04 Mar. 2018
Argumentative Research Essay
Genetically modified (GM) crops are crops that have been subjected to the insertion of foreign gene(s), i.e., genes from other species. They can tolerate harsh environments, increase farmer safety by reducing the amount of pesticides needed, and most importantly, they have lower prices comparing to conventional crops.[D] While some people recognize GM crops as a potential way to solve the world food crisis, others raise concerns on its safety and regulation: will GM crops induce allergies? Will the modification technique produce unexpected mutation? How are GM crops tested on safety tests? In order to explore the unknown effect of GM crops on human health, scientists have performed exhaustive research studies. Although many scientific evidences prove that genetically modified crops generally pose no greater health risks than conventional crops, each kind of GM crops should be subjected to open chronic toxicity and allergy tests in order to relieve potential concerns, making GM crops beneficial to human.
Bittman, a food columnist, for instance, concedes that there are no evidence that GM crops will cause any public health problem. However, he believes that there should be stricter regulatory system for GM crops. He further concludes that “large majority” of people “are in some way leery of GM foods or crops” from the polls on three different social media on the Internet.[B] Not only Bittman, Seeds of Deception, an anti-GM-crops website, also expresses its concerns on the safety of GM crops. The website sees the modification technique as “highly mutagenic” and asserts that its product “can lead to toxic or allergic reactions.”[H] To dispel such worries on their potential to cause allergies, Liza Dunn, a doctor of medicine working for Monsanto Company, offers a journal article that concludes that “any protein introduced into the crop is non-allergenic.”[G] The authors of the article, Dunn et al. from Monsanto Company, also determine that there are “no evidence” that individuals who are not allergic to conventional crops would result in allergy or an increase in the risks of developing an allergy by eating GM crops.[G-S]
Despite the lack of evidences to conclude the relationship between GM crops and allergies, the Consultation from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) agrees that all GM crops “must be assessed for allergenic potential” and the assessments should follow “an integrated and stepwise, case-by-case approach” for global health safety.[A] Freedman, a science journalist, perceives the benefits of careful testing. Even though he argues that substantial studies have demonstrated that “they are safe to eat,” he suggests that careful safety testing of GM crops will “[enable] the human race to benefit from those crops’ significant advantages” and relieve potential concerns. The testing can also provide solid evidences for pro-GM scientists, who “are often dismissive and even unscientific” when discussing GM crops.[D] Hilbeck et al., who find current studies on GM crops are “often contradictory or inconclusive,” refute the claim that there exist a scientific consensus on GMO safety and point out that there are no epidemiological studies to prove whether GM crops have potential effects on human health on Environmental Sciences Europe. Since there is a lack of sufficient studies, the authors advocate for chronic CM crops safety tests that are “honest, ethical, rigorous, independent, transparent, and sufficiently diversified” to ascertain the safety of GM crops.[E]
In addition to the concerns of GM crops on their potential to cause allergies and regulations, Smith, a consumer activist, asserts in his book Seeds of Deception that the modification technique used on GM crops is highly imprecise, prone to mutation, and may cause serious damage to the original deoxyribonucleic acid, a substance that carries codes of gene also called DNA. More importantly, Smith raises concern that the antibiotic resistance gene used as marker may strengthen or even add to the resistance of bacteria in human digestive system through horizontal gene transfer (i.e., the transfer of gene from one organism to another organism that is not its offspring).[J] In contrast to Smith’s argument, Fedoroff (a molecular biologist) and Brown (a non-fiction writer) express rather opposite opinion when interpreting the same scientific studies. They argue that most DNA fragments are broken down in the digestive track. Although they remark that certain DNA revealed in a study may escape from digestion and travel into human cells, they dismiss the concern by demonstrating that even if horizontal gene transfer occurs, it is largely involved in natural process, supported by human genome analysis. Furthermore, they concur that antibiotic resistance gene are commonly used as makers to identify modified cells. Nevertheless, they conclude that horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance gene to disease-causing bacteria is theoretically possible yet highly unlikely: exhaustive effort to detect such transfer fails to demonstrate the gene transfer to disease-causing bacteria. Moreover, they highlight that many GM crops now do not use antibiotic resistance genes as markers. Scientists use, for example, fluorescent protein markers.