Research Paper
Introduction
Genetically modified corn is found in various food products throughout the
world, and many countries have chosen to benefit from the economic standpoint that the biotechnology brings. In the past decade, various viewpoints, extreme and mediocre, have emerged, highlighting the multitude of stances people have gained from experiencing the biotechnology in their grocery markets. Farmers, companies, consumers, and the media are all stakeholders in the biotechnology industry, as all these groups suffer or benefit from the use of genetically modified corn. At times, there is ambiguity as to what the term “genetically modified” refers to, since people are gathering their personal knowledge about the technology from different scientific and publicly written sources. The extreme perspectives have divided scientists, the creators, from their consumers, the people shopping in grocery markets around the world. With a lack of transparency between the creator and the consumer, altered corn is misunderstood and misinterpreted by many. Much of the controversy revolves around the scientific process itself, which involves the many different beneficial traits being added to the popular crop itself. Corn can be genetically modified to become resistant to herbicides, act as insecticides, and even to improve overall crop quality. Many companies have taken advantage of these traits to help farmer produce more viable crops. However, much controversy is raised regarding the ethics of GM companies, environmental impacts, and the human health implications of widespread genetically modified crops. This report discusses the background of what genetically modified corn is, how it works, the controversy about the social, political, and economic impacts of genetically modified corn in literature reviews, and contextualizes the public discussion of genetically modified corn in blogs and the media. The essay then ends with a quick conclusion about the overall findings.
Discussion
Background Information (Content)
The Genetic Engineering of crops is an often misunderstood scientific discovery
that has led to much controversy. While much of the public is against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), there is a consensus among the scientific community that supports the Genetic Engineering of crops. Genetic Modification is where plants are modified by cross pollination and selectively bred for certain traits, such as size, hardiness, or flavor. (NAP, 2016) While genetic modification has been practiced by humans since farming began, it is only recently that it has been refined.
As the understanding of genetics and plants expanded, genetic engineering was
made possible, and the previously decades long process of modification through multiple generations for the maximization of a certain trait was cut down to months or years. (Bessin, 2004) Recent research has made it possible for that maximization to be done on a genetic level. Genes are selected from other strains of the plant or other plants altogether, such as lichens or even certain bacteria that might be resistant to the disease or kill the bug that might try to eat it, that exhibit the traits the farmer desires. Most of the genetically engineered corn seeds are provided by a few companies that design the seeds to be resistant to certain insects that could attack and destroy an entire corn crop. (UNL, 2017) Once the DNA is extracted from the source, it is cloned so the scientists have a copy of it. The cloned genes are modified so they can embed themselves into the corn genes. Once the genes have been modified, they are injected into the corn’s DNA. The DNA sees these floating genes and assumes that they are pieces leftover from another cell, so they combine with the floating genes, which are actually the modified genes from another organism designed to exhibit a single trait. Since the corn DNA has combined that with itself, it will then replicate and the entire seed has that modified DNA. (Gewin, 2003) The plants are tested - grown and cross bred with other similarly modified genes to ensure that it exhibits the necessary traits. The final seeds will eventually grow a plant that utilizes that trait, whether it is resistant to a disease or bug, or maximized or modified size or flavor.
Bt-Corn
One of the most common examples of a Genetically Engineered Crop is Bt-Corn.
Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis and is a soil bacterium that is known for being fatally toxic to certain insects, specifically the larvae of the European Corn Borer, which commonly destroys corn crops. (Bessin, 2004) Along with Monsanto’s Round Up Crops, Bt-Corn is the most easily recognizable and commonly used GMO. In order to create the corn, scientists extract the DNA from the Bt bacteria and isolate the gene that creates the Bt protein. This protein is the factor that kills the bugs that try to eat it, so it is the only part of the Bt bacteria DNA necessary. Once the Bt Protein creating gene has been isolated, it is cloned so the scientists have multiple copies to work with. (Gewin, 2003) Each copy is then added to the DNA of regular corn genes through a variety of methods. One of the most popular ones is colloquially referred to as a ‘gene gun’ which shoots the gene copies into the nucleus of a corn cell. (UCSD, 2007) Since the corn cells are plant cells, they have a cell wall, so scientists have to make sure they do not break the cell wall when they are adding the Bt protein DNA to the corn DNA. Usually, when the corn DNA notices the floating Bt protein DNA, it assumes that the DNA is its own and binds to it, making the Bt protein DNA a part of the corn DNA. The replication process spreads the new combined DNA to all the cells, until the corn has become Bt-corn. (NAP, 2016) Since the DNA doesn’t always work correctly, scientists do this to multiple batches of corn, and then cross breed the ones that are working well to create the best possible seeds. These seeds then have their DNA extracted and are cloned as well to keep the Bt-corn effective and active. While this is not the exact process used for every GMO, it is what most Genetic Engineering is based upon and uses as a stepping stone into modifying other organisms.
Literature reviews
Abstract
With corn being the most dominant crop in terms of world production by weight
and being a staple in not only animal feed, human food supply, and high-fructose corn syrup production, but also the creation of bioethanol fuels, corn is consistently under scrutiny with regards to both production and GMO innovation. GMO and GE corn has been under debate as soon as its inception, and has garnered a great deal of attention in both the scientific and the public communities. This literature review analyzes the major studies involving both the production of GMO corn as well as the consequences of GMO corn, more specifically the BT resistant corn, the consequential changes for both the environment and farm management, as well as continuous corn growth yield risk. The goal of this literature review is to increase knowledge and understanding the issues surrounding GMO corn and how it relates to the current public and various governmental perception of them in order to ultimately un-blackbox the technology behind GMO and determine if the product is truly safe, effective, or ethical.
Influence of Corn
Maize, known as Corn in the US, is considered one of the most important crops
both domestically and internationally. Since its introduction in 1996, GMO corn has “become technology incorporated into the major row crops in the Americas as well as cotton production globally” (Gipsman 2014). Corn is the dominant crop in the US, which dedicates over 96 million cares to production per the USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. The efficiency of corn productivity in the space itself has increased dramatically as well, having an average of 153 bushels per acre currently compared to the 72 bushels in 1972. GMO corn has been rapidly adopted since their introduction, with “roughly 90% of all corn being GMO corn in 2013” (Gipsman 2014). The adoption of GE corn into mainstream farming techniques hints towards a clear and obvious benefit over standard types of corn. Worth noting however, these advantages appear to not “offer a direct customer benefit and this may have hampered acceptance of the technology (Gipsman 2014), a possible explanation for some of the controversy surrounding GMOs. The primary advantages of GMO corn are through the economic benefits of easier weed/pest management, as well better yield risk management. The usage of BT corn resulted in an 11% reduction in use of pesticides in the U.S alone, and a total of 41% reduction in the period between 1996 and 2011 (Gipsman 2014). It is generally accepted that Bt traits are responsible for higher and stable level yields – which “alone is responsible for a largely more positive ecological footprint” (Gipsman, 2014). Insecticides are a large cost for farmers and the reduction in use of insecticides due to the Bt resistance of the crops allows for farmers to gain significant economical advances. Herbicide costs for farmers were 30% lower for transgenic soybeans compared to non-GMO soybeans, and the favorable production costs can be extrapolated to the GMO corn variety as well (Owen 2000). The reduction of inputs and the subsequent reduction of production costs demonstrate a number of benefits for growers.
