The Great Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms

In 1998, with the onset of genetic modification, scientists the world over debated the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs); the debate is still continuing to this day. The Midwestern United States is right in the middle of this debate as they are prolific producers of GMOs.

In this paper, I will first identify what a GMO is and how the process for genetic modification has evolved. I will then highlight some of the specific issues debated on the topic of GMOs. Finally, I will discuss the specific case of the European Union's objection to the United States' exports of GMOs. From this, I will take the initiative to examine whether or not the European Union (EU) Moratorium is in effect since 1998 has impacted US agriculture in the 6 years it has been in force.

The Scottish Agriculture College (SAC), an institution which is involved in research on genetically modified (GM) products, provides information on the basics of genetic engineering and some of the key issues involved. According to the SAC, "all technological developments have a societal context. They are introduced to meet needs or open new opportunities within society and in turn modify the life of that society in some way."

Science is becoming highly-specialized and more complex, distancing itself from the majority of the population. As a result, society is often surprised by discovery and it is now harder to judge the future implications of such a breakthrough on our environment. Genetic engineering is a perfect example of such a technology; "the scale and impact of its probable effects, and because using the ability to manipulate heritability, and the genetic code, comes close to altering core elements of life" (SAC).

"Genetically modified organisms are organisms whose genetic makeup has been directly altered by humans" (Stilwell & Van Dyke, 2). The genetic makeup of an organism is determined by its Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) sequence, thus the DNA sequence dictates which traits the organism possesses, both genotypic and phenotypic characteristics. The genotypic traits are those which constitute the genetic structure of an organism (OED); phenotypic traits of an organism are those traits which can be used to distinguish one organism from another by observable features or functions, regarded as the effect of its genotype interacting with its environment.

"The process of genetic modification involves identifying the portions of DNA that are responsible for a particular trait in one organism, extracting or copying those DNA sequences, and then introducing them into a different organism. The aim is to change the traits or functions of the recipient organism, and the result is a genetically modified organism" (Stilwell & Van Dyke, 2).

Genetic engineering is not our first attempt at influencing the characteristics of living organisms. "Biotechnology is an evolution of traditional agricultural methods" (IFIC). For thousands of years, humans have taken advantage of methods of selective breeding to attain desirable traits within organisms. Originally, farmers generated seed stock by "saving the best specimens from the harvest for seed and discarding or consuming the less desirable plants" (Hill & Battle, 4).

Other types of selective breeding utilized by humans were the processes of in-breeding, out crossing and hybridization. In-breeding is the "breeding from animals of the same parentage or closely related" for the purpose of retaining certain desirable characteristic of the organism (OED). Out-crossing is "the crossing of an animal or plant with one not closely related to it" in the hopes that the offspring will inherit the desirable traits of both parent organisms (OED). Hybridization is "cross-breeding between parents of [slightly] different species" for the purpose of producing an organism with the desirable traits of both parent organisms (OED).

Both domestic animals and crops have characteristics that have been developed through selective breeding. Horse breeds, for example, have been influenced by selective breeding to attain a breed characteristic desirable for their use. In particular, the Thoroughbred has been bred for speed over distances up to 2 miles. Dog breeds are another instance of where selective breeding has taken place; smaller breeds have been developed from their larger relatives. The miniature bull terrier is directly descended from the bull terrier, and thus it shares many of the latter breed's characteristics, with the exception of height. The miniature bull terrier is a scaled down version of the bull terrier as a result of selective breeding; smaller dogs from latter breed were bred for their characteristic petite stature to produce what is now the miniature bull terrier.

Humans have also contributed to genetic modification by altering the reproductive behaviors of related species which may not breed in the wild because of reproductive or geographic barriers. For instance, horses and donkeys are very closely related species when you look at the evolutionary characteristics of the two animals, thus they share similar strands of DNA. The breeding of the two species, either a female horse and a male donkey (the offspring is referred to as a mule) or a male horse and a female donkey (the offspring is referred to as a hinny, but still considered a mule), is an excellent case of a genetic boundary that otherwise would not have been crossed.

One step further in the process of evolution of GMOs was the search for "mutations with desirable attributes [then] developing and increasing these populations" (Hill & Battle, 4). Mutations in nature have produced many useful products. However, nature's mutations are random, and have no objective and "many of the natural mutations are lethal to the cells in which they occur" (Holt).

Advancing ever further, humans began "making genetic changes through radiation, chemically induced mutagenesis, somaclonal variation, plant tissue culture, cell fusion and introduction of foreign origin genetic material from wild relatives" (Hill & Battle, 4). These methods begat many valuable traits but lacked certainty over the preferred outcome and were considered inefficient.

What is so revolutionary about genetic engineering is that it involves the transfer of genetic material between organisms that would never have been possible through traditional breeding methods. Humans have begun to identify specific genes, including their location and function in one plant in order to transfer those genes into another plant to produce a new species with the desired characteristics of both parent organisms. This is considered genetic engineering or genetic modification.

In genetic modification "vast evolutionary boundaries can be crossed, such as those separating different phyla, or even different kingdoms" (Stilwell & Van Dyke, 2). Human beings are now capable of recombining DNA from organisms that have been on separate evolutionary paths for thousands, maybe millions, of years.

Recently DNA sequences from a human have been placed within mice to produce components for human blood needed for medicine. Another case involves the hybridization of crops, such as corn and soybeans, with pesticide resistant DNA from other organisms. Farmers are now able to kill the weeds using a pesticide called Roundup ^®in their fields planted with Roundup^® Ready Corn (RRC) or Soybeans (RRS).

