1

Engineered food

Genetic engineered food holds a promising future for todays agriculture. The food has

provided agricultural and resource growth as well as necessities needed to survive environmental

changes; however, limited regulations of genetic engineering food have led to the rise of valid

concerns amongst the public. The introduction of genetic engineered crops has improved

productivity for farmers by increasing pest and disease resistance, and improving size and

nutrition. Although this process for harvesting food has come with multiple risk. These risks

consist of allergies, crop invasion, and gene transfer a method that plants go through naturally;

this method has the ability to form a super weed. Many countries have set their own regulations

while others have completely banned engineered food. There are many different ideas on what

people may personally think about this topic. Many countries are worried about the future

outcome of Genetic engineered food due to its youthfulness in the field of growing food.

Food as we all know is a necessity we need it to grow, function, and live if none of these

pertain to you then well bioengineered food may not concern you as an individual. Eating

healthy includes eating fruit and vegetables, provided to the public by convent stores and market

areas, grown from farmers. Conversation amongst the public has included different perspectives

and ideas such as concerns as well as benefits. The main question it seems, the public may have

is rather the risk outweighs the benefits? American citizen today may not comprehend that the

advantages come with disadvantages. In the United States primarily the regulations placed upon

bioengineered food is divided and largely limited. Genetic engineered food controlled by three

governmental organizations, each holding their own limits. Many people see this as being

disorganizing and unsafe for the public, while others focuses on the future that bioengineered

food holds for the survival and nutritional value.

 2

Genetic modified Crops were first introduced in the mid- 1990s. These crops go

through a procedure of gene transfer between organism bioengineers use this laboratory

technique for cloning organisms genes and placing them into other plants (Byrne 1). Genetic

engineered food has grown and developed to becoming a popular process for harvesting food.

These crops have introduced multiple improvement and productivity for farmers increasing pest

and disease resistance. Genetic food developers have also been able to increase nutrients as well

as size. It has also been able to successfully improve a plants survival rate under harsh weather.

These strategies used for improving crops have good intentions, but recent studies have shown

that despite the great promise of this technique of harvesting it has brought a couple of potential

threats to the environment as well as to human health (Genetic Engineering in Agriculture 1).

When people imagine or think of bioengineered food they may picture needles in a fruit

or vegetable. This image is inaccurate the process used in bioengineered crops are normally used

during the time they are still in their developing age (Byrne 1). Engineered food goes through

laboratory techniques known as recombinant DNA. This technology process includes a series of

laboratory techniques such as cloning genes, splicing DNA segments together, and inserting

genes into their cells (Byrne 1). The transfers of genes include favorable traits that provide crops

with the necessities needed to survive the changing environment. The two most commonly

employed are the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which is naturally able to transfer DNA

to plants, and the gene gun, which shoots microscopic particles coated with DNA into the plant

cell. Generally, individual plant cells are targeted and these are regenerated whole GM plants

using tissue culture techniques. These two procedures have raised debate with regard to human

health (Key et al. 1). Altering these plants genomes through DNA recombinant has allowed

farmers to have an increased amount of productivity.

 3

A person may have a perspective of concern; they may state the fact that the limitation on

regulation has not protected the public of potential concerns. These people may view genetic

engineered food as being dangerous, and may view it as though it is irresponsible for the public

to be fed something that has not been properly researched for possible side effects. These people

feel as though the public are being fed experience like lab rats in a laboratory. While another

person may see the benefit and advantages it can bring to productivity and profit for farmers and

a growing population. Both of these perspectives are dangerous if an individual decides to ignore

or turns blind to one another. If a person decides to ignore the benefits or risk they will make

themself ignorant to the topic at hand. And then there are those who may feel as though it does

not concern them as an individual, and chooses to ignore the entire topic, they also land on a

dangerous perspective of ignorance.

The concerns the general public have are valid. Human health could show to have a

hidden side effect in the future. An example of the allergen threat that GM foods present is seen

in the case of the Brazilian nuts and soybeans. A protein from the Brazilian nuts was introduced

into soybeans to make them more nutritious, but it was found that individuals who were allergic

to the nuts were also severely allergic to the GM soybeans (Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

1). The most prudent concern is the spread or formation of Allergies. Concern relating to

potential allergy hazards has the potential for genes from a known allergen trait to be introduced

to another plant, and then there is the possibility of creating new, unknown allergens by inserting

novel genes or changing the expression of endogenous proteins (Key et al. 1). Although

misconceptions and exaggeration has caused it to seem as a more dangerous, and unnecessary

technique for harvesting food, there are also many benefits it has in providing for human health.