Herbicide resistant crops
The introduction of herbicide-resistant crops and the continued use of them
were primarily due to the adoption of the BT soybean. As of the present, there are “over 1000 glyphosate resistant soybean variants” (Tabashnik 2015). Corn has been studied conclusively to have less yield when grown in consecutive years over a format considered “crop rotation.” Corn and soybean are often the two crops of choice for this rotation, and when farmed in rotation as this results in higher yields than each respective monoculture (Gentry 2013). When farmed in rotation, yield risks are still high for corn – ranging from -12.2 to +6.5 bushels of mean corn per acre (Tabashnik 2015). Through use of transgenic technology, the benefits of raising the traditional amount of mean corn per yield increases 0.8-0.42 bushels per acre. While the reduction in yield risks are important for GMO corn, the reduction does not necessarily apply to each and every GMO crop; in a multi-state, multi-year study by the Soybean Research Development Council, the results concluded that the herbicide resistance for soybean does not “consistently result in higher soybean yields.” Transgenic technology (or genetically engineered corn) allow for a higher increase of corn in general, as well as establish a higher level of food security in the world. Furthermore, transgenic crops allow for a stronger control of weeds for both corn and soybean in comparison to non-glyphosate-resistant crops.
The usage of herbicide resistant crops also decreases many environmental
disadvantages. One major concern of herbicide use is the increase of weeds that are resistant to herbicides. Weed resistance as a GE function is rapidly increasing throughout the world. While the introduction of herbicides represents an easy and cost effective method of removing pests or insects, their usage causes an increase in the number of herbicide resistant weeds. Though the herbicides can be modified to combat this newfound resistance, there becomes an arms-race that occurs with regards to the herbicides and weeds (Gipsman 2014). As herbicide use increases iteration of this arms race, there can be concerns of increasing amount of dangers to the environment in the event that the different iterations of herbicide and pesticide use cause various amount of environmental damage.
Issues of Public Concern
In recent years, GMOs have presented themselves as a large issue of public
concern and products that are GMOs or contain GMOs are consistently under public scrutiny. There is significant literature presenting the issues surrounding GMO and discuss the scientific baseline for these issues surrounding GMOs. One major issue is that World Health Organization (WHO) declares that while GM products that go onto international sale have all gone through assessment by national authorities, they have not “been systematically performed as indicated in the scientific literature” (Domingo 2011). This means that even though GMO foods have been analyzed or approved by nationalistic standards, there are not “set” standards for which to compare the GMO products too. Each evaluation of GMO products have been performed with different “feeding periods, animal models, and parameters” (Domingo 2011). This concludes a healthy skepticism of GMO testing – should the testing parameters be different by each nationalistic institute; it allows for a variability in the level of safety permitted. In parallel to the public discourse surrounding GMOs, there have been a large increase in media attention that GMOs
Controversy
While both Genetically Modified and Genetically Engineered foods have made
their way into the mass market in nations such as the United States and Canada, many developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. Over 38 developed countries either have national bans on GMOs, or have laws restricting the cultivation or importation of GMOs (Where are GMOs grown and banned…). Most of Europe, bar Portugal and Spain, have restriction banning the growing of GMOs, though do not ban the importation of GMO crops despite “being one of the biggest consumers of biotech corn and soy for livestock feed” (Where are GMOs grown and banned). Though many of these nations ban GMOs outright or create barriers to their usage in some form, many of these moves are driven through political or social motivations. Factors such as protectionism through restraining trade, strong pressure from anti-GMO activists, or even public backlash from GMOs cause many of these countries to impose restriction – France, for example, impose a ban due to the belief that “genetic crops could ‘contaminate’ the country's reputation as a world food capital” (Where are GMOs grown and banned). Despite the social and political controversy surrounding GMOs, there is little debate about the dangers of GMOs within the scientific community, with “over 2000 scientific studies … [assessing] the safety of [GMO] crops in terms of human health and environmental impact … [enabling] a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than … conventional breeding techniques” (Norero 2016). These studies from over 278 independent scientific institutions, some of which originate from countries that currently impose restriction or bans on GMOs, present a clear conclusion – the majority of self-imposed nationalistic barriers on GMOs are political or social moves. GMO labeling is a sister issue to the cultivation and importation of GMOs – over 64 nations, including countries such as Russia, China, and Australia, enforce a “right to know” law for GMO foods and require standards of mandatory GE food labeling (international labeling laws). Though the U.S does not require GMO foods to be labeled, in a survey conducted in 2015 by the Mellman Group targeting the United States, around 89% of voters favored mandatory labeling on “foods that have been genetically engineered…” (U.S Polls on GE…). Similarly, in 2014, Consumer Reports held a survey in which 72% of people considered GE ingredients as “a crucial objective when purchasing food” and 92% of consumers believed that GE foods “should be labeled” (2014 GMO Report Survey).
