Daron Chau

Professor Rex

Writing 10, Section 2

November 4, 2012

Solutions to Reduce GMO Problems

Our population increases exponentially every generation and it is getting more difficult to

feed every individual. Genetic engineering provides the solution to world hunger. However

recent criticisms against GM products have made it harder for them to be introduced to the

public. These criticisms rely heavily on the theoretical dangers, and validity of genetically

modified foods. It is because of the lack of sufficient testing and education on genetically

modified products that many people argued against it. I propose that the government require

biotech companies to conduct stricter safety experiments, food industries to correctly label all

genetically modified products, and educational programs to broaden the public’s knowledge on

genetic engineering because these solutions would reduce public skepticism towards GM

products.

Government should adopt some strict laws much like the E.U. on GM products in order

to show its safety to the public without banning all GM products. Those laws should require

biotech companies to conduct extensive safety tests on their products would help alleviate some

of the theoretical problems with genetically modified organisms. Such problems include

genetically modified substances that can be transferred into a human’s genome. This transfer is

called, called horizontal gene transfer, and it can cause either unintentional allergic reactions or

diseases, which Such transfers have been discussed in Professor Valery Federici’s article. “To

control the importation and domestic growth of GMOs, the E.U relies on strict approval

processes for GMOs coupled with a label” (Federici 2). Those strict policies have made it

impossible for most foods in the E.U. to contain any traces of genetically modified substances.

Thus many people in the E.U. do not consume GM foods and the benefits that they contain such

as more nutrition. This approach would eliminate GM foods and solve the problem of horizontal

gene transfer, but at the cost of losing genetic engineering in agriculture. It is important to

understand the contributions that genetic engineering has made to the agriculture industry and

thus realize that removing genetic engineering would cause massive problems such as hunger

and malnutrition. Therefore we need strict policies that are strict enough to satisfy public

skepticism, but lenient enough to allow GM products, that have been thoroughly tested for

safety, to be consumed. Another problem in with having a strict policy like the E.U. is that it

causes other countries to adopt strong opposition towards GM products. Because the E.U is a

major importer of agricultural products, most Tthird Wworld countries have been fearful in using

GM crops or accepting GM food aid. For example, “this fear has led some African governments

to reject shipments of GM food aid” and this resulted in unnecessary starvation (Federici 3). One

may question why third world countries would care about how E.U. feels about genetically

modified products. Because third world countries’ economiesy relies heavily on agricultural

exports and that the E.U. is a major agricultural importer, it would make sense that third world

countries would mimic strong oppositions to GMOs much like the E.U. Since certain genetically

modified foods have increased agricultural yields and nutritional intake, it is important that third

world countries adopt these technologies to solve their hunger problems. Thus having a policy

that is too strict would have negative impacts on other countries, and having a lenient policy

would fuel public skepticism. By creating a policy that can guarantee safety standards for

genetically modified foods and still allow GMFs for consumers, it is possible to alleviate a

majority of anti-GMO critics. It will make critics harder to question the negative effects

genetically modified products have on health and environmental issues.

Remove this space between each paragraph.

Correctly labeling products that have been genetically manipulated is another solution

that will help reduce the problem with genetic engineering. According to Professor Valery

Federici, a survey “showed that 94% of [American] consumers would like labels to indicate the

presence of GM content” (Federici 16). By knowing whether a product has been genetically

modified or is organically grown, this allows consumers to have freedom in choosing their

preferred foods and reduce the uncertainty of what it is made of. This can decrease the

association of an allergic reaction to a genetically modified product. It is important to know that

there is no correlation between an allergic reaction and GM food consumption, but because it is

also uncertain whether GM foods can cause allergic reactions. Therefore by labeling genetically

modified products, an allergic reaction can be blamed onto the consumer because he or she chose

to intake use a product that have been genetically modified. There is no problem with GM foods

causing allergic reactions. The problem is that people are uncertain on what is contained in their

meal, and this uncertainty have has fueled anti-GMO s sentiments. Therefore a proper label that

correctly identifies genetically modified foods no matter the concentration will reduce public

uncertainty. However, improper labels have arisen in certain countries and we should take into

consideration the consequences of such labeling. In Asako Saegusa’s article, Japan’s Ministry of

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) decided to label genetically modified products that

“may contain GM ingredients as undifferentiated” (Saegusa 1). This sort of labeling generated a

lot of criticism from consumer groups because they were uncertain in their food’s content. As

discussed in Federici’s article, the majority of people would prefer to know what they are eating.

