Genetically Modified Organisms

By Junyu Yang

Abstract

The world’s population, currently at 7 billion, is projected to reach 9.6 million by 2050.¹ The Food group focuses on the adequate feeding of this growing population, specifically within the scope of a city. This article aims to reach the goals of eliminating world hunger, reducing malnutrition, and increasing food productivity. One potential method of reaching these goals (namely the first three) is the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), primarily in crops.

GMOs can be engineered with great precision and provide a series of benefits; crop genomes can be modified for desirable traits such as increased yield, added nutrition, and hardiness to weather. These characteristics can also prove useful within urban agriculture, or city-based agriculture that focuses on saving space and being contained within the city. Crops that are easier to grow for the average citizen can be cultivated easily within city gardens, and higher yields produce more food on less land.

However, there are obstacles ahead of adopting GMOs on an extremely wide scale.  One is consumer sentiment: there is anti-GMO sentiment in many countries, particularly within the European Union. “Willing to Pay” refers to consumers’ willingness to pay for non-GM food, and this index is oftentimes positive and non-negligible.² Other popular arguments, some of which have led to consumer sentiments, are safety concerns, excessive corporate control, and the potential destruction of cultural foods. What is necessary to reach the goal of GMO incorporation into consumer diets is political crackdown on companies such as Monsanto which prevent the equitable distribution of GMO technology (necessary to make GMOs affordable and widespread), cultural changes (some countries oppose GMOs, and there is a strong anti-science faction in America), and a way to protect wild or cultural species from biological pollution.

Because GMOs have great potential to reach the goals of feeding the world by 2050 by increasing productivity and providing adequate nutrition, by no means should they be discounted. Most viable solutions to the food problem in the cities of 2050 would likely involve some GMOs (likely the ones that are already widely in use, like soybeans), but hesitate from genetically modifying all the foods and sticking them in diets.  In the meantime, political action should be taken to produce a more equitable seed market so that GMO seeds become more affordable, and education reforms should move for stronger science education in schools so that students will understand what GMOs actually are.

What are GMOs?

Most of the GMOs currently in use are GM plants.  There are GM animals such as the recent AquaAdvantage salmon,³ but modifying animals faces more ethical issues and resistance and thus is not as widespread currently. Gene modification techniques involve taking chunks of genetic matter from seeds that had the desired genome and shooting them into the plants to be modified with “gene guns.”⁴ These gene guns are literally rifles that shoot DNA-coated metal particles into the organism to be modified. Such processes were random and inconsistent as to whether or not the foreign genetic material would take fold but biotechnology has advanced far enough so that the process is more controlled.²

There have been two waves of GMO development thus far.² The first wave started in about 1996 and included crops such as soybeans, canola (rapeseed), corn, and cotton. It added traits such as herbicide tolerance and insect resistance that helped with pest management, as well as enhancing yield. These crops were not foods directly sold to consumers, so their benefits were only tangible to food producers and suppliers. Corn was used for cattle feeds, cotton for clothing, and soybeans and canola for oil, all purposes that have little to do with direct consumption. Because consumers did not directly reap the benefits of these modified crops, it might have been more difficult for them to accept GMOs, which were seen as unnatural and of dubious safety. Monsanto suspended plans for GMO wheat in 2004, because no company would risk consumer backlash against an ingredient crucial in many staple foods.² The first wave was kept separate from consumers for the most part (with the exception of GM vegetable oils).  Identity preservation, or the careful tracking of food shipments, was used in Eastern Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea to separate non-GM soybeans for direct use from GM soybeans for crushing, or the process of separating soybeans into meal and oil.² Whether or not these attempts at identity preservation were successful is not important; what is relevant is that consumers cared enough (and still do) that companies make conscious efforts to label GMO foods.