One major concern regarding GMOs is the potential growth of “superweeds” in
corn and soybean fields due to the widespread genetic modification of creating herbicide-resistant crops, namely glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup). Glyphosate is a cheap and effective herbicide commonly used by farmers due to their ability to increase crop yields, while lowering overall farm costs. Many critics argue that due to the increased prevalence of genetically modified seeds, which now “represent 95% of soybeans and 90% of corn grown in the United States” (Do GMOs count as…), there is an uptake in the number of “superweeds” that develop. “Superweeds” are named as such due to their ability to resist one or more types of herbicides, and naturally occur with the use of any herbicides, though critics argue that GE crops accelerate the growth of “superweeds” through the increased use of glyphosate as a direct result of GE crops. Though the herbicide can be changed or modified to combat these adaptations from weeds, evidence suggests that this can create an “arms race” with weeds, potentially damaging the environment should more dangerous herbicides and pesticides be used. Chipotle, one of the largest fast food chains in North America and Europe, began a non-GMO campaign with regards to their ingredients, citing “the cultivation of GMOs can damage the environment” as one of their major issues (Chipotle 2016). Chipotle raises another valid issue with regards to GMOs – though GMOs are widely considered to be safe, there is no general consensus on the long term implications and consequences, as studies involving the long term consequences on human trials would be difficult to implement at best, and unethical at worst.
Corn as a genetically modified crop is one of the most widely produced and
utilized crops in the world, with the United States ranked first in corn production. In the past, however, a variety of GE corn called StarLink was a controversial scandal due to the fact that it had entered the food supply despite being unapproved for human consumption. StarLink was a Bt resistant corn which distinguished itself by producing it modified version of the Bt toxin protein known as “Cry9c” (Genetically Engineered Foods in…). While StarLink was approved for use as animal feed, the FDA did not allow approval for use in human consumption, due to the unknown allergenicity of the protein at the time. Due to the difficulty in assessing the allergenicity of a protein not native to the food source, the EPA concluded that StarLink could pose a moderate allergenic threat (Bucchini 2013). Despite the restriction on human consumption, StarLink had been detected in Taco Bell taco shells in the same year, and were quickly recalled. While StarLink was regulated and restricted, it appeared that “there was little government oversight to assure the terms of the registration were obeyed” (Bucchini 2013). The EPA ruled in 2001 that StarLink was not allowed to remain in human food supply despite further investigation that any individuals reporting allergies were not caused by Starlink. Though there was no direct harm caused by StarLink, the scandal and following recall may have caused public distress over the potential harm of GMOs. Joseph Mendelson III, the legal director of the Center for Food Safety, remarked that “Clearly [The EPA] didn't do anything here until they became embarrassed” (Pollack 2001), resonating with the notion that errors with GMOs were being dealt with ineffectively.
Public discussion
There are various benefits associated with genetically engineered corn, which is
one of the largest products made and distributed around the United States. A common type of genetically engineered corn is called Bt-corn, which acts as a pesticide that kills Lepidoptera larvae. Many products contain Bt-corn and the FDA considers it to be “nutritionally equivalent to traditional corn” (Bessin). Bt-corn is more selective than typical herbicides and does not harm other insects that benefit the environment. In addition to being selective, the production of Bt-corn helps minimize the usage of toxic pesticides that may be harmful towards humans (Bell, 2014). Another type of genetically engineered corn is called “round-up ready” corn, which possesses qualities that allow the corn to withstand herbicides. Similar to pesticides, herbicides are not selective when used. Often, when herbicides are used to kill weeds, they can also damage the crops that need to be harvested. Additionally, herbicides are considered to be toxic towards the environment and human health, but Roundup (glyphosate) is seen as one of the safest herbicides in usage (Borel, 2014). To combat the effects of Roundup on corn fields, round-up ready corn has been modified to resist the damaging effects of glyphosate (Picut, 2015).