Due to the revolutionary nature of GMOs, risk and uncertainty undoubtedly follow the use of such organisms and future effects they could have on human lives and the environment. How this new technology should be approached is the main European sentiment on the issue. Conversely, the United States (US) and other countries have decided to approach the issue by following existing statutes, a decision they have not regretted. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also taken this a step further and expressly endorsed GM crops.

When dealing with genetic engineering there is the traditionally ethical argument, which involves the 'humans playing God' debate and the adverse affects created by such an attempt. Another contention questions whether or not GMOs pose a threat to other living organisms or the environment. Additionally, there are the business and marketing aspects.

The ethical claim, 'humans playing God,' can be responded to by contending that humans have been utilizing methods of selective breeding for many years; genetic engineering is only a step forward on the same path. However, there will always be those who feel that genetic modification is unethical. They believe that humans are overstepping boundaries that should not be crossed. Creating life in an unnatural manner is immoral to them.

The second argument is a rather lengthy debate that encompasses many issues dealing with the physical reality of genetic engineering. Within this argument there are three key disagreements: the nature of genetic engineering, the effects on physical health, and the effects on the environment.

The nature of genetic engineering is something that has previously been touched on in this paper. It is the debate about the whether or not genetic engineering is just an 'extension of natural evolution.' Proponents of GM food maintain that this is the case. They point out that "genetic engineering is not restricted to the genes already within a particular species, but that it has access to a much wider choice of genetic material, thus allowing improvements to a species not otherwise possible" (Genetic-ID).

Critics claim that genetic modification is unethical, and creating in the laboratory what could never happen in nature could lead to severe consequences. "In Britain, the Advertising Standards Authority decided that the supporter's argument is sufficiently misleading that biotech companies should not use it in their advertising. It is this deep disagreement over the essential nature of GM food that underlies the entire debate" (Genetic-ID).

In dealing with the disagreement concerning the effects on human health, "proponents of GMO food point out that more than a thousand scientific studies have been done to assess the effects of GMO foods on physical health" (Genetic-ID). They assert that there has been no evidence found during these studies to suggest that GM foods are harmful to human health.

On the contrary, in markets where resistance to GM food is strong, critics argue that all the health-related research on GM food has been performed on animals, and mainly by the biotech companies who produce it. Their response to the supporters' position on the benefit of GMO food is that there is no evidence that it is harmful to human health because there have been no legitimate studies performed to assess any possible concern that may arise for humans. "[E]xtensive testing ... [should be] required before new [products] ... are introduced" (SCOPE). The fundamental assumption of proponents is that GMO food should be 'innocent until proven guilty.' Whereas, the assumption held by critics is that GMO food should be proven safe before it is marketed (Genetic-ID).

Proponents make the case that GMO crops are 'substantially equivalent' to traditional crops. The properties of the crops are significantly similar and no harm to the environment should result from their exposure to the environment. One argument is that "GM crops with enhanced pest resistance greatly reduce the use of chemical pesticides, the residues of which can negatively affect the environment" (SCOPE).

Critics argue that corn, which has been genetically modified to act as an insecticide, by poisoning the insects which eat it, is hardly 'substantially equivalent' to conventional corn. They contend that "negative effects could arise, such as use of herbicides in larger amounts because of greater herbicide resistance of GM foods, that cause residual damage, or 'artificial evolution,' of weed plants resistant to natural pests, and bacteria with resistance to antibiotics" (SCOPE). They indicate there has never been an environmental impact study done on any GMO crop. It is the uncertainty caused by potential environmental damage that has driven extreme activists to set fire to GMO crops in the field.

There has also been substantial debate in the business and marketing sphere. The GMO debate steadily escalated, and the demands from non-GMO markets have become increasingly strict. Businesses in the food industry have had to react with increasingly dramatic steps to meet these demands. At first, an exporter from North America to Europe could offer verbal assurances that the shipment was non-GMO. Then, it became necessary to provide at least one DNA test result demonstrating a low level of GMO contamination. Currently, buyers are insisting on systematic certification programs, with scientific testing at inspection points to determine the presence of GMO products. In such a volatile market, it is increasingly important for a clear understanding of how GMO products should be treated in each individual situation.

The current debate is most prevalent between the United States (US) and European Union (EU). The EU procedure of approving GM imports has induced repercussions that extent all the way back to the Midwest producer and this has caused a rift in the relations between the two states. So large, in fact, that in 1999 a conference was held in Chicago, Illinois to debate the GMO Regulations set forth by the EU.

The conference debated the legality of the EU's regulations, because in the fall of 1998, the EU adopted the world's first regulation demanding that GM foods be clearly labeled, to allow consumer choice. This regulation started a controversy as to the authority of the EU's right to enforce such a measure.

Furthermore, in October of 1999, the "European Union adopted a 1 percent threshold, meaning that it was only those foods that contain more than 1 percent GMO in any ingredient that have to be labeled as containing GMO" (Genetic-ID). Currently, there has been no governmental regulation to establish the threshold below which foods could be labeled 'non-GMO,' but scientific constraints indicate that such a threshold will most likely be less than 0.1 percent.

The European Union set out their current position in a document entitled "Life Sciences and Biotechnology - Towards a Strategic Vision." The document was set forth in Brussels on the 23^rd of January 2002. They proposed two short-term goals, European Parliament and Council "Regulation on Traceability and Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms and Traceability of Food and Feed derivatives from Genetically Modified Organisms...