The second wave of GMO development, which took place in the early 2000s, is more recent and consumer friendly, involving crops such as golden rice. The focus of this wave is on engineering favorable traits such as added nutrition and food safety. Golden rice, the most famous example, is rice engineered to have high levels of beta carotene,which is converted to vitamin A and is important for eyesight.² Other examples of second wave GMOs include soybeans engineered to have reduced fat levels and drought-resistant rice, and could expand to cases such as the cassava root. The cassava root is a staple food in Africa and Southeast Asia, but its roots are low in protein and micronutrients and also potentially toxic (some strains have a tendency to produce cyanogens toxic to humans). Such shortcomings could be engineered away; it may be possible to produce cassava roots rich in nutrients and less prone to cyanogens. In this way, the amount of safe, consumable food would increase, as would nutrition. However, there are still some issues with this wave of GMOs. One is commercialization of crops: as of now, commercialization of golden rice seems dubious. Another is affordability of the seeds, which are more expensive than unmodified seeds. Furthermore, despite additional benefits to consumers, it remains to be seen if GMOs will be accepted on a wide scale.

The main arguments against GMOs include safety concerns and the endangerment of cultural foods and indigenous species. Some groups would support GMOs if not for the monopolization of big companies such as Monsanto. Such arguments will be explored in later sections.

Potential of GMOs in Reaching Our Goals

Out of the goals of the food group, GMOs can help with increasing productivity and providing nutritious, accessible meals for a growing population.

To produce enough food to nutritiously feed this population, levels of food production must increase beyond our current capacity. Given the limited amount of fertile land, it is necessary to find ways to boost food productivity. It is calculated that in order to feed a world population of 9.6 billion by 2050 (70% of which is projected to live in cities), food production must increase by 70%, for a bit more than 1.5% every year.  Current rates of production increase are at about 1% annually (FAO). GMOs can be engineered to have a higher yield, producing more food every harvest, as well as be hardier, cultivating traits such as pest-resistance and the ability to survive extreme weather.  This may become increasingly important as the effects of global warming grow more severe, preventing catastrophes such as the loss of crops. Figures project that thanks to climate changes predicted by the HadGEM2 climate model, corn production around the world will decrease by 24%, while other staples such as rice, potatoes, and wheat will suffer smaller but still significant losses.⁵

Besides feeding populations, it is necessary to provide nutritious meals so as to prevent malnutrition, or a shortage of necessary nutrients to mend existing tissue and grow. The issue of malnutrition is limited not just to impoverished areas, but also to urban areas where there is enough food, but unbalanced diets. GMOs can be engineered to contain nutrients that might be elusive in a given area or exclusive to certain crops, reducing firstly, transportation costs, and secondly, the amount of land that must be devoted to agriculture (some plants are known for providing specific nutrients, but if that role can be given to another plant, then there is a reduction in the number of crops that must be grown). Golden rice is a pioneer in this field in that it provides extra vitamins generally not found in rice.

What can cities do?

Urban agriculture, a concept where all aspects of food production take place within the city, could benefit greatly from incorporating GMOs. Growing food within a city has a myriad of benefits, including a reduction in fuel for transporting crops from outside areas to the city, improvements in air quality as plants tend to take up CO₂, and a general increase in morale due to improvements in landscaping. Trees, for example, could be engineered to be more aesthetically pleasing, more prolific in carbon dioxide uptake, or faster growing (trees are infamous for growing slowly). Flowers could be engineered to be longer-living and more resistant to disease (tulips in particular are known for virus epidemics). Aspects of urban agriculture include using space efficiently and allowing the individual citizens to participate in farming. GMOs modified for higher yield can be conducive in this endeavor, as it will be possible to get more food from less plants in a limited space. GMOs coded for hardiness may be easier to grow for the average citizen to grow  with limited training, hence flourishing more easily in the urban agriculture environment. A good example would be the cassavas mentioned earlier: cassavas are not very difficult to grow, but their roots are prone to cyanogen buildup and thus render the plant inedible. A cassava strain modified to grow with nontoxic roots and more nutrients would make it attractive as a backyard food source.

