Genetically Engineered Food:

People have tried to solve the problem of world hunger for many years. The most recent attempt at ending world hunger is using genetically engineered plants and food to produce more food more efficiently. Genetic engineering is taking a gene which brings about a favorable trait in a plant such as resistance to drought and adding that gene to the DNA of another plant which does not possess that favorable trait. The result is that the plant which has the gene inserted has the physical trait that comes from the gene, but other changes can occur when the genetics of plants are changed; some favorable, some unfavorable. Large companies have been in the forefront of research in this area and have produced many genetically engineered foods which the companies say are healthful and benefit third world countries. At the same time, many special-interest groups have formed to oppose genetically engineered food. Those groups argue that genetically engineered food is not healthful and also may be detrimental to the environment. They also argue that genetically engineered food is detrimental to the economies of third-world countries and to farmers in well-developed countries.

I will talk about one application of genetic engineering that is not very well-known although it is used greatly in society called biopharming. This involves genetically engineering crops to produce pharmaceutical proteins and chemicals those plants do not naturally produce. Companies save money by producing these chemicals using biopharming. Those who oppose genetically engineered food say that biopharming is dangerous to people, the environment, and to other crops nearby. “Biopharm traits could spread through pollen carried by wind or insects, spilled seed, seed sprouting the next year (“volunteers”), and biopharm seed residues carried by farm equipment to conventional fields” (Freese). This means that plants genetically engineered to produce chemicals could cross pollinate with crops meant for food consumption. This would be very bad because some of the chemicals made in biopharming are detrimental to one’s health. Since plants process proteins differently than humans, some experts are concerned that a plant-produced “human” protein could be identified as a foreign object by the body and produce a lethal allergic reaction. Growth factors such as erythropoietin are active at billionths of a gram when injected, and “may be harmful by inhalation, ingestion or skin absorption” (Freese). Those handling the substance are advised to wear a respirator and chemical-resistant gloves. Trichosanthin, a potent abortion-inducing drug, has been introduced into tobacco by means of an engineered virus which is also known to infect tomatoes, peppers, and other tobacco relatives. The research chemical avidin causes a vitamin deficiency, and the blood clotter aprotinin can cause pancreatic disease in animals and perhaps humans. Both have been engineered into corn grown in open air. Industrial enzymes grown using corn such as trypsin and antitrypsin are known allergens. Trypsin corn was grown on hundreds of acres throughout the Corn Belt in 2002. Graham Walker, a professor of plant genetics at MIT, agrees saying that with “the induction of new genes into an ecosystem which has never been exposed to such genes, the results are very difficult to predict.” He thinks that “long-term extensive research” is needed before we can “rely” on genetically engineered food products.

People who favor biopharming say that the economic gain by everyone involved in buying pharmaceutical drugs will far outweigh the small chance of genes moving from one crop to another. Henry Miller, in “Will we reap what Biopharming sows,” says, “It is understandable that the food industry should wish to protect our varied, efficient, and safe systems of food production and distribution, but their anxiety is excessive and misplaced.” He says that their fears are not based on the reality of what goes on in farming in the present day. Gene flow is pervasive. All crop plants have relatives somewhere on the earth, and some gene flow commonly occurs if the two populations are grown close together. Therefore, genes could be transferred from a crop that has been modified to synthesize a pharmaceutical, but “that is likely to occur only if a certain gene(s) that has moved confers a selective advantage on the recipient—an occurrence that should be uncommon with biopharming, where most often the added gene (which directs the synthesis of large amounts of substances intended for nonagricultural purposes) will place the recipient at a selective disadvantage” (Miller). In other words, plants that are genetically engineered to produce the pharmaceutical chemicals and proteins are unlikely to compete successfully and proliferate. Miller does not say how unlikely it is, but he does say what the chance of someone being injured by accidentally eating biopharmed food is very small.

In order for someone to become injured by eating biopharmed food several unlikely occurrences would have to happen. Enough of the pharmaceutical chemical or protein would have to be available in the final food product to produce an allergic reaction. This is unlikely to happen because only a very small portion of biopharmed food could be mixed in with regular food. The reason for this is because biopharmed plants cannot compete well with natural plants for reasons explained earlier. Also, even if one of the other ways that biopharmed food gets mixed in with regular food happened, the numbers of biopharmed food to regular food would be very small. The small portion of the chemical would have to survive all the processing and milling which occurs before food is sent to be sold at the store. The chemical would then have to be orally active. Also, if by some chance a great enough amount of the biopharmed food was in the final food, the person who ate the biopharmed plant would have to be allergic to the chemical in the plant in order to have an allergic response.

