as wealthier ones.3) I think that we have been consuming GMO's unknowingly for quite a long time now and so far, there hasn't been any evidence found that fully supports the argument that GMOs are bad for us. I do think there should be GMO labeling but I don't think they are that big of an issue.

Based on these results, it is clear the most of the people who filled out this survey have some

knowledge about the GMO controversy in this country. It is also evident that close to 50% don’t

care if they are consuming foods with GMO ingredients, however majority of the respondents

want GMO labeling. There is an even split between the respondents as to whether this is a major

ethical issue. Additionally, there is a major split on the GMO debate since many of those who

filled out the survey wrote many well thought out and lucid arguments for their side of this issue.

The outcome of this survey continues to highlight how neither side of the GMO debate

outweighs the other since both sides have very strong contentions.

Pros and Cons of GMOs

PROS CONS

15


Increases food supply Allergic Reactions (adding foreign proteins to substances)

Helps underfed nations/farmers Antibiotic features of GMOs make antibiotic medications less effective in humans

Creates additional vitamins and minerals Modified genes in GMOs may make organisms, like bacteria, a lot stronger and more disease-tolerant

Crops become more disease-resistant Environmental Damage

Higher yields and efficient production (farmers get to skip some steps)

They hold no economic value since these lead to much lower yields

Conclusion

In the current age, the predicament surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms continues to

become more prevalent as the population of the world grows at exponential levels. As this

continues to persist, people from all walks of life, from politicians to farmers, are trying to

determine how to balance out the population and food trends to eliminate world hunger. One of

the ways of combating this issue is utilizing Genetically Modified Organisms/Crops because

according to those who support them, they are very efficient in terms of production, they reduce

costs and they are safe for the world. On the opposite side of the spectrum, those who are against

GMOs claim that they are actually harmful to both the environment and human health. This is

the general GMO debate but there are many sub-debates going on as well, such as the one

surrounding GMO labeling. Those who are for this claim that consumers have the right to know

all of the ingredients in the foods that they consume. Based on what I have researched, many

people want GMO labels. Those who are against GMO labeling claim that these labels will hurt

businesses and manufacturers economically because of rising costs, and should not be

16


implemented since people disagree about the function and utility of GMOs. As one can see, there

are many solid and strong arguments on both sides of this controversy. While people may

disagree on this issue, the truth is clear---world hunger is still a major problem, and with the

world population growing at extremely high levels with no possible relief in sight, a solution

needs to be implemented immediately.

This is an unbiased report, but when it comes to solving problems, all options have to be

considered. I have persevered to present both sides of the GMO-debate through my independent

study on this controversial topic. Ultimately, it is crucial that all the benefits and costs are

evaluated, so that educated decisions are made. Both sides of the GMO dilemma need to come to

a compromise or jointly work to make the world better off in terms of human health, agriculture

and food supply.

Bibliography

Dr Keith Kantor Sc.D, PhD. "GMO’s–Pros and Cons." (n.d.): n. pag. Dr. Keith Kantor. Dr. Keith

17


Kantor, 2012. Web. 22 May 2014.

<http://www.drkeithkantor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/GMOs-Pros-and-Cons-

Article.pdf>.

Erdosh, George. "To GMO or NOT to GMO?" EBSCO. Feb. 2014. Web. 7 May 2014.

<http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=c616843d-adf3-4849-9d0c-

e1a143ff00b8%40sessionmgr198&hid=127&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d

%3d#db=f5h&AN=9399082

>.

Fridovich-Keil, Judith L. "Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)." Encyclopedia Britannica

Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 04 May 2014.

<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/897705/genetically-modified-organism-

GMO>.

"GMO Timeline: A History of Genetically Modified Foods - GMO Inside." GMO Inside. Web.

02 May 2014. <http://gmoinside.org/gmo-timeline-a-history-genetically-modified-foods/>.

"Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB1666." Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of

SB1666. Web. 05 May 2014. <http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?

DocName=&SessionId=85&GA=98&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1666&GAID=12&LegI

D=&SpecSess=&Session=>.

"Last Hearing on IL SB1666: GMO Labeling Act." YouTube. YouTube, 01 Oct. 2013. Web. 05

May 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlgu5I99wbs>.

Union of Concerned Scientists. "Genetically Modified Food Could Harm the Environment."

Genetically Engineered Foods. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. At

18


Issue. Rpt. from "Risks of Genetic Engineering." 2007. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.

Web. 5 May 2014.

19

Documents

IS Report.docx€¦ · Web viewGMO STUDY Saleel Huprikar. 16. A STUDY OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS. By: Saleel. Huprikar. Acknowledgements. I would like to thank the following