1

Ethics of GMOs: Best Practice and Fostering Public Awareness

The ethical growth and production of GMOs for human consumption, with a focus on regulation, best practices, and raising public awareness

Tag words: Genetically Modified Organisms, Crops, Best Practice, GMOs, salmon, tomatoes, education, soybeans, corn, pamphlet, community service, public awareness, GMO consumption, GMO regulation, cotton, FDA, USDA-APHIS, Rutgers University.

Authors: Christian Strey, Vinay Shukla, Kevin O’Brien, and Michael Dimtsios with Julie M. Fagan, Ph.D.

Summary

Genetically modified organisms are at the forefront of modern agriculture and causing significant controversy. The ethical dilemma arises from the risks that come with the growth and production of GM plants and animals, which due to the novelty of the science may not be fully understood. It is important then to understand the risks involved and how best to minimize them with best management practices in agriculture and government regulation. It is also of great importance that the public be aware of the potential risks and benefits of GMOs in order to make an educated decision regarding them. We hope to accomplish this be creating a fact sheet to submit to the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station that provides an overview of the science behind genetic modification, the prevalence of GMOs, the benefits, the risks, and the ways these risks are minimized.

Video Link

Ethics of Genetically Modified Organisms: Best Practices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0S7dR00Pls

2

The Issue: GMO

What is the overarching issue?[Start Christian] The global population is expected to grow to 7.5 billion by 2020 thusly one of the most important issues for our society to deal with is the production and growth of its food sources. Food production and agriculture is especially crucial in developing countries where even those who are able to meet their caloric intact are often malnourished due to deficiencies in certain vitamins. While there have been many agricultural and farming movements throughout history the most recent trend, genetic modification, is causing controversy and ethical debate. The ultimate conclusion of this debate will decided the future of the agricultural industry and therefore this choice should not be made without a well informed public. (Andersen-Pinstrup & Schioler, 2001)

In order to properly educate the public it must first be understood what the public knows about GMOs and the rationale behind their opinions. The community service project heavily works towards this notion. Studies have shown that the public tends to react more to the context in which GMOs are used than they do to the science of genetic modification itself. This distinction is perhaps best shown by the greater acceptance of the use of GMOs in the medical field when compared to the use of GMOs in agriculture. The immediate benefits of GMOs in medicine are more easily perceived, and the public believes that the prescription process provides more transparency and greater safety to the consumer.

While the public is not willfully ignorant and holding firmly to false beliefs about genetic modification some studies have shown that there is a significant lack of knowledge on the science behind them, and example being that one poll indicated 70% of the people questioned were not aware that an ordinary tomato contained ‘genes.’ Lastly it is important to understand that the public is aware that there is no such thing as a ‘zero risk’ situation, and will meet any claims that there is nothing to worry about with skepticism. For this reason it is important not just to communicate to the public the potential benefits but to realistically state the potential risks as well. (Marris, 2001) [End Christian]

[Start Vinay] Many science majors at Rutgers University seem to have a good deal of knowledge on the genetics behind a transgene organism, however they do not hold the statistics and current grounds of knowledge to talk about their practical risks and benefits. Many of the students interviewed for our community service project show this trend as we spoke to them. They represent the spectrum of society that is beginning to emerge; yet still they contribute to the ignorance that represent the sentiments towards GMOs. However, the trends of the attitudes the students showed represented quite a positive response towards the implementation of GMOs. Their prior knowledge helped them understand the reason to implement the use of GMOs for consumption, and provides a start to the hypothesis that knowledge of GMOs can allow for more positive reception of the idea of their usage. [End Vinay]

What are GMOs?[Start Christian] Genetic modification is, at its essence, the alteration of the expression or frequency of a particular gene or trait. In these general terms genetic modification is nothing

3

new, as animals and plants have been bred for particular traits for centuries. Modern genetic modification, while adhering to this principle, is not quite as simple or as slow a process.

The cornerstone of all genetic modification is mutation in DNA, the universal genetic code of all organisms. Within the genome, the totality of an organism’s DNA, are sequences called ‘genes’ which code for protein. Making changes to these genes changes the proteins produced by the organism and ultimately affect the traits the organism expresses. Naturally occurring mutation is random and will often have negative consequence if any at all to the organism. In rare cases these random mutations can benefit the organism, or more important to this issue, benefit the agricultural industry. Modern genetic modification in creating GMOs wishes to circumvent the random and time-consuming nature of the process. (Jones, 1999)

How are GMO’s made?Animals: [Continue Christian] The creation of a transgenic organism can be accomplished by several methods depending on the type of organism, the gene of interest, and the goal of the modification. The first step to making a transgenic animal is to take the gene of interest and replicate it several million times over using bacteria. The gene is inserted into the bacteria as a small circular segment of DNA called a ‘plasmid’. When bacteria grow and divide the plasmid containing the desired gene is copied. The plasmid can then be removed from the bacteria, the gene of interest cut from the plasmid, and the fertilized egg of an animal injected with millions of copies of the gene. This will lead to the creation of a recombinant transgenic animal approximately 1% of the time. In most cases either all of the animals cells or none at all will possess the desired gene. Animals can also be genetically modified through the use of a viral vector, which offers the unique advantage of selecting a particular cell type to express a gene of interest while leaving all other cells unaltered. (Marris, 2001)Plants: Alternatively the creation of transgenic plants requires a slightly different approach. Introducing a bacterium called agrobacterium, which, while naturally pathogenic to plants, can be stripped of its virulence, can genetically modify plants. While the bacterium will no longer kill the plant it will still transfer its plasmid into the host plants genome. If this plasmid has been genetically modified then the exposed plant cells will carry the gene of interest. These plant cells, if grown under appropriate conditions will yield roots and stems. (Marris, 2001) [End Christian]

