Patricia Reider
English 11000 — L-39127
Argumentative Essay
April 16, 2019
Genetic Modification and Sustaining Life
According to the well know rule of threes for sustaining life, a life will be in crises after three minutes without air, after three days without water, or after three weeks without food (Wiseman 8). It is crucial that all aspects necessary for survival are produced and maintained at healthful levels and safeguarded so as to sustain life for future generations. One modern introduction into the equation of the sustainability of life is the alteration of the genetic components of our food supply. It is most often referred to as genetically modified organisms or, GMOs. Some feel that these alterations may be a boon to our food supply and a more affordable alternative to traditional agricultural practices as well as produce foods with better nutritional quality. Others worry that in the long run changing the natural composition of what we need to sustain healthy lives could lead to unhealthy consequences. Although some fear we are slowly poisoning our land, ourselves, and sabotaging future generations’ ability to sustain their own health, the practice of genetic modification in the food industry is a scientific gift to mankind.
The present worldwide shortage of food demands we make changes in food production. Modern genetic engineering, first patented in 1980, is the process of manipulating a gene using recombinant DNA (rDNA) methods, which are organisms or genetic matter formed by recombination(Straus 95). Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms in which the DNA, or the genetic material of an organism has been artificially altered in a way not occurring in nature. These altered organisms have not reproduced by mating or by any natural way of recombination.
Most people have not considered that mankind has employed genetic engineering since the beginning of agriculture. According to an article in Scientific American“if we go back 10,000 to 12,000 years to the time when man started domesticating animals and cultivating plants for food, we can see that man was picking organisms with desirable traits and mating them together, many times over, and people were able to mold species to better meet their dietary needs” (Olson 1). Olson goes on to give an example of this selective cultivation with the teosinthe plant. It started out as an inedible wild grass but was manipulated by ancient farmers in Mexico who transformed the plant into what we recognize today as corn. We can now see, through modern scientific biochemistry, that the teosinthe plant has had only five changes in its genetic make-up to transform an almost inedible wild grass to the creation of one of today’s dietary staples. This example illustrates that man has been modifying the genetics of foods for literally thousands of years. What we had thought to be a new and modern practice is only new and modern in that we now have the technology to explain scientifically what ancient farmers were doing.
The process patented in 1980 is a method of genetic mutation without the use of natural means while the ancient farmers found a way to cultivate the growth of desired attributes through natural manipulation. Does this duality of process create the same outcome through different techniques? Or, is there a difference in what is produced as one is done in a lab through unnatural reproduction versus the manipulation of nature through nature? Scientists would have you believe that they are the same but forgo the time it takes to let nature produce man’s subtle selective changes. Now scientific man can go straight to the DNA and modify a plant or an animal in a very short period of time.
One of the biggest differences between what ancient farmers did and what scientists today are able to do is that today we are not confined in altering plants or animals with compatible organisms. When a species is altered by same species DNA, it is called cisgenic (“cis” meaning “the same.”) When DNA is used from a completely different plant or animal, the new organism is referred to as transgenic organism. The ancient farmers could only experiment with cisgenic breeding. In fact, the domestic cow as we know it today is a hybrid of selective breeding to produce an animal that is of a size that can be handled while producing a great amount of milk and meat for consumption.
Today, scientists can force a transgenic change by splicing DNA into any organism from any organism. It is the unnatural quality of the transgenic organism that creates fear and fuels the debate on whether GMOs are healthy through scientific interference or unhealthy in that this is not something that would occur naturally and this unnatural practice might create organisms which could cause health problems. It is easy to accept that a farmer crossed a plum with an apricot and produced the extremely delicious hybrid called a plumcot or pluot because they are both stone fruits. When pigs are crossed (through transgenic alteration) with luminescent jellyfish the result is a pig, which glows in the dark. Are these genetically engineered pigs safe to eat? We aren’t likely to find out, as they were never produced as a food but as part of research in hemophilia. One can take away the idea that cisgenically altered cows are good GMO as they have a 10,000 year acceptable track record, while the thought of glow in the dark ham from a transgenic mutation is never likely to be consumed.
Most GMO food on the market has been tested, although not long term. That does not mean that everyone is on board with the consumption of GMOs or transgenic pairings.
But all of these examples of obviously modified foods aren’t the only factors that fuel the debate over whether or not GMOs are a healthy addition to food supply or to the world’s ecology. Because 90% of all GMO crops are in base crops like corn, rice, and soybeans which are used in processed foods and for animal fodder, the worry isn’t that people are eating engineered foods directly but that they are unaware of GMO inclusion in processed and pre-packaged foods that have the consumer ingest them unconsciously. Since the majority of animal fodder is GMO, the meat produced is infused with genetically engineered organisms. So, the burger you might be enjoying is probably GMO produced meat, the wheat that is used in the bread, the high fructose corn syrup in the ketchup and probably the tomatoes used in the ketchup.