As anticipated, consumer groups in Japan responded by saying “labeling products as

undifferentiated [confuses] the public,” and required clearer labeling (Saegusa 1). It is important

that labels should list enough detail about genetically modified foods in order to not cause

confusion in the public. Correct labels that lists the contents and the possible effects of each

genetically modified substance will allow consumers to make a better choice in what they eat,

and thus reduce the issue with genetic engineering.

Funding educational programs on genetic engineering is another solution that would help

reduce the issue. Many consumers that oppose genetically modified foods do not have sufficient

knowledge in the field of genetic engineering. Since most issues on GMO is based on any

harmful accidents, like allergic reactions to a GM product, many anti-GMOs have assumed a

direct correlation between GM food consumption and allergic reaction. According to Galina

Gaivoronskaia’s article, genetically modified foods have “benefits for allergic individuals”

(Gaivoronskaia 3). Although there are no correlations between allergic reactions and consuming

a genetically modified food, genetic engineering have has made GM products that have proven

to not provoke an allergic response. For example in Pat Rabjohn’s article, “title of article,” the

author states, “allergic response depend up on the interaction of allergens and mast-cells”

(Rabjohn 2). Mast cells are what causes the rashes or allergic reactions. By knowing the cause of

allergic reactions, genetic engineers can remove them from foods and thus make the food

available to allergic individuals. Another major reason that opposition groupss have used is that

genetically modified substances can be transferred to humans if ingested, a term called horizontal

gene transfer. According the H. Cheng’s experiment in 2001 on genetically modified cotton, it

was discovered that the genetically modified gene in Chinese cotton was present in bees’ honey.

This showed a horizontal gene transfer from plant to bee, and it generated concern if the same

gene can be transferred when humans consumed the honey. However, as Cheng notes, “there is

no evidence of mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer from digested foods to” human stomach

cells (Cheng 4). This is an important fact because most anti-GMOs argue that gene transfer from

genetically modified products to humans is possible and is very harmful. By providing evidence

against a constantly used claim made by anti-GMOs, more people will not be persuaded and thus

make better decisions in allowing the usage of genetically modified products.

The combination of tighter regulations, clearer labeling, and further education allows will

allow the public to have more trust in the products they eat. The issue with genetic engineering

and its products is that people are concerned with not knowing whether GMOs are harmful to

humans and to the environment. It is because of this uncertainty that anti-GMOs have taken the

safer approach and assume GM products are harmful and thus should be banned. By providing

stricter laws to ensure GM product safety requirements, people would have more confident in

eating them. As for correct labeling, they give consumers a choice to eat GM products or not and

thus reduces some of the problems of genetic engineering. Lastly further education on a genetic

engineering and its products allows people to make a better decision whenever a new GM

product is introduced to the public. Altogether with these 3 solutions, the issue with genetic

engineering can be reduced.

Daron:

A good start. You mainly need to revise for clarity, provide more evidence, and define

your terms.

--Rex

Work Cited

Gary A. Bannon, et al. "Modification Of Peanut Allergen Ara H 3: Effects On Ige

Binding And T Cell Stimulation." International Archives Of Allergy & Immunology 128.1

(2002): 15-23. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.

Federici, Valery. "Genetically Modified Food And Informed Consumer Choice:

Comparing U.S. And E.U. Labeling Laws." Brooklyn Journal Of International Law 35.2 (2010):

515-561. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.

Saegusa, Asako. "Japan To Label GMOs." Nature Biotechnology 17.9 (1999):

837. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.

H. Cheng, W. Jin, H. Wu, F. Wang, C. You, Y. Peng, and S. Jia. "Isolation And PCR

Detection Of Foreign DNA Sequences In Bee Honey Raised On Genetically Modified Bt

(Cry1ac) Cotton." Food & Bioproducts Processing: Transactions Of The Institution Of Chemical

Engineers Part C 85.1 (2007): 141-145. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

Gaivoronskaia, Galina, and Bjorn Hvinden. "Consumers With Allergic Reaction To

Food." Science, Technology & Human Values 31.6 (2006): 702-730. Academic Search Complete.

Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

Daron Chau

Professor Rex

Writing 10, Section 2

November 21, 2012

Solutions to Reduce Genetically Modified Food Problems

Societies everywhere have been reluctant to accept that GMFs are an integral part in

reducing world hunger. The world’s population increases exponentially every generation and it is

getting more difficult to feed every individual. According to the World Food Programme, WFP,

“870 million people do not have enough to eat” in 2012 (WFP 1). The number of malnourished

people continues to increases because there is a limited amount of land suitable for agriculture.

This meant that there is a certain amount of foods that can be naturally grown in a given area.