In addition to Bt-corn and round-up ready corn, there is a new type of genetically
engineered corn that has the potential to grow in areas that may be susceptible to droughts. In Africa, a drought-tolerant corn is being tested that could possibly aid countries that are highly affected by climate change. The potential of this new strain of corn can greatly benefit farmers and the community (Lynas, 2017). Due to climate change, the production of corn has been severely affected by rising temperatures.
However, along with the benefits of genetically engineered corn, there are various concerns regarding this technology. One of the main issues consumers raise is the lack of transparency within the GM industry. Many consumers believe that the introduction of genetically engineered corn into the market was done sneakily without notifying the public. Consumers also became distrusting of researchers promising that genetically engineered corn was “100% safe”, stating that “no technology can be 100% safe” (Rogerson, 2017). Another issue consumers had with the GM corn industry was the lack of labeling and accessible information about genetically engineered corn in products. These practices strengthened the suspicions consumers had for genetically engineered foods, making them more distrustful of GM scientific institutions.
The usage of genetically engineered corn also has impacts on the surrounding
environment. Cultivation of genetically engineered corn can lead to cross contamination of organic and heirloom varieties. Toxins found in genetically engineered corn also spread into the surrounding soil. The soil becomes dry and lacks nutrients to properly help the corn grow (Glass, 2013). Crossbreeding weeds is also a large concern in discussions about genetically engineered corn. Weeds that grow in corn fields can start to take on properties of the genetically engineered corn and may become resistant to pesticides as well (Occupytheory, 2015). These environmental ramifications due to growing genetically engineered corn perpetuate a need for new types of corn to arrive in the market. When the surrounding soil becomes dry and lacks nutrients, it become more difficult for organic corn to grow in fields. If weeds become resistant to herbicides, organic corn types will be at risk as well. In addition to affecting soil and weeds, genetically engineered corn can also potentially negatively affect surrounding ecosystems. Toxins from genetically engineered corn can spread from the soil to nearby bodies of water and harm aquatic organisms (Pickut, 2015). Studies find that toxins from roundup ready corn are toxic to frog larvae and can also affect “plants that are essential for farmland birds” (Greenpeace, 2011).
Conclusion
Genetically Modified Organisms is a complex term that encompasses many of
the organisms on the planet, which may also be genetically engineered. Much of the controversy surrounding genetic modification is actually around the process and consequences of Genetic Engineering, a complex process that uses both traditional methods of cross-pollination plant breeding and the new science of genetic modification by physically taking genes from certain organisms and inserting them into the DNA of other plants, then breeding to emphasize those traits. The scientific process has been interpreted by the media with emphasis on the negative performance of the biotechnology, but in the scientific realm, many scientists and biologists have explored the negative effects that many people have falsely believed. Despite the science behind the process showing few to no health risks with genetically modified corn, many countries have banned or heavily regulated the sale and growth of those crops, partially due to public outcry and complaints about the process. There are serious environmental concerns dealing with the propagation of Genetically modified organisms, since many of them are created to destroy weeds, be resistant to herbicides or kill certain crop-killing bugs, they can lead to changes in the surrounding environments. Parts of the new crops can spread to surrounding areas through winds, soil or water, creating unprecedented crossbreeds and potential superweeds and harming the organisms in the area. While more education is needed for the general public to better understand the consequences of GMO’s instead of treating the term as an automatically bad thing, scientists and the companies need to study and address the serious concerns surrounding the crops and controversies. Genetically Engineered crops are a part of the future and should be treated as such, since the adoption of them has helped many poor resource farmers and countries suffering from climate change. Companies, consumers and farmers all need to work together to ensure that the crops made are understood and environmentally sound without causing health problems. The lack of transparency between the scientists and the consumers must be resolved, in order for the public to adopt the biotechnology that is changing the current state of food security for many countries around the world. Engineered corn must be unpacked in a scientific manner that is also shared with the public, in order to resolve the misconceptions surrounding the technology.
​