Prevalence of GMOs [Start Michael + Kevin] The first genetically modified plant approved by the FDA was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994. This tomato was given a gene for aminoglycoside 3'-phosphotransferase II, which slowed the ripening process while still giving the tomato its healthy red color. (Bruening & Lyons, 2000) In recent years the use of GMOs has risen significantly with at least 60% of the food products sold in supermarkets containing GMOs in 1999. This is likely due to the benefits that can be obtained by using genetic modification.

Currently sixty-three percent of the acreage corn grown in the U.S. is Bt corn. Eighty-six percent of corn produced has some biotech engineering. This is has been a huge explosion from the eight percent of U.S. corn acreage used in 1997, the year after Bt corn hit the market. Corn is not the only crop that has seen an overwhelming shift toward genetic modification. In 2010 ninety-three percent of acres were devoted to HT soybeans and seventy-three percent of acres were devoted

4

to Bt cotton. With these statistics it is not shocking that seventy to seventy-five percent of processed foods are estimated to contain some genetically modified ingredients. (USDA: Economic Research Service, 2010) (USDA: ERS, 2010)

The following graph from the USDA shows the rapid increase in genetically modified foods. HT refers to herbicide tolerant strains, and Bt refers to insect resistant strains (Bacillus thuringiensis). (Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/)

The next graph shows the worldwide use of genetically modified crops in the world in 2004 from the USDA. As you can see there are many countries already implementing this technology.(James, 1997) [End Michael and Kevin]

5

What are the Benefits of GMOs?[Start Christian] Crops that have built in insecticides and herbicide resistance can be grown, which has been shown to reduce tillage between 25-58% and insecticide sprays between 14-76%. Genetic modification can also be used to create plant strains that are resistant to dry conditions allowing them to be planted and grown in areas that were previously unable to be farmed. This would allow crops to be grown in the more arid regions of world greatly expanding the area of available farmland. Along with allowing growth in drying regions such modifications give plants built in drought resistance preventing losses in a bad growing season.

Crops can be grown to have enhanced nutrient contents, which is especially beneficial in third world countries. It is estimated that roughly 125 million people worldwide are vitamin A deficient and could greatly benefit from consuming GMO rice rich in vitamin A. These modifications seem to have a net positive effect; in recent surveys of farmers growing GMO crops 74% have reported improved yields, while 72% have reported improved economic performance. (Milis, 2006) (Carpenter, 2010)

What are the risks of GMOs?Accidental pollination of standard crops with GMO crops could be harmful to adjacent farms that do not wish to grow a GMO product. The built in herbicide resistance may be exploited by pollination of compatible weeds nearby to a farm confirming the trait to harmful plants. The use of built in insecticides may also be harmful in that it could lead to insects resistant to insecticides. The greater acceptance of GMO crops may also lead to the homogenization of certain food crops, which could prove potentially disastrous in the event that the crop strain falls victim to a blight, causing a massive reduction in the availability of that crop. The effects of GMOs on human physiology must also be taken into consideration and certain changes could aggravate food allergies and otherwise make the product difficult to digest. The wide spread use of GMOs may also have a significant economic impact and could lead to the creation of monopolies over a particular crop strain. (Milis, 2006)

Another risk that accompanies the growth of genetically modified crops is the possibility of bacteria acquiring some of these transgenic elements and significantly raising their fitness. This is of the greatest concern when the use of antibiotic resistance markers in the process of creating GM crops is considered. Genes for kanamycin and ampicillin resistance are commonly used markers to identify whether or not a cell has received the desired genetic modification. Were these genes to be picked up by a bacteria from a GM crop it would be significantly more difficult to combat them with antibiotics.

It must be understood however that the acquisition of such genes by bacteria is remarkably difficult. In lab settings it has been documented that there is a roughly one in ten trillion chance of such an event. It must be further understood that kanamycin is rarely ever used in humans anymore, and ampicillin is often coupled with beta lactamase inhibitors for the very purpose of combating antibiotic resistance. (GMO Compass, 2006) [End Christian]

6

How are these risks minimized?Regulatory Bodies involved with GMOs[Start Michael and Kevin] In 1986 The Federal Government of the United States of America established a formal system for evaluating GMOs and other biotech products. This system is a collection of already existing U.S. Government agencies that work together to develop laws and regulations to ensure the safety of the public and the environment based on reviews of reports supplied by the manufacturers. These reports include the name and uses of the new plant or animal, the genetic changes made, the percent of the DNA that is removed, changed or introduced, and if the plant or animal would generate an unexpected allergic response. The agencies that make up the regulatory body are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (National Biological Information Infrastructure, 2010) (National Biological Information Infrastructure, 2010)