There is no evidence, for instance, that refined products derived from genetic engineered crops,
 4

such as starch, sugar and oils, are different than those derived from conventionally bred crops

(1). The benefits and advantages cannot be ignored; growing genetically engineered food has

provided humans with the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables that contain more nutrition and

an increase in size as well as in quantity and quality. The population continues to grow while the

agriculture through this technique of harvesting has been shown to help provide the quantity

needed to sustain the growing population, but has the benefits out weight the potential risk?

Transgenic rice designed to fight a common pollen allergy which appears to be safe in animals,

but is uncertain if it will have any adverse effect on humans (Genetically Modified Foods 1).

The benefits and future that bioengineered food holds has provided the necessities needed for

America and other developing countries. Although it seems the safest route that could possibly

get the public approval would be to regulate, label, and possibly slow down. The potential future

of genetic engineered food may need to be further researched and experimented before passed by

the public.

Agriculture has benefited greatly to the new interventions provided by genetic engineered

food. The survival rates for plants have improved significantly. It has increased crop productivity

for farmers by improving resistance to pest and disease allowing farmers to save money on

pesticides. Herbicide resistance crops have lowered the usage of pesticide and other harmful

chemicals lowering the exposer to the environment as well as plants (Genetically Modified

Foods 1). The future for genetic engineered food has been shown to be able to improve speed

in Genetic engineered food like salmon, which have been seen to have the potential to grow 30

times faster. Cabbages can be grown with the resistance to caterpillar attacks (1). But the Union

of concerned Scientists, well obviously have concerns they see the benefits as a tradeoff, they

feel as though the concern and risk may outweigh the benefit. Their main concern is the over use
 5

of herbicides trait resistance. At least one major environmental impact of genetic engineering

has already reached critical proportions: overuse of herbicide-tolerant Genetic Engineered crops

has spurred an increase in herbicide use and an epidemic of herbicide-resistant "super weeds,"

which will lead to even more herbicide use (Genetic Engineering in Agriculture 1).

The dangers that have been introduced by genetic engineered crops consist of the

formation of a super weed and crop invader. The new growth of a super holds a potential for a

drastic outcome to the agriculture. The formation of a super weed has occurred before in the

article Genetic Engineering Agriculture it is discussed how they handle the situation. The entire

area must be cleared to prevent further spread. What this article shows is the reality of these

situations. The overall outstanding risk is the potential decrease in the biodiversity of crops and

their associated insects and animals, shifting the forces of natural selection through direct human

intervention. The arms race that now exists between natural species and the chemicals that we

spray upon them hold the potential to give rise to newer super-species that we may one day lose

control of (1). Crop invasion is another concern that has shown in the use of genetic crops.

These crops also hold the possibility to invade other native crops in the area. With these new

crops having an unnatural advantage in surviving these plants will be more likely to survive

compared to the native plants. The invaders will take over, resulting in a decrease in biodiversity

in the area. Biodiversity is important; a lower diversity level can lead to dangerous harm to the

agriculture area such as a complete extinction of a plant. Bioengineers could also create a genetic

engineered food that could produce toxins that may indirectly harm animals that consume them

(1). Avoiding these outcomes unfortunately for an impatiently growing population will take too

long to figure out, but there are other ways of harvesting that farmers have been using for years.

These have been shown to be able to provide the same outcome with fewer consequences.
 6

The concerns of the public continue to increase as more crops continue to be altered by

bioengineers. There are two substitutions that have provided farmers with the same result as

engineered food, yet excluding the risks. These replacements are known as Agroecological and

Crop breeding. Crop breeding produces traits through the organisms reproductive process

while Agroecological farm management optimizes the performance of the entire system of

biophysical componentsin contrast to the industrial strategy of optimizing the output of a crop,

one system component, by intensive use of purchased inputs (Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

1). Agroecological known as the replacement for industrial farming, which included public

health problems (1) is a great substitution including an improvement in productivity and

profitability by optimizing the output and the biophysical component (1). These substitutions

have produced the same outcome, but are also more labor compared to genetic engineered food.

Although these methods could be used just for the time being, until genetic engineered crops are

further tested and evaluated.

The regulation put in place toward growing and harvesting food that are genetically

engineered has shown to be limited. The Environmental Protection Agency EPA is involved in

regulating only pest and pesticide resistance traits while the Food & Drug Administration FDA

regulates bioengineered food that is limited to only regulating crops destined for food, feed or

pharmaceuticals (Byrne 1). An example of the limitation of regulation: The EPA does not have

authority to regulate a vitamin enhanced tomato, and the FDA would not regulate a drought

tolerant turf grass (1). While the United States Department of Agriculture USDA focuses on

agricultural impact by Genetic engineered crops they look at the potential risk and effect of

untargeted organisms their limitation is in the fact that they have no direct dialogue between the

organization and the farmers who grow the crops (Genetic Engineering in Agriculture 1). These
 7

companies and organizations fail to provide a sense of comfort due to the limitation of the

regulations of these crops.