There has been some discussion that the epidemic of obesity, and the illnesses that come with it which coincide with the introduction of GMO foods into our food supply. Then there is the counter argument that obesity is not caused by the GMOs but that they are part of the over-processed convenience and fast foods that the person suffering from obesity has a preference for. Which can it be? Since there are no studies that prove conclusively that GMO food has had any adverse effect on human health, then it could be that its not the content but the preparation of the food consumed causing the health issue. On the other hand, have there been similar studies on eating convenience foods that are non-GMO? Common sense tells us that eating the wrong types of foods and too much food will cause obesity. There does not appear to be any account of a special type of obesity with a GMO component.
There are other foods that are clones of a single genetic structure. Bananas are notorious for being the clones of one single banana. Through the cloning of a single banana the fruit has become sterile and does not have any functioning seed. If you were to purchase several non-GMO bananas a few years ago, they would ripen over the course of a few days and those which ripened first would be eaten first and then the later ripeners would be ready later in the week. Today, buying bananas has the consumer who might purchase several which are usually all in the same stage of ripening. Consequently they will ripen at the same rate and be ready for consumption at the same time. According to The Economist: “There are over 1,000 varieties of wild bananas in the world. But 95% of banana exports come from a single cultivated variety, the Cavendish. They are basically clones, that is, genetically identical plants.” (J.P. Economics.com 1).
The next sentence in that article, “It also means that if one plant is at risk, they all are”(J.P. Economics.com 1) shows that this article’s concern is mainly for the economic loss should some unknown organism affect a massive crop such as bananas. If something were to wipe out one banana, all bananas could be lost. In a report at pbs.com “The Cavendish banana is being threatened by the virulent fungal Panama Disease, also known as Tropical Race 4, which is making its way to South America where more than 80 percent of the world’s bananas are grown” (Mach and Reed 1). This article continues with the information that scientists in South America are working on finding a genetic mutation to apply to the banana crops that will make them resistant to this disease. This aspect of GMO is purely for the benefit of those invested in banana crops and has nothing to do with any concern in how the GMOs they are producing might affect the people who will be consuming those bananas.
One cannot argue that there are no negative effects of monocultures on our ecology. These single crop mass farms are ignoring what farmers knew was good for sustaining the soil by natural means. The old methods of crop rotation are no longer being employed. Instead of a different crop each year for four years and perhaps one year of lying fallow to and allow the soil to restore its life-giving nutrients, fields are used to grow the same (monoculture) crop year after year with the farmland being polluted with fertilizers and insecticides. In fact, those same crops are modified to resist herbicides and the herbicides are engineered not to harm the crop. The soil is not being renewed but is now a chemical bed in which to incubate only one type of crop.
There is no way to calculate how many species of insects may be lost through this process, one of the most notable being the loss of bees. Bees and other insects are still needed to pollinate the plants that produce fruits and vegetables. For all of the science and alteration needed to accommodate the ability to tolerate extreme weather conditions and unwanted viral and fungal intruders, there is no way to reproduce the action of pollination. Pollination is the most essential component of producing agricultural growth. If the genetic modification of organisms is destroying the pollination of plants there’s no doubt that GMO science has gone too far and must, itself, be monitored and modified.
Genetic engineering or modification can be one of the best things that has happened to the huge and hungry human population of this world. There hasn’t been any research that proves conclusively that GMO food is harmful to mankind. Of course it would be of the utmost importance to continue to study the effects of GMOs through a neutral oversight agency. In the US it is the FDA that holds this responsibility. Cisgenic crop and livestock engineering have served us well. Transgenic mutation is a boon to the field of medicine but also needs to be overseen and controlled so as not to make changes that may cause harm. Food products need to be labeled to inform the consumer of what they are consuming. For those who believe that GMO food products are harmful, they should have the ability to make informed decisions about what they consume.
The use of GMO science has great potential to benefit mankind. It also has the potential to be misused. The worldwide food shortage could be resolved with the right application of this science. Let us not sabotage our future generations or ourselves. GMOs give us the ability to feed the world and resolve existing health issues and build a world that sustains human life and an ecology that will continue to support life in the future.
Works Cited
Dona, Artemis & Arvanitoyannis, Ioannis S. “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, Taylor and Francis Online, vol. 49, no. 2, 06 Nov. 2008, pp.164-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390701855993
Bhargava, Phushpa M. “GMOs: Need for Appropriate Risk Assessment System” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 3, no 15, 2002. pp. 1402 – 1405. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4411984
Casassus, Barbara. “Study Linking Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors is Retracted.” scientificamerican.comScientific American, 29 Nov. 2013, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
Krimsky, Sheldon. “An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 40, no. 6, 2015, pp. 883–914. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43671260.