The USDA-APHIS is the main line of defense in the protection of agriculture from pests and diseases. The Plant Protection act gives the USDA-APHIS regulatory oversight on plants that have been changed or produced by genetic modifications. Areas of oversight of GM products include their introduction into the environment, their transportation, imports into the country and experimental field trials. USDA-APHIS provides producers with an opportunity to submit a petition to obtain a non-regulated status. If the petition is accepted the product is no longer subject to oversight. (National Biological Information Infrastructure, 2010)

Pesticides produced by GMOs are under the regulation of the EPA. The Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) determine these regulations. Sales, distribution, use and field-testing are all regulated by this governmental organization. Producers must register products with the EPA. With registration the EPA has the ability to establish specific permitted uses. The EPA also applies the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to regulate potential hazards in use, production, distribution and disposal of the product. (National Biological Information Infrastructure, 2010)

The FDA is responsible for maintaining safety and labeling standards for foods and feeds excluding meat, poultry, and eggs. The FDA accomplishes this through the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which places responsibility on manufacturers to provide safe and properly labeled products. The FDA recommends that manufacturers participate in a consultation process to ensure they meet the standards set. All GM crops have currently gone through this voluntary consultation. These crops were all deemed to be free of food additives and thus do not require approval before they are marketed. Recently the FDA has also been empowered to approve or deny the use of genetically modified animals. (National Biological Information Infrastructure, 2010) [End Michael]

[Continue Kevin] The European Union gives another example of how GM food and feeds can be regulated. Beginning in the 1990’s the EU developed and put into effect legislation concerning GMOs. The main purpose of the legislation was to create a set of guidelines to allow GMOs to move freely through the EU and to protect human health and environmental quality. Before any

7

product containing GMOs is allowed to enter the market the manufacturers must seek authorization from all Member States of the EU. (Europa.eu, 2007)

The Member States conduct an environmental risk assessment of the product, which determines if any traits of that GMO may induce adverse effects. The European Food Safety Authority performs risk assessments, which is a group of experts from the Member States. Once these traits are determined their potential consequences, the likelihood that these consequences will occur and how and if these consequences can be reduced and managed. Member States are also able to conduct their own risk assessments and prohibit products to be used in their territory. (Europa.eu, 2007)

The traceability of a GM product is important in regulation. Traceability allows the products to be tracked throughout the supply and consumption network making potential problems detectable. The EU requires that the GM status is revealed to all parties involved. Currently in the EU only GM crops are permitted, including cotton, rape, soy, and corn. There is no GM yeast, bacteria, fungi or animals that are approved to enter the food supply. Intertwined in this, is the issue of labeling GM products. (National Biological Information Infrastructure, 2010) (Europa.eu, 2007)

Since 1997 mandatory GM food and feed labeling has been required. This is done to inform the consumer which allows for a choice to be made. Mandatory labeling is applicable to individually sold foods that are genetically modified, processed foods that contain genetically modified ingredients and foods or feeds that contain additives that a produced by GMOs. Products like meats and eggs that come from organisms fed GM feed are not required to be labeled. There is a labeling exemption for non-GMO products that contain less than 0.9% GMOs due to unintended contaminations. Labeling is enforced individually by each Member state of the EU. (National Biological Information Infrastructure, 2010) (GMO Compass, 2010)

Best Practice: [Continue Kevin] A best practice is a technique or method for obtaining a desired outcome that is the most effective and efficient way under the specific conditions. They are an evolving process, which integrates new discoveries and improvements into the original technique. The application of best practices can provide a standard set of procedures across many independent entities. This standardization allows for policies and oversight to be established for specific processes. Best practices are applied to production, employees, management, the environment and government. Best practices may not be limited to the description of a beneficial procedure, but may just strive to deal with efficiency, revenue generation, accuracy, and savings. (Dept. of Agriculture, 2006) [End Kevin]

Best Practice on the molecular level: [Start Christian] The gene of interested is often multiplied in a plasmid vector possessed by a bacterium. This present the possibility of unwanted horizontal gene transfer of the gene of interest or the marker genes (often antibiotic resistance) possessed by the bacterium. To minimize the effect of horizontal gene transfer the ability of these cells to conjugate, or transfer plasmid DNA, with other bacteria is inactivated by removing a gene called the “tra sequence” which allows for conjugation to take place. In this way horizontal gene transfer from the plasmid vector is significantly diminished. (Students Guide) [End Christian]

8

Best Practice as it relates to specific crops: [Start Kevin + Vinay] The best practice that stemmed from BT corn deals with preventing the spread of fertilizing components to neighboring fields. To address this the formulation of a best practices for Bt corn growers begins with knowing what type of GMO seeds are being planted. Basic planting instructions are provided by seed manufacturers and should be followed. Knowledge of the aspects of planting fields and neighboring fields is important. These aspects include the direction of prevailing winds, planting dates and whether neighboring fields contain GMO or non-GMO crops. By knowing how far the pollen travels, physical barriers can be put in place to prevent contamination of neighboring fields. (UMN.edu)