Genetic engineering helps alleviate world hunger. Genetically modified, or GM, foods has the

ability to provide greater agricultural yields per hectare of land. Because of genetically modified

foods, or GMFs, more nutrients can be obtained from the same amount of land. However the

major problem is that recent criticisms against genetically modified products have made it more

difficult for them to be introduced to the public. These criticisms rely heavily on the theoretical

dangers, and cast doubt on the importance genetically modified foods have on reducing world

hunger. It is because of the lack of sufficient testing and education on genetically modified

products that many people argued against genetically modified foods. I propose that the

government adopt some of the European Union laws on GMF regulation that require biotech

companies to conduct stricter safety experiments to ensure public safety without banning all

GMFs, Californian’s Proposition 37 law that require food industries to properly label all

genetically modified products to avoid confusion, and educational programs to clarify the

public’s about GMFs by using Ghana as an example. A combination of these solutions will

reduce public skepticism towards GM products and allow greater acceptance for genetically

modified foods.

Government should adopt some strict laws much like the European Union, E.U, on

genetically modified, GM, product regulation without banning all of GM products. Those laws

should require biotech companies to conduct extensive safety tests on their products. That Would

would help alleviate some of the theoretical problems with genetically modified organisms. Such

problems include genetically modified substances that can be transferred into a human’s genome.

This transfer is called “horizontal gene transfer”, and it can cause either unintentional allergic

reactions or diseases. Such transfers have been discussed in Professor Valery Federici’s article

“Genetically Modified Food And Informed Consumer Choice: Comparing U.S. And E.U.

Labeling Laws.”: “To control the importation and domestic growth of GMOs, the E.U relies on

strict approval processes for GMOs coupled with a label” (Federici 2). Those strict policies have

made it impossible for most foods in the E.U. to contain any traces of genetically modified

substances. The strict policies, that the E.U. has made, include laws that require a long and

difficult process for new GMFs. Thus many people in the E.U. do not consume GM foods and

the benefits that they contain such as more nutrition. This solution would eliminate GM foods

and solve the problem of bacterial DNA that is transmitted from GMF to humans, but at the cost

of losing genetic engineering in agriculture. It is important to understand the contributions that

genetic engineering has made to the agriculture industry and thus realize that removing genetic

engineering would cause massive problems such as hunger and malnutrition. Therefore we need

policies that are strict enough to satisfy public skepticism, but lenient enough to allow GM

products that have been thoroughly tested for safety, to be consumed.

Another problem in having a strict policy like the E.U is that it causes other countries to

adopt strong opposition towards GM products. Because the E.U. is a major importer of

agricultural products, most Third World countries have been fearful in using GM crops or

accepting GM food aid. For example, Federici explained that “this fear has led some African

governments to reject shipments of GM food aid” and this resulted in unnecessary starvation

(Federici 3). One may question why Tthird Wworld countries would care about how E.U. feels

about genetically modified products. Because Third World countries’ economies relies heavily

on agricultural exports and that the E.U. is a major agricultural importer, it would make sense

that Third World countries would mimic strong oppositions against GMOs much like the E.U.

Since certain genetically modified foods have increased agricultural yields and nutritional intake,

it is important that Third World countries adopt these technologies to solve their hunger

problems. Thus having a policy that is too strict would have negative impacts on other countries,

and having a lenient policy would fuel public skepticism. By creating a policy that can guarantee

safety standards for genetically modified foods, or GMFs, and still allow consumers to intake

ingest GMFs, it is possible to alleviate a majority of anti-GMO critics. Laws that require

extensive testing on GMFs will make critics harder to question the negative effects genetically

modified products have on health and environmental issues.

Other governments should adopt the Californian law, known as Proposition 37, which

mandates all genetically modified foods to be labeled accordingly. In Maghna Sachdev’s article,

“Food Labeling Issue Tops State Ballot Question, Proposition” 37 requires labels on foods

containing more than one part in 200 of GM material” (Sachdev 1). This law essentially made

makes any foods that have even the smallest traces of GMF material present be labeled as a

GMF. Only foods that have been organically grown are allowed to be labeled as natural. By

labeling all of the foods present in California as either genetically modified or organic, people

can then make confident choices, knowing if there is GMF material present. Since many people

are skeptical in the foods they eat, labeling every food item will prevent confusion and reduce

the fear of accidentally eating GMFs.