[I] Both Smith’s and Fedoroff’s books acknowledge the research of Netherwood et al., which is published on Nature Biotechnology and concerns horizontal gene transfer, yet they have quite different interpretations on the work. Objectively, the study of Netherwood’s team indicates that the bacteria or essential symbionts which undergone gene transfer are “likely to be auxotrophic,” i.e., having nutrition deficiency. In addition, the transgene, or the foreign gene being transferred, “[is] not detected by PCR” (a gene amplifier) from the feces of humans with intact gastrointestinal tracts. Netherwood’s team derives the conclusion by measuring the amount of transgene that survives in ileostomist (a patient whose digestive track ends with small intestine because the large intestine is surgically removed) and in humans with an intact gastrointestinal tract to indicate the stage of degradation of gene in different digestive organs. They discover that there is small amount of transgene recovered from small intestine while no transgene is recovered from large intestine. Thus, they conclude that “it is highly unlikely that the gene transfer events … would alter gastrointestinal function or pose a risk to human health.” They further propose that GM crops should be tested on the survival of transgenic DNA in small intestine in order to obtain a case-by-case view of GM crops.[C]
Not only horizontal gene transfer of GM crops grabs scientists’ attention, the toxic effect of GM crops is also extensively studied. One of the most controversial works on GM crops is the study of Séralini’s team that highlights the potential of developing tumor by GM crops consumption. Fagan, the author of GMO Myths and Truths, refutes the argument that Séralini's study is “bad science and no conclusions can be drawn from it.” Instead, it is “the most detailed and thorough study ever done on a GM food and its associated pesticide.”[F] In order to determine the effect of GM crops and its associated pesticide on human health, Séralini’s team conducts an two-year-long experiment that separates 200 Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats into ten groups, each with ten males and ten females. They treat the groups with three different doses of three different treatments of (1) GM crops alone, (2) GM crops and Roundup herbicide (R treatment), and (3) R treatment alone, in addition to the control group. They discover that greater amount of treated rats develops tumor than control, and female rats are more sensitive than male rats. Séralini’s team further demonstrates that GM crops and R treatments have pathological effects indicated by “significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failure,” in which some rats have developed. They further suggest that GM crops and formulated pesticides should “be evaluated by long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects” in order to assure safety. Their study is published on Food and Chemical Toxicology in 2012.[F-S1] Right after its publication, many scientists find the study possesses statistical flaws due to the small sample size of each group and the employment of lab rats that are prone to the development of tumor. Fagan, as an anti-GMO activist, dismisses the concern of scientists that Séralini’s study uses too few rats to draw the conclusion on the relationship between GM crops and tumor by claiming that it is a “toxicity study” instead of a “carcinogenicity study.”[F] After two years of investigation, in 2014, the Editor-in-Chief concludes that “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data” from the original article, yet “the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive.” The article is thus retracted by the journal.[F-S2]
In the debates regarding GM crops, the sources that are against GM crops often employ logical fallacies and emotional diction to reinforce their arguments. For example, the cartoon titled “Food for Thought” illustrates a monster-like carrot in the city with two scientists in astonishment: “What have we done?” while the caption below runs “It’s perfectly safe.”[K] The cartoon[K] utilizes exaggeration to amplify the potential risks of GM crops, suggesting GM crops are highly mutagenic and the experiments can get out of control. It also stirs up people’s emotion to question scientists of the reason why they create GM crops to disturb the society while it does not give any context clue about the benefits of GM crops. Smith[J] also manipulates his argument by logical fallacies, such as exaggerations, coupled with emotional diction. He illustrates the modification technique as “to blast them [the transgenes] into the DNA with a 22-caliber gene gun.” In the academia, there is no such way to describe the modification equipment as “gene gun,” instead, it is called the biolistic particle delivery system. The calibre, too, is missing a length unit if carefully considered. The misguiding wording of modification technique undermines the technological achievement and draws a false analogy between a harmless lab equipment and a lethal weapon. Another example of the application of emotional diction is Fagan’s work.[F] He asserts that the study of Séralini’s team[F-S1] is “viciously attacked” by scientists and the retraction[F-S2] is an “act of scientific censorship.” He pours out his rage toward the scientists who give feedbacks on the study and the editor of journal solely because of the retraction of the work. He intends to manipulate the audience’s emotion and sensitivity toward academic censorship in order to justify the “unfairness” of the retraction. Furthermore, the website Seeds of Deception[H] presumes on the use of misleading diction. It claims that the transgenes are “artificially forced” into the genes of the recipient. The word “forced” falsely depicts the “resistance” of the original gene, forming a misguiding conception that foreign genes are not welcomed to the original genome.