Physical barriers include erecting mesh or fencing around crops or growing them in isolated areas such as warehouses. With these solutions proper nutrient and sunlight conditions come into play. A more natural solution is planting some non-GMO corn adjacent to neighboring farms or allowing bushes and trees to grow between farms to create a safe-zone between neighboring fields. Biological barriers can also be implemented to prevent cross contamination. This is obtained by having different planting dates for neighboring farms resulting in staggered pollination periods. Equipment use, transportation and storage of crops all require careful separation between GMO and non-GMO crops to prevent cross contamination. Resistant pests are also a concern in agriculture and the best practice to minimize this is maintaining a rotation between GMO and non-GMO crops. (UMN.edu) [End Kevin]

[Continue Vinay] Other more general methods of minimizing cross-pollination by genetically modified crops are being intensely researched and implemented on many farms. For instance several GM crops, corn, rapeseed, and cereal crops not included, can be grown sterile, such that any pollen given off by the male plants cannot fertilize any neighboring plants. Systems that block the germination of unwanted seeds are also being looked. Some of these would disallow the growth of crosses between GM pollen and non-GM plants while still allowing for the pollination of a pure GM strain. (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2001)

A case study done by Mark K. Sears in conjunction with the USDA worked towards a goal of determining the harm of Bt corn mainly to monarch butterflies. Their studies yielded a higher level of Bt protein in their pollen than expected. This toxicity may prove to be a vector for spreading the genetic modification where it may not be wanted. Crops that were affected did not adhere to strict Best Practice procedures because of their denial to enclose the GM crops they were raising. Although the study concluded with the final fact that Bt corn did not threaten the existence or thriving of Monarchs, it opened up the discussion about possible transmission of the genetic modifications as detailed in the risk of GMOs.

GM Soybeans: A study performed by Brera, C. et.al, suggests a sample procedure to define how much a genetically modified GM RR (genetically modified round-up ready) soybean comprises different lots. They used genetic PCR techniques to analyze how to go about labeling food that would come from those lots. Their best practice comes from analyzing seven different lots of three different starting percentages and using a variety of percentages that GM soybeans have affected. Their procedure that follows their self-developed best practice guidelines and strives to aid governmental regulation of labeling how much of the product is genetically modified. The procedure employs the use of a water to sample 1:1 slurry to be genetically analyzed. They

9

employ strict numerical values and everything is meticulously measured before it is worked with.(C. BRERA, 2005)

Besides from testing for viable labeling methods for the future, current projects for GM soybeans are also directed towards digestibility of the GM product. The team of Shim et.al focused their efforts on physiological based in vitro digestion and fermentation (in the lab, not within any organism). Their research also indicates the importance of the soybean as one of the most widely planted. The GM soybeans they focused on possess a gene that exerts herbicide and/or insecticide resistance, such as the EPSPS gene from Agrobacterium tumefaciens CP4. They wanted to study the nutritional value of the protein from soybeans and its digestibility. They simulated salivary, gastric, and intestinal conditions in vitro by the USP standards. The only problem was that they were not able to measure basal levels since everything was engineered. These regulations of preparing materials were the first step to following a best practice. To extrapolate the data, both SDS-PAGE and Western blot analyses were done. Their positive results for testing a certain protein after inserting into GM soybeans proves the nutritional value of even GM foods. (C. BRERA, 2005)

GM cotton: Although not for consumption, cotton was among the first GM crops to be grown in 1996. There has been much talk about whether a GM crop can actually be used to sustain life. If we refrain from speaking about any physiological risks from direct consumption, we can turn our attention to any risks from using not-for-consumption GM crops. GM Cotton, notably Bt cotton (of the same toxin as Bt corn), is proven to have decreased the gap in fiscal efficiency and reduction of cost for cotton mass production. Direct advantages include facilitation of direct tillage, reducing the need for herbicides and insecticides, improving cultural pest control, reducing need for artificial fertilizers (direct reduction of groundwater contamination), less land may need to be cultivated, less need for irrigation, and may assist pollution control. Risks for Bt cotton include the promotion of new crop protection chemicals in place of the old, could increase the rate of extinction of certain ecology in an ecosystem leading to a reduction of that ecosystem, and perhaps if the best practices are followed, an increase in irrigation may be expected. The genetic modification of corn may be focused on any of the following: drought tolerance, color, resistance to pests, odor, etc. Evidence has suggested that Bt cotton would increase profits for non-resourceful farmers, and the current projection is for the growth of cotton to help individual farmers’ economies as well as those of third world countries. (Shim, 2010) [End Vinay]

Best Practice as it relates to specific animals: [Start Kevin] Considering that the FDA has not approved any genetically modified animals yet, the best practices for animals can only be speculated by what AquaBounty (the company that created the salmon), the public, and the FDA have been hinting at. (Food and Drug Association, 2010)

Perhaps one of the more famous genetically modified organisms is the salmon. With the need for more fish, large-scale “fish farms” have been created. In order to try to maximize these farms, scientists have been able to genetically modify these fish to grow to a larger size as well as survive is colder conditions. In order to do this, scientists have been able to insert two genes into these salmon. One codes for an anti-freeze protein, while the other codes for a growth hormone. Both of these genes were inserted using bacteria DNA. These salmon had the same size, deformities, and lifespan of a wild-type salmon. These salmon grow much larger and can survive