Correctly labeling products that have been genetically manipulated is another solution

that will help reduce confusion between GMFs and non-GMFs. According to Professor Valery

Federici, a survey “showed that 94% of [American] consumers would like labels to indicate the

presence of GM content” (Federici 16). By knowing whether a product has been genetically

modified or is organically grown, this allows consumers to have freedom in choosing their

preferred foods and reduce the uncertainty of what it is made of. This can decrease the

association of an allergic reaction to a genetically modified product. It is important to know that

there is no correlation between an allergic reaction and GM food consumption because it is also

uncertain whether GM foods can cause allergic reactions. In Dean D. Metcalfe’s article

“Genetically Modified Crops And Allergenicity”, it was stated that there is currently “no

single approach to evaluate allergenicity potential” on genetically modified foods (Dean 3).

Therefore by labeling genetically modified products, an allergic reaction can be blamed onto the

consumer because he or she chose to consume products that have been genetically modified.

There is no problem with GM foods causing allergic reactions. The problem is that people are

uncertain on what is contained in their meal, and this uncertainty has fueled anti-GMO

sentiments. Therefore a proper label that correctly identifies genetically modified foods no

matter the concentration will reduce public uncertainty.

However, improper labels have arisen in certain countries and we should take into

consideration the consequences of such labeling. In Asako Saegusa’s article, Japan’s Ministry of

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) decided to label genetically modified products that

“may contain GM ingredients as undifferentiated” (Saegusa 1). This sort of labeling generated a

lot of criticism from consumer groups because they were uncertain in their food’s content. The

confusion was caused by mislabeling non-GMFs that have been grown in close proximity with

GMFs as naturally grown. Many fear that consuming GMFs would cause health problems, and

that is why they want to know what they are eating. It was discovered from Cheng’s experiment

discovered that naturally produced honey contained traces of genetically modified DNA from

GM cotton. This discovery is why many people fear eating GMFs and require that their food is

100% naturally grown. As discussed in Federici’s article, the majority of people would prefer to

know what they are eating. As anticipated, consumer groups in Japan responded by saying

“labeling products as undifferentiated [confuses] the public,” and required clearer labeling

(Saegusa 1). It is important that labels should list enough detail about genetically modified foods

in order to not cause confusion in the public. Correct labels that list the content and the possible

effects of each genetically modified substance will allow consumers to make a better choice in

what they eat, and thus reduce the fear of consuming genetically modified foods that affect

certain people with specific allergens.

Funding educational programs on genetic engineering is another solution that would help

reduce public skepticism towards GMFs. Many consumers that oppose genetically modified

foods do not have sufficient knowledge in the field of genetic engineering. Since most issues on

genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are based on any harmful accidents, like allergic

reactions to a GM product, many anti-GMOs have assumed a direct correlation between GM

food consumption and allergic reaction. According to Galina Gaivoronskaia’s article, genetically

modified foods have “benefits for allergic individuals” (Gaivoronskaia 3). Although there are no

correlations between allergic reactions and consuming a genetically modified food, genetic

engineering has made GM products that have proven to not provoke an allergic response. For

example in Pat Rabjohn’s article, Modification Of Peanut Allergen Ara H 3: Effects On Ige

Binding And T Cell Stimulation, the author states “genetic engineering offers an exciting

possibility in alternative allergen immunotherapy” (Rabjohn 1-2). This is accomplished by

reducing allergic-related proteins that causes hives, swelling, or any allergic-related symptoms.

By knowing the cause of allergic reactions, genetic engineers can remove them from foods and

thus make the food available to allergic individuals. Another major reason that opposition groups

have used is that genetically modified substances can be transferred to humans if ingested, a term

called horizontal gene transfer. According the H. Cheng’s experiment in 2001 on genetically

modified cotton, it was discovered that the genetically modified gene in Chinese cotton was

present in bees’ honey. Cheng’s experiment revealed a horizontal gene transfer from plant to bee,

and it generated concern if the same gene can be transferred when humans consumed the honey.

However as Cheng noted, “there is no evidence of mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer from

digested foods to” human stomach cells (Cheng 4). Cheng’s findings are an important fact

because most anti-GMOs argue that gene transfer from genetically modified products to humans

is possible and is very harmful. By providing evidence against a constantly used claim made by

anti-GMOs, more people will not be persuaded and thus make better decisions in allowing the

usage of genetically modified products.

It is crucial to promote educational programs that can reduce misunderstandings on the

effects GMFs have on society. The Ghanaian government has noticed that poor knowledge on

genetically modified foods in Ghana has contributed to the idea that GMFs are dangerous to

one’s health. People in Ghana are not educated on the important usages of GMFs and are making

quick judgments that prevent them from consuming any GMFs. In J. H. Buah’s article, Public

Perception Of Genetically Modified Food In Ghana, “more than 80% of the respondents from

the Ghanaians were unwilling to accept GM foods and their rejection was based on the fear of

unknown side effects” (Buah 1). This fear prevented Ghanaians to consumefrom consuming

GMFs that have been experimentally proven to provide healthier benefits. This fear is similar

across many countries, and can only be solved by educating people about GMFs and their

benefits. The Ghanaian government realized that “there [was] a need for a more comprehensive

public education and debates to improve perceptions of the public on GM foods” (Buah 1).