The economic effect of Biopharming is called “substantial” by supporters and “overrated” by opponents. The cost of producing pharmaceutical chemicals and proteins using biopharming is "potentially much less expensive" than existing methods, says John Howard, Chief Technology Officer of ProdiGene, a privately-owned Texan biopharming company. There are many reasons why biopharming is seen as cheaper. The energy for the manufacturing process comes from the sun, and its primary raw materials are water and carbon dioxide; moreover, doubling the acreage of a crop requires far less capital than doubling the capacity of a factory, making biopharmed drugs potentially less expensive than ones produced in a conventional way. Also, much less labor is needed to harvest a field than to run a factory. If the cost of making the ingredients for various drugs went down, then the cost to produce the drug would go down, and the cost of prescription drugs would go down: something good for everyone. Also, many safety benefits varying for each drug occur. For albumin, a widely used medical product made from human blood, biopharming could deliver lower costs and the ability to quickly produce large quantities. For products like gelatin and aprotonin, which are sourced from animals, biopharming eliminates exposure to animal contaminants like the rogue proteins responsible for BSE, or “mad cow” disease. For vaccines and antibiotics, which often require clean needles or refrigeration, biopharmed crops could be ground or mashed, tested for dose level, and then fed to humans or animals.

However many advantages biopharmed crops may seem to hold those opposed to it say that the economic advantages are not certain yet and that the dangers involved with humans eating the biopharmed food outweigh the other advantages. Biopharm companies hope that growing drugs and chemicals in plants will be cheaper than conventional production methods through replacement of high-cost production facilities with the flexibility of low-cost contract farmers, meaning higher profits. However, those opposed to biopharming say that biopharming will prove to be expensive and/or non-viable because of the difficulties in purifying drugs and chemicals from plants, the costs of keeping up the USDA and FDA regulations imposed on the biopharming fields, and litigation and liability costs from contamination. According to Laura Tangley, Barry Holtz of Large Scale Biology, a leading biopharm company, discounts glib predictions of “$5 dollar a gram proteins,” estimating that even high-volume plant-grown drugs would cost “hundreds to thousands of dollars a gram” to produce.

If these assumptions are true the sales price would be higher still, as biopharm companies will have to make back the huge load of sunken costs for research and development of this novel production system. Contrary to industry’s oft-repeated promise of cheap drugs and chemicals, one of the only commercialized plant-grown products, the research chemical avidin, actually “costs the same as the conventional version extracted from eggs, $46-47 per 5 mg, or over $9,000/gram” (Freese). Initial hopes that plants engineered with vaccines could be delivered cheaply in raw form, bananas, have foundered due to inability to achieve consistent, or sufficiently high, vaccine levels in plants. Some scientists now believe that the vaccines would have to be extracted from plants and processed into pill or powder form, which would result in an increase in the cost of delivery.

Many who support bioengineered food do so because it can reduce the number of pesticides used in our country. However, many of the people opposed to genetically engineered food say that it actually increases the amount of pesticides used. Robert Mullins says that contrary to the biotech industry’s argument, “recent studies have found that US farmers growing GE crops are using just as many toxic pesticides and herbicides as conventional farmers and in some cases are using more.” Crops genetically engineered to be herbicide-resistant account for 70% of all GE crops planted in 1998. The benefit of these herbicide-resistant crops is supposed to be that farmers can spray as much of a particular herbicide on their crops as they want in order to kill the weeds without damaging their crop. Scientists estimate that herbicide-resistant crops planted around the globe will “triple the amount of toxic broad-spectrum herbicides used in agriculture” (Mullins). These broad-spectrum herbicides are designed to literally kill everything green. According to Mullin the leaders in biotechnology are the same giant chemical companies -- Monsanto, DuPont, AgrEvo, Novartis, and Rhone-Poulenc -- that sell toxic pesticides. These companies are genetically engineering plants to be resistant to herbicides that they manufacture so they can sell more herbicides to farmers who, in turn, can apply more poisonous herbicides to crops to kill weeds.