10

in harsher conditions, which makes them ideal for large-scale breeding. (Food and Drug Association, 2010) (NASCO, 2010)

With GM animals, a few considerations need to be taken into question, besides the standard ones for genetically modified foods in general. Probably the most prevalent question is what would happen if these animals escaped into the wild. There is very little question that these salmon would have a distinct fitness advantage over other Atlantic salmon. With this fitness advantages GM salmon may interbreed with wild Atlantic salmon or outcompete them. This would result in the loss of the naturally occurring species. (NASCO, 2010)

These issues make containment the major concern in aquaculture of GM salmon. Best practices address this concern with proposals of physical, biological and geographical containment of all life stages. Physical containment best practices include raising fish in tanks away from natural settings and the use of screens and netting to prevent the escape of fish. Biological containment best practices are using only a single sex population or inducing sterility in the population. Geographical containment best practice is setting up aquaculture in climates and other conditions that ensure that escaped fish enter an environment unsuitable to survival. When all containment measures fail it is a best practice to monitor and if possible recover all escapees. (Food and Drug Association, 2010) [End Kevin]

[Start Michael] Sustainable management is another best practice. The proposed area for aquaculture should be able to be used indefinitely. This is a site with good water exchange, which reduces farm-related environmental impacts. Best practices to reduce environmental impacts are minimizing fish food waste, promoting disease prevention and minimizing reliance on chemicals. (Fernandes, 2001)

While salmon are the most famous case, a newer genetically modified animal produced may also be approved. EnviroPig, engineered by researchers in Canada, may help reduce water pollution if approved. These pigs produce an enzyme in their saliva that breaks down a usually indigestibleform of phosphorus, phytate. This phytate makes up about 50-75% of phosphorus in cereal grains, which then ends up in manure. This phosphorus eventually makes its way to lakes and streams, which promote the growth of algae, which can create an anaerobic water environment.(University of Guelph, 2010)

Very little has been mentioned about best practices for this animal, but researchers have already started to address some. While the enzyme is stable in the very acidic environment of the stomach, the proteases in the small intestine can break down this enzyme, so none of this enzyme ends up in the manure. Also, since this enzyme is produced in the saliva, there is very little chance the enzyme would make its way or be produced in the meat. In addition, there is always a chance of pig escape, however, it is probably less likely in a pig farm, and these pigs do not have a large evolutionary advantage, if any. (University of Guelph, 2010) (Minard, 2010)

An older genetically modified animal created was the engineering of a special cow. After the large “mad cow disease” scare in the earlier part of this decade, researchers began looking for the gene that caused it. Once discovered, biotechnologists began trying to genetically modify cows to be unable to have this gene, or to knock it out.” In 2007, scientists finally created a cow in

11

which the defective gene that caused mad cow disease was knocked out. In preliminary studies the cows were of normal size and normal health conditions of a wild cow. In addition, studies showed that these cows, and cells for these cows, were not susceptible to the prions (mis-folded proteins). It is these prions that cause mad cow disease. (Weiss, 2007)

The concerns with the genetically modified cows, as well as those with any animal, are those of safe consumptions by humans. Since these cows a relatively recent discovery, and that they live for over 15 years, any kind of judgment on safe consumption is a long ways away. In addition, as always, there is the chance of these cows escaping and emerging into the wild. Again, since cows live for a relatively long time, breeding studies have not been conducted.

Other animals have been created, for instance cows that produce higher protein milk, or other fish that are cold resistant. However, all of these animals are still in testing phases to be sure they are not allergic. (Cummins & Ho, 2006)

A final concern dealing with best practices, if approved by the FDA for human consumption, is how these animals will be labeled, if any. While some labeling will deter some people, other people think that no labeling will prevent the purchase of these animals altogether. However, thisdiscussion is still a long way away. [End Michael]

GMOs and best practice at Rutgers University:[Start Christian] Recent research at Rutgers University by Pal Maliga and Zora Svab indicates that it may be possible to minimize cross-pollination between GM crops and non-GM crops by making an alteration to the genetic engineering process. Typically new genetic material is added to and incorporated by the nucleus of the plant cell. This however leads to high instances in which the gene can be carried by seeds and pollen to areas where it is not desirable. However, by incorporating the new gene into a different compartment of the plant cell, the plastid, the chances of pollen from a GM plant carrying the new genes is significantly reduced, occurring between .002—.0002% of the time. It should be noted however that the incidence of plastid transmission via pollen likely varies depending on the particular species and strain of plant being dealt with.

In conclusion, GMOs have given us a lot to think about and a lot to spread the word about. GMOs are indeed at the pinnacle of our agricultural future as we move forward in the 21st

century. [End Christian]

The Service Project: Pamphlet for Awareness

[Start Vinay] For our community service project, we compiled a list of facts from our very own classipedia and organized them into a concise and visually appealing pamphlet to be submitted to the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. We lined the pamphlet with a great deal of facts and images to stir personal feelings towards the issue. We not only wanted the community service portion of the project to spread awareness of how GMOs have been handled and how the future looks in terms of GMOs, but we also wanted to get a general understanding of how our fellow Rutgers students felt about the issues.

