Genetically Modified (or GM) food has gained much controversy lately. Their use is rather widespread even within the conventional food that most of the population eats (Whitman, 2000). Some people regard this new food technology as a good thing, something that will help the environment and end world hunger, and yet others believe that GM food have no place at the tables of our nation, and that we are “playing God” with our food sources by altering the DNA of our foods. Whichever side you agree with, it is easy to see that this debate is far from over because there is so much information on the subject and it is such a new food technology. Both sides present good cases, and there are both pros and cons as to this new food technology. This essay is meant to explore both sides of the debate and try to offer some possible solutions to the GM Foods debate.

Genetically Modified Foods, otherwise known as GM foods, or GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are most commonly used to refer to crop plants modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content that are intended for human or animal consumption. (Whitman, 2000)

The words “biotechnology” and “genetic modification” are sometimes used interchangeably. This is incorrect-- GM is a set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of living organisms, while biotechnology refers to using living organisms or their components (such as enzymes) to make other products, such as yogurt or wine (US Department of Energy Office of Science, 2006). According to the US Department of Energy Office of Science, “Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is said to be “genetically modified,” “genetically engineered,” or “transgenic”.” (2006)

Some of the benefits of genetically modified food include food security, economic growth in agriculture where none was possible before, ecological benefits, and improved health of plants, animals and therefore humans. Genetically modified foods achieve this through many different ways. One of those ways is though genetically modifying crops to be resistant to various types of pests. Losses from insect pests can result in devastating financial loss, which can result in starvation for farms in developing countries. However, the paradox is that consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with chemical pesticides because of potential health hazards. The run-off from said chemical pesticides is toxic and can poison water supplies and harm the environment. Growing GM foods like B.t corn can help eliminate the need for chemical pesticides, therefore helping the environment and the economic situation of farmers. (Whitman, 2000)

B.t corn is one of the many GM innovations that has actually been permitted for us to eat. B.t. corn has been grown commercially in the U.S since 1997. B.t corn has an insecticidal protein, called Bacillius thurengiensis (B.t) that provides season-long protection from European and southwestern corn borers. (Monsanto Company, 2001) This protein protects the corn from infestation from this pest, therefore reducing or eliminating the need for chemical pesticides, which is good for the environment and overall health of humans.

Another way that genetically modified food promises us safer food sources is through herbicide tolerance. For some crops, for example, large commercial operations, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means, so they spray large quantities of different herbicides to destroy weeds. This is quite damaging to the environment, but crop plants can be genetically engineered to be resistant against one very powerful herbicide, for example, Round-Up, so that the crop plant itself isn’t damaged by spraying this, but the amount of herbicide needed is lessened because farmers will not need to mix and match to find the perfect combination of herbicides to rid their crops of weeds without killing the crops itself. This would reduce production cost and reduce the dangers of agricultural run-off. (Whitman, 2000)

Plants can also be infused with the genes to be able to grow in climates where they normally would be unable to grow. For example, unexpected frost can destroy plants, but an antifreeze gene in coldwater fish that is inserted into a plant like a tomato would make the tomato be able to stand temperatures that would kill unmodified plants. Plants can also be imbued with genes to make them drought or salinity tolerant. This way, farmers can cultivate plants in areas that were previously unsuited for cultivation because they were too salty or arid. This is good for the economics of some countries where crops were very difficult and expensive to produce because of the type of climate that they live in. (Whitman, 2000)

Diseases and crop blights are another big problem to farmers. Scientists are trying to develop crops that are disease-resistant so that farmers will not lose their crops to diseases that have been, up until this point, preventable. (Whitman, 2000)

One of the best reasons anyone can think of to genetically modify plants and animals is to improve the quality of life of human beings. In many countries, it is not possible, because of economic or social reasons; to get all of the nutrition that one needs from the food that they eat. For example, at least 1 million children, weakened by Vitamin A deficiency, die every year, and a further 350,000 go blind. Scientists have developed a type of rice called “Golden Rice” that is especially high in beta-carotene, a nutrient that serves as a building block for Vitamin A. (Nash, 2001) If this rice were made available to everyone who needed it, there would be no more Vitamin A-related deficiencies, and consequently, this would improve the lives of humans everywhere. If scientists were given permission to infuse vitamins and minerals into foods where they were not before, humans could have a much better way of life.