Public education should include how genetically modified foods work and how unlikely that

horizontal gene transfer can happen between humans and consumed GMFs. By knowing how

GMFs provide more nutrients such as rice, that have been genetically modified to provide more

vitamins, than naturally grown rice, people will make better decisions in GMF regulation instead

of blindly rejecting all GMFs. Also by knowing the process of horizontal gene transfer, people

will strongly think twice when they hear that GMFs are known to insert bacterial DNA into

human DNA. Buah’s article mentioned that “most of the respondents had heard of GM foods

from friends, who themselves may not have had a better understanding of GM foods” (Buah 1).

His article hinted that most of the people against genetically modified foods probably have

obtained the wrong information on GMFs from unreliable sources. These unreliable sources

include friends, family, and or neighbors that have not been properly educated about the

importance of GMFs. By establishing educational programs that focus mainly to clarify the

misunderstandings on GMFs, people will begin to realize that GMFs are beneficial to one’s

health and are highly unlikely to cause dangerous side-effects. The goal in these educational

programs is to reduce the misunderstanding on genetically modified foods and allow greater

acceptance towards GMFs.

The combination of tighter regulations, more understandable labeling, and further

education on genetically modified foods will allow the public to have more trust in the GM

products they eat. The issue with genetic engineering and its products is that people are

concerned with not knowing whether genetically modified foods are harmful to humans and to

the environment. It is because of this uncertainty that anti-GMO groups have taken the safer

approach and assume all GM products are harmful and thus should be banned. By providing

stricter laws to ensure GM product safety requirements, people would have more confident in

eating them. Although these laws will lower the number of newly developed GMFs into the food

market, they do not prevent them from being commercialized for the public. As for correct

labeling, they give consumers a choice to eat GM products or not and thus reduce the likelihood

of associating an allergic reaction to genetically modified food consumption. Lastly further

education on a genetic engineering and its products gives the people the ability to reason any

future criticisms on genetically modified foods. GMFs are essential in producing more foods for

a growing population. Thus it is important to allow GMFs a future to improve effectiveness in

producing foods and the nutrients many genetically modified foods have claimed to contain.

Altogether with these 3 solutions, the confusion and rejection against genetic engineering can be

reduced.

Works Cited

Rabjohn, Pat, and Gary A. Bannon, et al. "Modification Of Peanut Allergen Ara H 3: Effects On

Ige Binding And T Cell Stimulation." International Archives Of Allergy & Immunology

128.1 (2002): 15-23. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.

Federici, Valery. "Genetically Modified Food And Informed Consumer Choice:

Comparing U.S. And E.U. Labeling Laws." Brooklyn Journal Of International Law 35.2 (2010):

515-561. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.

Saegusa, Asako. "Japan To Label GMOs." Nature Biotechnology 17.9 (1999):

837. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.

H. Cheng, W. Jin, H. Wu, F. Wang, C. You, Y. Peng, and S. Jia. "Isolation And PCR

Detection Of Foreign DNA Sequences In Bee Honey Raised On Genetically Modified Bt

(Cry1ac) Cotton." Food & Bioproducts Processing: Transactions Of The Institution Of Chemical

Engineers Part C 85.1 (2007): 141-145. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

Gaivoronskaia, Galina, and Bjorn Hvinden. "Consumers With Allergic Reaction To

Food." Science, Technology & Human Values 31.6 (2006): 702-730. Academic Search Complete.

Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

"World Food Programme Fighting Hunger Worldwide." Hunger Stats. World Food

Programme, 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.

Metcalfe, Dean D. "Genetically Modified Crops And Allergenicity." Nature

Immunology 6.9 (2005): 857-860. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.

Buah, J. N. "Public Perception Of Genetically Modified Food In Ghana." American

Journal Of Food Technology 6.7 (2011): 541-554. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Nov.

2012.

Sachdev, Maghna. "Food Labeling Issue Tops State Ballot Question." Science 338.6106

(2012): 464. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Nov. 2012.

Daron:

This is a logical and organized paper. You have a clear thesis and lots of good evidence.

Your writing is mostly good, although you still need to work on removing unnecessary words

and watching for vague pronouns. The main problem here is lack of attention to small details.

You make many little mistakes in formatting, punctuation, and capitalization. These things are

too easy to get wrong. You must pay more attention to these details as they affect the way your

work is received.

Good job this semester.

A-

--Rex