12

The fact sheet/pamphlet was used as a launching point for our video, of which the goal was to spread awareness about GMOs. We sought to enlighten and encourage those who didn’t know much about GMOs to read some literature on the matter after becoming acquainted with our pamphlet. For those who didn’t know anything about GMOs, the resistance was a bit stronger than the many science majors we encountered. The great deal of science-based majors who knew the basics of GMOs, but didn’t quite know their facts as well as they thought, all responded positively to the idea of consuming genetically modified organisms with the caveat that the food be regulated. Many people we spoke to didn’t want to be on camera, but a good deal of them were pro-consuming genetically modified organisms. Many of the responses besides “as long as they were approved by a familiar governmental agency, like the FDA” were focused on the path of simplicity in the future.

Most of our approach to GMOs and how we were selling them was modified after the completion of our quest to see how the public thought of GMOs. After learning that essentially all of the students at Rutgers were interested in the advent of more genetic modification techniques, we altered our focus a little. Instead of asking how they felt, we started trying to understand what kinds of changes, if any, would improve the current GMO situation if they were familiar with it.

The community service portion of the project helped our group to understand the attitudes of the general public and educate those who didn’t feel that Genetically Modified Organisms were the forefront of our agricultural future. We connected with an array of people about a subject that is very highly discussed amongst agriculturists, farmers, horticulturists, and the like, but not very highly discussed amongst non-science majors. We also spoke to people a bit about “organic” foods off camera. Many non-science majors were deterred by the idea of genetic modification and were drawn to the idea of “eating organic” without actually understanding the idea behind organic and GM. Our growth as students and ethical beings was greatly tested by interactions with our community that we have grown ourselves with over the last several years. [End Vinay]

[Citations entered by Vinay][Community Service Pamphlet compiled, formatted, and cited by Vinay, Research by all][Classipedia proofread by all][140-character summary by Christian][Video edited by Vinay and Michael][Work done by group members continues in passage unless otherwise noted][Tag Words by Vinay]Youtube Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0S7dR00Pls

References

University of Guelph. (2010). EnviroPig. Retrieved from University of Guelph, Canada: http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/UMN.edu. (n.d.). Plan for Coexistence. Retrieved from http://www.misa.umn.edu/vd/GMOlegal-21_web.pdf

13

USDA: Economic Research Service. (2010). Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the US: Extent of Adoption. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/adoption.htmUSDA: ERS. (2010). Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the US. Retrieved from USDA.GOV: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/Weiss, R. (2007). Scientists Announce Mad Cow Breakthrough. Retrieved from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123100672.htmlAndersen-Pinstrup, P., & Schioler, E. (2001). Seeds of Contention: World Hunger and the Global Controversy Over Genetically Modified Crops (Vol. 33). Washington, D.C., D.C., USA.Bruening, G., & Lyons, J. (2000). The Case of th FLAVR SAVR Tomato. Retrieved 2010, from California Agriculture: http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v054n04p6&fulltext=yes Cummins, J., & Ho, M.-W. (2006). Genetically Modified Food Animals Coming. Retrieved from Institute of Science in Society: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Genetically_Modified_Food_Animals_Coming.phpC. BRERA, E. D. (2005). Evaluation of Sampling Criteria for the Detection of GM Soybeans in Bulk (Vol. 17).Carpenter, J. (2010). Carpenter Peer Reviewed Surveys Powerpoint.Europa.eu. (2007). Europa.eu Press Releases RAPID. Retrieved from europa.edu: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/117&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enFernandes, T. A.-M. (2001). The scientific principles underlying the monitoring of the environmental impacts of aquaculture. Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag , 17 (181-193).Food and Drug Association. (2010). An overview of Atlantic salmon, its natural history, aquaculture, and genetic engineering. Retrieved from fda.gov: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/ucm222635.htmGMO Compass. (2006). Food Safety Evaluation: Antibiotic Resistance Genes, a Threat?Retrieved from GMO Compass: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/46.antibiotic_resistance_genes_threat.htmlGMO Compass. (2010). GMO Compass. Retrieved from GMO Compass: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/labelling/96.labelling_gm_foods_frequently_asked_questions.htmlJames, C. (1997). Global Status of Transgenic Crops in 1997. ISAAA .Jones, L. (1999). Genetically Modified Foods. Science, Medicine, and the future , 318 (581).NASCO. (2010). BMP Guidance.National Biological Information Infrastructure. (2010). NBII. Retrieved from NBII.gov: http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/National Biological Information Infrastructure. (2010). NBII. Retrieved from NBII.gov: http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/roles.aspMarris, C. (2001). Public Views on GMOS: Deconstructing the myths. 2 (7).Medical News Today. (2007). GM/GMO/Biotech Crop Containment Strategy Solved By Rutgers. Retrieved from Medical News Today: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/73438.phpMilis, N. (2006). Genetically Modified Organisms paper prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Department of the Environment and Heritage .