However the supporters of genetically engineered food say that genetically engineered plants do in fact reduce the level of pesticides worldwide not just in the United States . “Plant biotechnology is thus no longer an abstract science with only promise and potential, but rather a powerful agricultural technology that is beginning to increase productivity by reducing or eliminating losses caused by weeds, pests and pathogens” (L.L. Wolfenbarger). It is having a positive impact on human health and the environment by reducing the use of agro-chemicals—nearly 5,000 people die each year because of pesticide poisoning. That number is already being significantly reduced in China , South Africa and other countries with the introduction of insect-resistant cotton and the accompanying decrease in pesticide use. By using less pesticide those countries are contributing to the conservation of biodiversity, arable land, water, and energy sources.

Those who support Biotechnology in plants believe that the government is doing too much now to regulate the industry, whereas those who do not support biotechnology feel that the companies are getting off easy. Those in favor of genetically engineered food say that “in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence of the safety of transgenic crops, and the urgency of adopting this technology to meet future needs, anti-biotechnology activists continue to call for a moratorium or outright ban on the planting and/or use of transgenic crops. Their rhetoric is alarming and frightening to the public but lacks substance. These groups continue to insist that transgenic crops are unsafe without offering any credible scientific evidence to support their allegations” (Schubert). He says that the consumer, the farmer and the biotechnology industry have all been treated unfairly by the sustained campaign of misinformation and unsubstantiated claims of dangers to public health and the environment; the anti-biotechnology movement is clearly based on political and ideological opposition to biotechnology and globalization, rather than any real scientific concerns. He thinks that the five-year moratorium on transgenic crops by the European Union is a political move and an appeasement of certain political parties. He thinks that “impeding the introduction of transgenic crops, particularly in the most populous and least developed countries, which not only need but stand to benefit most from this technology, is morally and socially irresponsible and indefensible, and a disservice to the peoples of those countries.”

However others contend that since we do not know the long term effects of genetically engineered food on the human body, the biotechnology industry should be strongly regulated. The USDA has since put these regulations into effect: Doubling the buffer zones, from a half-mile to a mile, that biotechnology companies must maintain between their specialty corn and ordinary corn, mandating that land used to grow biopharmed corn must lie fallow for a year, requiring that separate planting, storage, and harvesting equipment be set aside for biopharmed crops.

With all these opposing arguments, different viewpoints, and plethora of seemingly contradictory “facts” thrown out by both sides, I have found it very hard to pick the side which suits me best. I tend to side with the arguments of those opposed to genetically engineered food because most of the sources used to support genetically engineered food were from people with much to gain from the use of genetically engineered food. They almost all had financial ties to the industry. I believe that the government should allow genetically engineered crops to continue to be used in much smaller quantities, and to keep regulations high and start long term tests to find out the effects we do not yet know.

Works Cited

Moeller, David R. “Liability Threats for Farmers.” Genetically Engineered Food Alert Nov. 2001. Oct. 2004 <http://www.gefoodalert.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles>.

Benbrook, Charles M. “The Bt Premium Price: What Does It Buy?” Genetically Engineered Food Alert Feb. 2002. Oct. 2004 <http://www.gefoodalert.org/library/ admin/uploadedfiles>.

Tangley, Laura. “Of Genes, Grain, and Grocers: The Risks and Realities of Engineered Crops.” U.S. News and World Report . April 10, 2000 .

Wolfenbarger, L.L. and P.R. Phifer. “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants.” Science. December 15, 2000 .

Schubert, D. “A different perspective on GM food,” Nature Biotechnology Vol. 20 (2002): 969.

Mullins, Robert. “A Grassroots Battle over Biotech Farming.” Independent Arts & Media Oct. 2004. Oct. 2004 < http://www.organicconsumers.org/biod/mullins101904.cfm>

Stabinsky, Doreen and Janet Cotter. “Rice at Risk: Will There Be a Choice with GE Rice?” Greenpeace International. Sept. 2004. Oct. 2004 <http://www.Greenpeace.org/international_en/>

Shah, Anup. “Genetically Engineered Food.” Global Issues. March 2001.

<http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GEFood.asp>

Freese, Bill. “Manufacturing Drugs and Chemicals in Crops: Biopharming Poses New Risks to Consumers, Farmers, Food Companies and the Environment.” Friends of the Earth. Aug. 2002. <http://www.gefoodalert.org/library/admin/ uploadedfiles/showfile.cfm>

Miller, Henry I. “Will We Reap What Biopharming Sows?” Nature Biotechnology Vol. 21 (2003): 480-481.