While sources that are against GM crops hardly establishes ethos and logos, studies in the academia forms solid arguments through authority and logic. For instance, Freedman[D] integrates multiple expert testimonies from both sides into his article, displaying a balanced chain of evidence. He also quotes specific statistical datas such as “Escherichia coli–infected organic bean sprouts have killed 53 people in Europe in 2011” to support his argument that many records have pointed potential health risks to conventional crops instead of GM crops. His clear structure of article also facilitates the understanding process of the audience, constructing an easy-to-read article. Fedoroff and Brown[I], too, build up clear and well-supported argument through rational reasons and detailed scientific knowledge. They first introduces the fundamental knowledge of genetics, such as the function of DNA and the structure of a DNA, providing crucial background knowledge for audience who does not have scientific background. They also cites various research articles, including one that opposes their argument, to demonstrate that horizontal gene transfer is common and generally harmless. The refutation of counterargument strengthens their argument and underlines their confidence. The study of Netherwood’s team[C] is another example on the effective use of data and authority. They employ and analyze numerous tables, graphs, and images to solidify their argument, presenting their experimental finding in a visual and organized way. Their publication on Nature Biotechnology, a journal with high impact factor, further constructs their authority, indicating its broad influence.
When people consider whether or not a food can be safely eaten, people think of its toxicity and its potential to cause allergy. When studying its toxicity, the standard of safety is not simply derived from eating tests administered on lab animal. It is a scientific consensus that toxicity should be studied upon the processing method of the food, the amount of consumption, the method of consumption, the subject of consumption, and the mass of the subject etc. It is not a simple matter of toxic or not. For example, 100 milliliter of orange juice is generally not considered as “toxic” for people with mass of 50 kilograms to drink. However, when the orange juice is injected into the person’s vein, it becomes toxic since it disturbs the homeostasis, or equilibrium, of the inner environment by adding excessive amount of acid. Also, eating a bar of black chocolate with mass of 40 grams can hardly be recognized as “dangerous” for people with mass of 50 kilograms. However, when that bar of black chocolate is administrated to a 10-kilogram dog, it becomes highly toxic because dog does not have enzyme to process theobromine that is contained in the chocolate while human does. Therefore, when concluding the toxicity of a food, it is crucial to recognize the “qualifiers” of toxicity. In the study of Séralini’s team[F-S1], they claim that the rats consuming GM crops are more likely to develop tumor than the rats consuming conventional crops. However, the study is retracted[F-S2] because of its inconclusiveness caused by the lack of statistical evidence due to small sample size and the use of tumor-prone rats, diminishing their ethos. The retraction decision is not made based on the pressure from the academia, instead, it has solid evidence. For instance, the work of Prejean’s team[F-S3] determines that the SD rats that Séralini’s team uses has “a spontaneous tumor incidence of 45%” within 18 months, that is, nearly half of the SD rats may have developed the tumor spontaneously within the 24 month period of the experiment of Séralini’s team. In order to confirm the relationship between GM crops and tumor development, Séralini’s team needs to consider a much larger sample size or a different kind of rat. Although Fagan[F] defends the experiment that it is a “toxicity study” instead of a “carcinogenicity study” to dismiss the concern, it is not acceptable to derive a conclusion for a carcinogenicity study by using only toxicity study standard. In order to come up with a solid and conclusive conclusion, a redesign of the experiment that aligns with biostatistical guideline and the standard of carcinogenicity study is needed. Other studies, such as Hammond’s team[F-S4], conclude that the GM crops have “no-observed effect level” of toxicity to rats. Thus, GM crops are equally or less toxic than conventional crops if given the same condition.
Similarly, the potential to cause allergy of GM crops is measured upon conditions. The assertion that “peanut is not safe for human to eat because some people are allergic to it” is an invalid argument. The same is true for GM crops. Concluding GM crops causes allergic to some people does not imply that it is allergic to all human being. Therefore, it is a better way to assess GM crops’ potential to cause allergy relatively, that is, compare the data to conventional crops. If GM crops do no to cause people who have no allergy to conventional crops to develop allergy, nor does it cause more severe allergy than conventional crops, it is said to be safe. According to the experiments of Dunn’s team[G-S], there is no sign of GM crops being more allergic than conventional crops. Although the study is sponsored by Monsanto company, a company that commercializes GM crops, the review is peer-reviewed by several other scientists independently and gets approval from them. Hence, GM crops have equal or less potential to cause allergy than conventional crops.
Horizontal gene transfer is also one of the most widely debated concern. The main worry is that whether or not the antibiotic resistance gene used as marker can be transferred into disease-causing bacteria. In order to achieve such consequence, the following conditions should be met: the antibiotic resistance gene (1) is used as a marker in the GM crop; (2) is isolated accurately from the original genome; (3) escapes from the original cell; (4) survives under the catabolic enzymes in the digestive track; (5) enters the disease causing bacterium; and (6) is inserted to the exact right position of disease-causing bacterium. Each of these steps are highly unlikely to achieve in natural circumstances. It is extremely unlikely for the gene to transfer to the targeted bacterium, as Fedoroff and Brown concludes.[I] Research studies such as the work of Netherwood’s team[C], too, deduces that horizontal gene transfer is highly unlikely to happen in human digestive track. In short, horizontal gene transfer does not make GM crops more dangerous than conventional crops due to its extreme rareness.