14

Minard, A. (2010). Gene-Altered "Enviropig" to Reduce Dead Zones? (National Geographic) Retrieved from National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-zones/Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (2001, September). GMO Laws. Retrieved from https://sakai.rutgers.edu/access/content/group/9ecea1d6-c7f0-4d61-aba7-63bb700e15b2/Genetically%20Modified%20Organisms%20-%20Best%20Practice/4811931.pdf Shim, S., et al. (2010). Assessing the digestibility of genetically modified soybean: Physiologically based in vitro digestion and fermentation model. Food Research International , 43 (40-45).Students Guide. (n.d.). Types of Plasmids. Retrieved from Students Guide: http://www.studentsguide.in/microbiology/true-bacteria-eubacteria/types-of-plasmids.html

Editorials:

Christian Strey:Submitted to: New York TimesThe Ethical Dilemma of GMO Crops

One of the greatest trials humanity has to face is how best to make use of the resources we possess. While the global population continues to skyrocket the overall resources of the planet remain regretfully finite. Scarcity of resources is commonplace and shows no sign letting up in the near or distant future. Sometimes this scarcity is a simple matter of supply and demand and can be overlooked as a triviality. Unfortunately there are many occasions in which the scarcity of resources is a matter of life and death. Perhaps one of the most important questions we can ask as a society is this: How best can we feed our growing global community, while taking into consideration dwindling water supplies, a shortage of farmable land, and the various factors that affect crop yield?

One of the most promising solutions to the problem at hand, to feeding the growing masses effectively, is the use of genetic modification. For centuries all farmers have practiced their own sort of genetic modification, selecting plants that possessed favorable traits and breeding them to create a new generation of plants better suited towards their needs. Just as these farmers selected favorable mutations when growing their crops modern biotechnologists select favorable mutates to insert into food crops to improve them. The main difference between the two being that breeding a specific trait may take decades or more, while genetic modification can be accomplished over a relatively short amount of time.

Using genetic modification the characteristics of certain food crops can be altered in such a way that their yields can be drastically improved. One such modification could be the insertion of a gene for drought resistance. A crop possessing such a gene would not only be able to survive a potentially catastrophic dry spell, but also require less water and irrigation for normal growth. Such a trait would be invaluable for growing crops in the more arid regions of the United States that were previously unable to be farmed, as well as dry regions abroad. The end result of such a modification being that crops can now be grown over a greater area than was previously feasible, they are more resistant to an unpredictable climate, and less water needs to be used during the growing.

Another important genetic modification that can be introduced into a food crop is herbicide resistance and the production of natural pesticides. The apparent advantage here is that

15

invasive weeds and other unwanted plants can be removed with ease using herbicides that would have previously done harm to the desired crop. Along with the addition of built in pest resistance, which in turn leads to a diminished use of chemical sprays, the overall yield of a crop can be improved simply because less of the planted crop dies off during the growing process.

With genetic modification many fruits and vegetables can be fortified to contain nutrients not native to their plant species. Such changes have far reaching implication for the third world. Certain regions, while able to satisfy the caloric needs of their diet, are simply unable to obtain all of the nutrients required to stay healthy. Such dietary stress could be alleviated by growing, for example, rice fortified with vitamin A. Even here in the US the growth of fortified fruits and vegetables could greatly improve the health of citizens whose diets are less than ideal.

Despite its apparent advantages this scientific breakthrough is being met with significant resistance. Groups have emerged that have championed the growth of traditional crops and in some cases fully organic crops over the new genetically modified variety. While superficially it would seem that these groups have the best interest of the people in mind their claims tend to possess a significant degree of impracticality and scientific ignorance. It is important to understand which of their arguments have merit and which do not, and to weigh the risks of genetic modification against the potential benefits of their use.

The first thing that should be taken into consideration is the safety of the consumer of genetically modified food products. The ingestion of “foreign” DNA, for example, is a complete non-issue. No horizontal gene transfer can occur between from the simple ingestion of DNA. This is not to say however that such genes could not be picked up by bacteria, however the riskhere is minimal. These genes, though novel to the genetically modified organism, were already part of a different gene pool that the bacteria likely had equal access to. The ingestion of an allergen or a toxin produced by the genetically modified food is also possible, but this too is unlikely. The genes used to modify these crops have been carefully studied and the odds of a negative effect being overlooked are slim.

It is also important to consider the more local effects of growing GMO crops. Neighboring farms may find themselves growing a GMO crop against their will when pollen from a GMO farm blows into their field. Measures must be taken by both farmers to minimize such a risk. There is also a chance that genes such as herbicide resistance might be acquired by nearby weeds that are compatible with the GMO crop being grown. Again, this risk must be understood and the proper measure put in place to prevent such an event from occurring.

The question we must ask ourselves when it comes to whether or not to embrace the growth of genetically modified crops is this: Do the possible risks outweigh the definite benefits? If GMOs and their potential risks and benefits are properly understood I believe it will be more than apparent that they do much more good than they do harm.______________________________________________________________________________

Mike Dimtsios:Submitted to: Asbury Park PressDo not fear genetically modified animals

In the last century biotechnology has brought us many useful advances in the world of science, including vaccines, fruits, vegetables, and grains that grow faster and are disease resistant, and genetic testing. However, many people shudder at the thought of bringing genetically modified animals their families’ plates. The truth is, these newly designed animals are fit for consumption and are better for our fragile environment.