Although there are many good things about genetic engineering, there are also many valid criticisms of this new food technology. Among the most vocal are: they may create new allergens, in Canada, no mandatory labeling is required, that these new technologies have not been tested enough and therefore may represent some sort of unintended harm on the environment and that this may represent economic concerns for farmers in poorer countries. There may also be a reduced effectiveness to pesticides and unintended gene transfer to other species (Whitman, 2000). Even if you are very health conscious and against GM foods, chances are you have probably eaten at least a few. Some estimates state that as many as 30,000 different products contain some form of genetically modified food. This is mainly because many of the foods contain soy. (CBC News Online, 2004) The problem with such a high number of foods being altered in such a way is that there are no labeling laws in Canada. Food manufacturers must label their food if it is pasteurized, irradiated, or contains possible allergens, but not if it contains genetically modified foods. (CBC News Online, 2004) This means that if you are allergic to a certain gene in peanuts, for example, and this gene is transplanted into salmon, you have no way of knowing that if you eat that fish, that you may have a potentially fatal allergic reaction. Also, combining the different genes into the hosts may create new allergens. Many people are concerned about the unknown effects this new technology could have on human health. (Whitman, 2000)

Additionally, environmental hazards are one of the major reasons many people are reluctant to support genetically modified foods. In 1999, a laboratory study was published in Nature showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly. Although monarch caterpillars eat milkweed plants, not corn, the fear is that the pollen could be blown from the B.t. corn onto neighboring milkweed plants and the caterpillars could eat it and die. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill damaging pests. (Whitman, 2000) On the other end of the spectrum, rather than the pests we don’t want being killed by pesticides being killed, the pests we do want being killed by the B.t. gene may become immune to it, just as some populations of mosquitoes became resistant to the now banned pesticide DDT. (Whitman, 2000)

Similar to the problem with organic and inorganic goods, farmers who want to use traditional methods of farming as opposed to the genetically modified variety are worried about the genes from the modified plants contaminating their own unmodified plants. Another worry is that genes from herbicide-resistant plants may actually cross breed with the weeds that the herbicides were intended to kill. This would then create a new species of “superweeds” that would be herbicide-resistant. (Whitman, 2000)

Finally, possibly one of the greatest concerns about genetically modified foods is what effect they would have on the economy. Bringing a genetically modified food into fruition is a costly and lengthy process, and of course agri-biotech companies want a profitable return on their investment, so many of the new innovations in the field are patented. Consumer advocates worry that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price so high that small farmers and third-world countries will not be able to afford the seeds. Patent enforcement will also be difficult, as cross-pollination is possible and likely. (Whitman, 2000)

There are several methods that companies who produce genetically engineered seeds could use to ensure that many of these problems do not occur. One option is to introduce a “suicide gene” into the plants to make them male-sterile so that their pollen will not contain any of the genes and they will not be able to reproduce. (Whitman, 2000) This would solve the problem of the herbicide-resistant genes and the pest-resistant genes cross-contaminating nearby crops and also killing insects like the monarch butterfly caterpillar. The only problem with the suicide gene technology is that perhaps poorer countries would not be able to afford to buy new seeds every year. In an open letter to the public, the company Monsanto (a leading biotech company) pledged to stop all research relating to the suicide gene technology. (Whitman, 2000)

The other main thing that the government needs to do in relation to this new biotechnology is they need to create a government branch that deals specifically with this type of food technology to assure that they have the stringent standards necessary to ensure food safety and that the needs of the people are being met. They need to bring mandatory labeling for genetically modified food or food that contains those ingredients so that people will know exactly what to expect when they take a bite of their Cheerios or a drink of their soy milk. They also need to make sure that the foods that Health Canada is saying are safe to consume are hypo-allergenic so that the fewest number of people possible will get allergies from this food. They should also label the food with some sort of label like they do when a product may contain peanut or egg products.

In conclusion, food technology can be a very good thing. It can help us a lot, but in the case of something like genetically modifying our food sources, we really need to set limits on what we do when tinkering with a species that has survived just fine on it’s own for millennia. We need to have labeling and stringent testing, but this sort of biotech is a very promising innovation that if all goes well, will go a long way to ensuring that people everywhere have food security.