It is possible for cities to provide GM seeds among the seed supply for every year. If the city truly functions as a closed system, it can prevent GM pollen from contaminating wild species. But given how many goldfish have invaded natural bodies of water, the average citizen has shown a rather low aptitude in containing nonnative species and so GMO contamination is still a possibility even if the cities are rather distant from wilderness.⁶

Malnutrition in cities is another issue that GMOs can tackle in the urban arena. Cities suffer from malnutrition, a condition when the body does not get enough amounts of the right vitamins and nutrients to grow and repair tissues. They suffer from a different kind than rural areas, though.  In impoverished or rural areas, malnutrition generally accompanies a lack of food; in cities, malnutrition tends to focus on nutrient and vitamin imbalances. For a current example, there are obese children in the United States who are obviously not hungry, but are also not getting the right nutrients and vitamins to grow healthily. A diet high in carbohydrates and fat, but low in protein, fibers, and minerals can lead to diseases such as cardiovascular disorders, strokes, and diabetes. An intense work schedule can also lead to rushed eating habits and incorporation of unhealthy foods such as fast junk foods.⁷ GMOs can help in this area by incorporating nutrients (especially vitamins, such as vitamin A, or minerals) into staple crops such as wheat and potatoes that are used in many foods and are also used frequently in fast and junk foods. This can help bring elusive nutrients and vitamins to people who lack a diverse diet or the time to prepare balanced meals, and thus combat urban malnutrition. Depending on the city, sanctions could be passed requiring workplace meals to conform to nutrient requirements, where it is up to the discretion of the workplace as to whether or not to use GMOs. Possibly, this can also reduce the amount of space needed to grow crops that only offer a few crucial nutrients, since other crops could be engineered to carry those nutrients. In the limited space of urban agriculture, this conservation of land could be very valuable.

Safety Concerns

Studies have shown that GMOs are safe for human consumption.⁸ While some scientists, such as Dr. Seneff of MIT, claim that GMOs are correlated with increased rates of vaccines and autism, these reports are based on correlation rather than causation. (It is also worth mentioning that Dr. Seneff is a computer science and artificial intelligence professor, not a developmental biology or genetics one.) A report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects”, is an objective overview of the effects of GMOs and foods made from them.⁸ Overall, it concluded that compared to unmodified crops, as opposed to GMO crops, had no difference in effects on human health. Claims that GMOs are linked with obesity, type II diabetes, and autism are unfounded.

This makes scientific sense, as genetic modifications act primarily on the genomes of the organisms. As long as the genes are benign and do not produce toxins, the crops themselves should not be harmful. The market for “GMO-free” is a matter of consumer preference.

Cultural Bias

A huge problem with incorporating GMOs on a wide scale is cultural resistance. This is especially the case in European countries. Although GMOs taste the same and do not lead to safety issues, they are met with resistance in society. People are willing to pay more for foods labelled non-GMO . The only way to combat this problem is education about what GMOs actually are, along with a thorough explanation of their benefits and risks.  There still exists doubt and misconception about what GMOs really are and how they are grown.

This bias can be clearly seen in the case of the Hawaiian papayas.  Hawaii farmers grew a GMO strain, the rainbow papaya, meant to combat the specific strains of papaya ringspot virus (PRSV). The virus caused unsightly blemishes on papayas and destroyed papayas on such a scale that it nearly led to the relocation of papaya growing efforts twice.  While this genetic modification saved the farmers from a loss of their crops every year, the GMO papaya could only be sold at cheaper prices in contrast to non-GM papaya exports from other countries, due to their GM nature, demonstrating the stigma surrounding GMO food.⁹

Corporate Meddling

One of the largest issues with using GMOs is the oligopoly on their production. In the United States, there are 5 predominant seed companies: Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and DuPont. (Worldwide, they own over half the world’s seed supply.) These companies have bought up all the other smaller seed companies, making it difficult for farmers to obtain seeds from other sources.¹⁰ These companies put patents on GMO seeds and control prices of seeds, which not only makes it difficult for farmers to afford patented GMO seeds,¹⁰ but also goes against the sustainable practice of saving the seeds from each harvest and then replanting them.¹¹ Monsanto especially is famous for controversies involving genetically modified seeds.