Labeling may provide comfort to the public, but may also be a distraction. In the united

states particularly only the California counties of Mendocino, Trinity and Marin

have successfully banned GM crops while voters in other California counties

have tried to pass similar measures but has failed (List of Countries That Banned

1). While there are countries like New Zealand and Germany who have

completely band the growth (1). France the Japanese, and Thailand are

countries that have regulated certain bioengineered crops (1). Thailand

made their decision for regulated genetic engineered plants after the wide

spread invasion of their papaya crop. These plants became wild and began

contaminating nearby crops (1). Many other countries have also made a decision on

whether to label, regulate, or completely ban genetic engineered food. The knowledge provided

to the consumer in knowing what they are consuming will allow them to have a sense of comfort.

The harms in labeling could include it becoming a distraction as well as cause profit for producer

to decrease.

What will it provide? The future a better supply for a growing population Better

production for farmers. A primary cause of plant loss worldwide is abiotic stress, particularly

salinity, drought, and temperature extremes. In the future, these losses will increase as water

resources decline and desertification intensifies (Key et al. 1). Bioengineered food holds the

potential resist these harms from these environmental changes, Biotechnology companies are

aiming to create new crops that can be genetically modified to be drought- and salt-tolerant or
 8

less reliant on fertilizer, which would lead to the opening of new areas (Genetic Engineering in

Agriculture 1).

Articles on genetic engineered food are easy to find the conversation and controversial

views are still alert and prudent, but the searching for an article that is unbiased is challenging.

Strong opinions with heavy evidence to aid their case have been shown amongst these articles

the article for genetic food impact toward agriculture was quite bias at certain points it was

limited in providing benefits, but at the other hand provided a good amount of evidence to

support their ideas as well as information on possible substitutes. Articles from the Dartmouth

Undergraduate Journal titled Genetically Modified Foods provided an unbiased article with

evidence to support both risk and benefits information given making it an all rounded paper that

was not limited to the biasness of the author.

The immediate benefits it delivers should not overshadow the possible damage to human

health. Reluctant to label, the labeling of food would provide consumers with information they

deserve, but would be a disadvantage for producer as people purposely avoid their food. The

risks of harvesting food using genetic engineered food have its own risk and problem, but also

provide a huge amount of benefits. As the population grows people will need a reliable food and

resource system. This process of harvesting food will give the population the necessary resource

they need to sustain. Although this process of harvesting brings its own concerns such

introducing new allergies into the food and it could end up actually endangering other crops as

well as itself by introducing a super weed or invading the other crops. The best solution for

farmers would be to incorporate the substitute which provides the same outcome without the

risk. As this process of harvesting continue to grow the labeling of food would provide people

with comfort in knowing what they are eating.

 9

Byrne P. "Genetically Modified (GM) Crops. Techniques and Applications - 0.710." Colorado

State University Extension, Aug. 2014, http://extension.colostate.edu/topic-

areas/agriculture/genetically-modified-gm-crops-techniques-and-applications-0-710.

Accessed 06 Feb 2017.

Genetically Modified Foods: The Consequences of Agricultural Design. DUJS Online, vol. 13,

no. 2, 2010, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2010/03/genetically-modified-foods-the-

consequences-of-agricultural-design/#.WKXG-HqrEus. Accessed 05 Feb 2017.

Genetic Engineering in Agriculture. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015,

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-

engineering-agriculture. Accessed 06 Feb 2017.

How FDA Regulates Food from Genetically Engineered Plants. How FDA Regulates Food

from Genetically Engineered Plant, 18 Jan. 2017,

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/eu.php. Accessed 05 Feb 2017.

Kingston, Hudson B. "64 Countries around the World Label GE Food." PCC Natural Markets,

June 2013, http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/sc/1305/countries_label. Accessed 06 Feb

2017.

Key, Suzie, Julian Ma, and Pascal MW Drake. "Genetically Modified Plants and Human

Health." The Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 101, no 6 2008.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs. Accessed 05 Feb. 2017.

List of Countries That Banned Genetically Modified Food." Natural Revolution, 10 Apr. 2015,

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/07/heres-why-19-countries-in-europe-just-

completely-banned-genetically-modified-crops/. Accessed 06 Feb. 2017.

 10

"More than Half of EU Officially Bans Genetically Modified Crops." New Scientist,

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-

to-ban-growing-gm-crops. Accessed 06 Feb. 2017.

Reed, Genna. "Will the FDA's Picture of." Union of Concerned Scientists, 03 Feb. 2017,

http://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/will-the-fdas-picture-of-health-match-ours. Accessed

06 Feb. 2017.

Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms European Union. Restrictions on Genetically

Modified Organisms: European Union | Law Library of Congress, 9 July. 2015,

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/eu.php. Accessed 06 Feb. 2017.

"Q&A: genetically modified food." World Health Organization, May 2014,

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-

food/en. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.