Kurzer, Paulette, and Alice Cooper. “Consumer Activism, EU Institutions and Global Markets: The Struggle over Biotech Foods.” Journal of Public Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, 2007, pp. 103–128. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40072017.
Mach, Andrew., Reed, Carrey. “8 Things You Didn’t Know About Bananas.” PBS.org, PBS, 24 Jan. 2016 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/8-things-you-didnt-know-about-bananas
Olson, Eric R., “What is a Genetically Modified Food?” scientificamerican.com, Scientific American, 7 Aug. 2013, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-genetically-modified-food/
P., J. “We Have No Bananas Today.” Economist.com,The Economist, 27 Feb. 2014, www.economist.com/feast-and-famine/2014/02/27/we-have-no-bananas-today.
“Proper Regulation of Unapproved GMO Crops a Must for U.S. Food Security.” PR Newswire, 2002, p. 1.
Strauss, Debra M. “Genetically Modified Organisms in Food: a Model of Labeling and Monitoring with Positive Implications for International Trade.” The International Lawyer, vol. 40, no. 1, 2006, pp. 95–119. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40708011.
Wiseman, John. “SAS Survival Guide: How to Survive in the Wild, on Land or Sea.” Collins, 2010. New York – Print.
Reflection
On reflection of my preparation and on the writing of this essay, I found that my purpose, or exigence of its creation was a subtle interest I have in how “we are what we eat.” This need to know about nutrition and what I am eating and how it effects me came to me when my husband made a remark about my approach to selecting produce. He said, “You seem to take a long time in choosing, it’s as though you’re interviewing the food to see if it qualifies for the job.” That statement had me looking around and seeing that most people don’t really look at what they put into their shopping carts. I also noticed that they take a good look at the prices and my impression is that food is purchased according to cost and not according to quality as in nutrition and overall physical quality. It seems sad to me.
I believe my audience would be anyone who has an interest in nutrition and the science behind the modification of our food supply. Those who are looking to monitor not only what they eat, but also those who are concerned with what their children consume.
My purpose in writing this was essay to satisfy some of the question I have about what brings food to the store before my auditions, I realize that my audience includes those who have the same questions and, hopefully, those who aren’t questioning what they’re consuming because I am of the opinion that everyone should know what it is they consume and consider that they too “are what they eat.” With all that I have learned about the origins or early GMOs and the expansive possibilities of modern genetic engineering, I believe my purpose has expanded by my desire to educate all people about where their food comes from and how it is produced. If they feel that altered food products are not for them that’s fine but I do think that everyone should make informed decisions.
The overall assignment involved several types of media. The initial proposal was digitally presented online through BlackBoard. Following that, I did a lot of research online (again a digital endeavor) looking at scholarly articles as well as the availability of books in the City College library and the New York Public Library. I then read some articles, skimming at first and then a deeper read of those that were more informative as to how science has used genetics to modify a very high percentage of the food that comes to my table.
Taking copious notes, I broke down what I would need to present both sides of an argument. That is, opinions and research that support and refute the use of genetic interference in products for human consumption. Both outline and initial drafts were typed and edited digitally and then printed on paper for necessary hard copies for class as well as uploaded to BlackBoard digitally as needed. This particular assignment has the component of oral presentation in the classroom. So far we have worked together in groups discussing sample essays and we have stood in front of the glass in our group to give an oral report on our analysis of those samples. We have employed a multi-modal approach to conveying our work in and presented to the class. Each mode has been the product of lectures of how to find information (the class given by Ty in the library) and how to present our work on paper, online and in the visual and oral PowerPoint format were taught in class by example.
This essay employs the genre of an argumentative essay. The argumentative style is interesting to me in the way it forces the writer to look not just at what they want or need to read or hear, but to be thorough by looking at all sides of the argument without prejudice and being fair in their own conclusion(s). I thought I knew what GMOs were until I opened this huge can of worms and I see that there is nothing in this world without DNA and therefore this is probably the most wide-open field of discoveries and possibilities that I have ever experienced.
My initial stance was that I was against having anyone change the nature of my food. I was surprised how much that stance has changed. In the end I see genetic engineering as a possible way to fix so many things. I saw it as a negative thing, but now I see that there are possibilities for mankind I was never aware of.
My paper meets several course learning outcomes.
- Understanding and use of print and digital technologies as well as an oral and visual power point presentation (pending). The use of these medias will reach my audience. (this is CLO#5)
- I have located several resources including books in print, verified academic journals and some video documentation. All were properly evaluated and read thoroughly prior to consideration and were appropriate in their time of publication. (CLO#6)
- I have composed text that “integrate my stance with appropriate sources using strategies such as summary, critical analysis, interpretation… and argumentation.” (CLO#7) in that I had integrated my stance as pro-GMO (even though I started this project as anti-GMO) The stance was altered through critical analysis and the interpretation of information supplied by publications by experts in their fields. I believe I argued both sides of the issue fairly without compromising my stance.