Control of the seed market by only a few companies also results in less seed choices for farmers, leading to a decrease in seed choice and thus a decrease in diversity. Recently, in India, in 2002, the advent of GM seeds engineered for pest control did more harm than good. Because these seeds were more expensive than normal seeds, buying all of their seeds from the GM stock would have hurt the rural farmers who labored under a tight credit system. Packets of normal and mixed seeds were sold at more affordable prices, so that some of the cotton grown would be normal cotton without any resistance to pests, but if grown under the same pesticide-free conditions as the modified corn, it would die. Combined with misinformation on how to use the seeds, crops failed and the farmers suffered financial losses. Over time, the GM crops did lead to gains for the farmers in terms of profits and more bountiful harvests, but the issues of affordability and oligopoly remain.¹²

In the United States, Monsanto has a vested interest in politics and laws such as the Monsanto Protection Act,¹³ which protects its control over GM seeds, have been passed. A large challenge is relinquishing the control of these large biotechnology companies on seeds, a challenge which may not be completed by 2050. The United States has a political system that is supposed to prevent any sudden usurpations of power, and thus works slowly (in comparison to more totalitarian governments). There are also officials in government with clear Monsanto sympathies.  For instance, Margaret Miller, a member of the FDA, used to work for Monsanto and even wrote papers for the FDA while researching for Monsanto.¹⁴ There are few straightforward resolutions for this, although educating voters and encouraging informed voter participation could prevent the appointment of special interests to governments. City governments could definitely help with this venture by either expediating the voting process or improving education within their boundaries.

Biopollution

Biopollution is a term defining the effects of an invasive alien species upon a natural habitat and its indigenous species.¹⁵ GMOs have two ways of biopolluting.

The first mainly pertains to plants. GMOs are often capable of reproducing with non-GM crops, producing GM offspring. This endangers cultural foods, or non-GM foods of significance to a culture, and also puts diversity at risk, as traits of hardiness and pesticide resistance that have been engineered into the crop give them an advantage over non GM crops. A recent and rather emotional example took place in Mexico, regarding GM maize. Maize (corn) is a crop traditionally important to Mexico, a home of biodiversity for the crop.  But in 2002, it was found that many of the native varieties had signs of contamination from GM corn, and in 2016, a ban on GM maize was passed in Mexico.¹⁶ Mexico City in particular has a long history of maize worship, so it (as well as other cities with a rich cultural background of foods) undoubtedly be resistant to the introduction of GMOs. This problem is rather difficult to solve, as cultural diversity is usually regarded as positive and should be guarded. It is possible, though, for cities to decide and coordinate with neighboring cities about what GMOs they would be willing to grow, so that no city experiences biological pollution in crops that are culturally valuable.

A second, related issue with GMOs involves the outcompeting of natural species by GMOs. This is one of the reasons behind opposition to the AquaAdvantage salmon, modified to be bigger and thus more fit for eating. If the GM salmon escapes, which is entirely possible in fisheries near the ocean, it will outcompete natural salmon and other fish species native to the ocean, as the GM salmon is larger and can outcompete small species.³

This is a very big problem with using GMOs, and one that can only be controlled, not eliminated. Nonnative invasive species taking over habitats is a phenomena as old as the beginning of transportation and trade. It is difficult to corral escaped species or to control their populations without affecting other native species. While in the scope of a city this might not be of the greatest importance, cities near national parks or other spans of wilderness may experience resistance and indignation from their neighbors. It is possible to model and research the effect of a escaped species, but given the complexity of food webs and ecosystems, these estimates are tentative.

Conclusion

Should we adopt GMOs on a wide scale in our quest to feed the cities of the future? While they have benefits such as increased productivity, added nutrition, and higher resistance to weather and pests and would greatly further our goals, GMOs also carry with them issues such as excessive corporate control and biopollution. It is doubtful that seed ownership can become fully un-monopolized by 2050, and there is always a risk of genetic pollution and endangerment to diversity. Many of these issues are not necessarily problems that can solved by cities alone, but should also be tackled by governments who can implement nationwide uniform policies regarding education about GMOs and other biotechnology.

While the quests to release GMOs from oligopoly and educate the public about GMOs should be ongoing, it is still prudent to take advantage of the benefits of GMOs. Leaping into a world of genetic modification right away is not wise, but a policy of escalation could possibly be employed. It would begin with genetically engineering crops like soybeans and corn which are already largely GMO and could be used for non-human purposes like animal feed, and then moving onto crops such as the papaya or cassava which have noticeable flaws or diseases that could easily fixed by genetic modifications. Then, when consumers grow more accepting, genetic modification of directly consumed foods could occur. They come with a good amount of baggage, but given the potential GMOs have in reducing urban malnutrition and making urban agriculture more efficient and practical, they should not be discounted.