16

Currently the FDA is considering approval of genetically modified salmon and pigs. The salmon has two genes inserted into their DNA. The first allows them to survive in colder temperatures, and the other results in faster growth. The approval of these fish would allow fish farms, which already produce a large number for salmon, to produce even more. These salmon have been tested, and do not contain anything unnatural for fish, including bacterial DNA.

The genetically modified pigs contain one new gene, which produces an enzyme in the pig’s saliva. This enzyme allows a certain form of phosphorus found in a normal pig’s diet to be digested. This means that less phosphorus needs to be added to the pig’s diet, which means that less ends up as manure, and eventually as a pollutant in lakes and streams.

The approval of these animals would allow these types of farms to be more environmentally conscious, as well as allow more food to be produced. And as our population increases both issues will need to be addressed.______________________________________________________________________________

Vinay Shukla:Submitted to Jersey Journal: Risks and Reward

The risks and rewards of biotechnology being used to create genetically modified organisms have been of much controversy among my friends recently. We don’t normally sit around and chat if a salad is organic or not, but the other day we got into as heated a debate as our prior knowledge on the subject allowed. The only thing any of us realized was that most of us didn’t know much at all about genetically modified foods in the first place.

I started with some basic research about what a “GMO” is. A simple Google search will give you lengthy articles using scientific terminology to describe the process. For our discussion’s sake, my non-science major friends would not appreciate such a tangent, so my search continued. I needed to find several talking points about what GMOs were, upon which I exclaimed to myself that I hadn’t chosen a stance either for or against GMOs myself!

Lots of people in the public form a negative opinion on GMOs, and base their stances and discussions on this preconceived notion. The negative connotation behind what is being modified and what it means when they ingest the modified food is usually unclear to the consumer. These consumers with vague ideas often “buy organic” because they hear it’s safer to ingest.

There is also the flip side of the coin that deems GMO production a great opportunity to feed the hungry in third world countries. The mass production capabilities of GMOs would lend to alleviation of hunger when the food becomes cheap enough to produce.

The true coin, however, proves not to be as simple as the coin above. GMOs are, after all, modified in the field by gene replacement/mutation therapy. The ecological ramifications only begin at displaced fertilization of neighboring fields. The consumer should not be alarmed at the false notion of GM foods being harmful, notwithstanding the ecological problems. GM food is to be regulated both by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) according to the 1986 Coordination Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology Act. The same agency that monitors non-genetically modified foods that we the consumers purchase and ingest, also monitors the genetically modified food on the supermarket’s shelves.

The topic of GM foods has been visited and revisited since the idea emerged. The topic of GM foods tends to be one is only reported on at times a new regulation has surfaced or a new problem has replaced the ones that were solved. My friends and I later decided to find out what other people thought about GM food as an indication of whether this topic needs to be revisited

17

more often to become widespread public knowledge. The polling of classroom friends at Rutgers may be considered an arbitrary measure of the public opinion on genetically modified food, so I pose the question: how much do you, the consumer, look into the genetic modifications of the food you eat? How do you feel towards the topic of GM food? The governmental regulations require all foods genetically modified to be labeled as such, how does this label have to be before you notice it? In any case, I hope you take all the information you receive about genetically modified organisms with a grain of salt from now on.______________________________________________________________________________

Kevin O’ BrienSubmitted to the Home News Tribune:

I’ll have the genetically engineered hamburger with a side of genetically engineered coleslaw. To drink, I will have a genetically engineered glass of chocolate milk. Would you order that next time you sit down at your favorite diner or fast food restaurant? Yes, you probably would, but the term genetically engineered, would be omitted from the order. The truth is what foods you are served at restaurants and what you are serving yourself at home are probably G.E. produced foods.

The Center For Food Safety reveals a shocking estimate that seventy to seventy-five percent of the food in supermarkets is in some way genetically engineered. Under current regulations put in place by the FDA only G.E. foods that have a significant difference in nutritional properties or the presences of allergens that a consumer would not expect to find in such a food must be labeled stating the differences.

The questions are: is genetically engineered food good for us and why don’t we know which foods we consume are genetically engineered? Maybe because the agribusiness in this country has enough money and influence to keep laws from being implemented that would enlighten us on the entire situation. The companies that control the food we eat do not want us to know which meats, dairy and produce has been genetically manipulated, because it may concern us. And that could be bad for their profits, if we decided not to buy G.M. foods.

Currently more than ever we are bombarded with information on the healthiest ways to eat. Yet no one has done any reliable long-term studies to know if genetically engineered foods are posing a health risk. Without this knowledge I find it only suiting that the American public demand to be informed. Several other countries including the European Union and Japan have required a form of mandatory labeling. In our own country organic growers must go through inspections and extensive supply chain precautions to earn the USDA certified organic label. So I ask where is the harm in imposing a label for those who implement genetic engineering practices. The supposed lower costs of production due to genetic engineering should allow for minor costs in supplying the public with a label.

Once again as Americans we are stuck between our beloved capitalism and our never-ending pursuit of freedom. Will we choose to demand the freedom of knowledge and choice of what we consume or will we follow the all mighty dollar blindly into the future?