Although enormous evidences have proved that GM crops pose no greater health risk than conventional crops, strict regulations like those for conventional crops are still needed for GM crops. The best way to relief the concerns is to prove it with real data with no bias that is statistically significant to conclude that GM crops are similar to conventional crops in a “case-by-case approach,” suggested FAO and WHO[A]. Without such regulation, the industrial standard would not be established, causing the commercial companies to ignore safety in order to maximize their profit. Consequently, GM crops need strict regulations similar to those for conventional crops, proving its safety from every aspect, such as toxicity and potential to cause allergy.
In conclusion, exhaustive research studies reveal that GM crops bring no greater health risk than conventional crops: consuming GM crops is similar as consuming conventional crops. In order to further relief worries from the society and the academia, open chronic toxicity and allergy tests of GM crops should be sponsored and administrated by international organizations that have no conflict of interests with the research team. Once the academia achieves consensus on the safety of GM crops, large scale deployment of GM crops can produce significant benefits to the world: it can decrease the price of crops, increase the production of crops, and consequently relieve the world food crisis, becoming an excellent example of beneficial biotechnology product.
[A] FAO, WHO. Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. FAO, WHO, 2001, pp. 14–15, Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods.
[B] Bittman, Mark. “GMO Poll Results (and More).” New York Times, New York Times, 2011 Feb. 24AD, bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/gmo-poll-results-and-more/.
[C] Netherwood, Trudy, et al. “Assessing the Survival of Transgenic Plant DNA in the Human Gastrointestinal Tract.” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 22, no. 2, 2004, pp. 204–209., doi:10.1038/nbt934.
[D] Freedman, David H. “Are Engineered Foods Evil?” Scientific American, vol. 309, no. 3, 20 Sept. 2013, pp. 70–75., doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0913-80.
[E] Hilbeck, Angelika, et al. “No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety.” Environmental Sciences Europe, vol. 27, no. 4, 2015, doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1.
[F] Fagan, John. “Health Hazard of GM Food.” GMO Myths and Truths, by John Fagan, 2nd ed., Earth Open Source, 2014, pp. 147–159, livingnongmo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf.
[F-S1] Séralini, Gilles-Eric, et al. “RETRACTED: Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize.” Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 50, no. 11, Nov. 2012, pp. 4221–4231., doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.
[F-S2] Séralini, Gilles-Eric, et al. “Retraction Notice to ‘Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize’ [Food Chem. Toxicol. 50 (2012) 4221–4231].” Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 63, Jan. 2014, p. 244., doi:10.1016/j.fct.2013.11.047.
[F-S3] Prejean, J. D, et al. “Spontaneous Tumors in Sprague-Dawley Rats and Swiss Mice.” Cancer Research, vol. 33, no. 11, Dec. 1973, pp. 2768–2773.
[F-S4] Hammond, B, et al. “Results of a 13 Week Safety Assurance Study with Rats Fed Grain from Glyphosate Tolerant Corn.” Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 42, no. 6, 2004, pp. 1003–1014., doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.013.
[G] Dunn, Liza. “Extensive Testing Confirms That GMOs Do Not Cause Food Allergies.” Monsanto, Monsanto, 1 Feb. 2018, monsanto.com/innovations/research-development/research-transparency/articles/extensive-testing-confirms-gmos-not-cause-food-allergies/.
[G-S] Dunn, S. Eliza, et al. “The Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods from Genetically Engineered Crops.” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, vol. 119, no. 3, Sept. 2017, doi:10.1016/j.anai.2017.07.010.
[H] Seeds of Deception. “What Is GMO?” Seeds of Deception, Seeds of Deception, 2014, seedsofdeception.com/what-is-gmo/.
[I] “Is It Safe to Eat?” Mendel in the Kitchen: a Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Foods, by Nina V. Fedoroff and Nancy M. Brown, Joseph Henry, 2006, pp. 155–162.
[J] “What Could Go Wrong?––A Parcial List.” Seeds of Deception, by Jeffery Smith, Youth Education Systems, pp. 57–60.
[K] Valdman. “Food for Thought.” GMO's, GMO's, 17 Apr. 2015, laurenmarieee.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/persuasive-essay/.