Table of Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................2

1.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................3

2.0 Food genetic modification.....................................................................................................................4

2.1 Principles behind food genetic modification................................................................................4

3.0 Opinions concerning food genetic modification..............................................................................5

3.1 Arguments against food genetic modification.............................................................................6

3.1.1 Antibiotic resistance............................................................................................................6

3.1.2 Alteration of natural food nutrient......................................................................................6

3.1.3 Tendency to cause food toxicity..........................................................................................7

3.1.4 Tendency to cause allergic..........................................................................................................7

3.1.5 Unawareness amongst consumers......................................................................................7

3.2 Arguments supporting food genetic modification.............................................................................8

3.2.1 Increased food availability...................................................................................................8

3.2.2 Improved shelf life of food...................................................................................................8

3.2.3 Improved nutritional quality of food....................................................................................8

3.3.4 Biological defence against diseases, stresses, pests, weeds, herbicides..............................8

3.3.5 Improvement of quantity and quality of meat, milk and livestock......................................9

4.0 Opinions of food regulators.............................................................................................................9

4.1 Codex stands on genetically modified foods................................................................................9

4.2 CFIA stands on genetically modified food..................................................................................10

5.0 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................10

References.................................................................................................................................................11

Abstract

Food availability has been affected by the growing global population and agricultural

yields have been poor due to unfavorable environmental conditions [climate change] and pests.

Genetic engineering has presented a promising solution for increased food production through

the invention of modified seeds [crops] that are resistant to drought and pests. Although

genetically modified food crops have been portrayed as a savior from starvation by a population,

some individuals are of the opinion that genetically modified foods are not to be trusted. Several

harmful attributes have been tagged on genetically modified foods and they include; tendency to

boost antibiotic resistance, alteration of the natural nutritional quality of food, toxic tendency and

allergenic tendency. This paper will elucidate the various public conflicts arising from the use of

genetic engineering in food production.

1.0 Introduction

Food is an important part of human existence. Its consumption provides the body with

the required amount of nutrient and energy it needs to function. Besides the nutritional benefits,

food has desirable taste and flavor characteristics which can be enjoyed when consumed

individually or in combinations. The increasing global population has heightened the demands

for food. According the Food and Agricultural Organization’s (2009) previous projection, food

production has to be increased by 70 percent from 2005/2007 to feed an anticipated population

of 9.1 billion people in 2050. This means that the production of important commodities like

cereals will be increased by almost a billion tons.

A number of food producers are capitalizing on the high food demands by boosting their

production through the use of genetically engineered seeds. Going by the definition of the Union

of Concerned Scientists, genetic engineering is a set of technologies used to change the genetic

makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce

improved organisms/crops. Crops, through genetic engineering, have been designed to be pest

and drought resistant (ucsusa.org, 2015). Although genetic modified foods have been applauded

by a number of people on their role in increased agricultural productivity and food supply, some

people believe the consumption of genetically modified foods can be catastrophic.

2.0 Food genetic modification

Genetic modification of food is an age long practice. Farmers, thousands of years ago

crossbred crops by transferring genes from male plants in form of pollen to the female organ of

another (Davis, 2015). They also selected and crossbred meatier and healthier animals to

produce desirable offspring (Uzogara, 2000). The use of biotechnological methods to genetically

modify crops began in the 1970’s. Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer in the year 1972

discovered the process of cutting and merging DNA1 strands at specific places in sequence

(Davis, 2015). However, this information conflicts with the literature of Uzogara (2000) where

it was stated that genetically engineered food made a first appearance in the 1960’s. An applied

example of genetic engineering in agriculture can be seen in the use of synthetic growth

hormones for cows [recombinant bovine somatotropin] to increase milk production (Uzogara,

2000).

2.1 Principles behind food genetic modification

Before genetic engineering, the traditional plant breeding process was based on the

introduction of a number of genes from a desired gene source into a plant. This method had a

flaw of transferring desirable and undesirable genes into a plant. With the emergence of genetic

engineering, the selection and transfer of specific genes with only desirable characteristics was

made possible (Davis, 2015)

The procedures in seed genetic modification as explained by Biosafety Cleaning-House

(2010) are as follows

A gene of interest after being identified and isolated from a donor organism is

manipulated into a form that can easily be transferred into the recipient seed.

The desirable gene(s) and other nucleotide sequences required for functionality of the

selected gene(s) are built in an orderly sequence in a transformation cassette. A promoter

sequence and termination sequence included in the transformation cassette ensures that

the gene is expressed correctly in the recipient organism.

1 Deoxyribonucleic acid is a molecule that contains the unique genetic code of an organism

Marker genes can be integrated into the transformation cassette to allow easy

identification or selection of cells which have been successfully introduced

Transformation cassette is incorporated into larger DNA molecule to be used as vector2

and integrated afterwards into the genome of the recipient organism

Fig 1: Process flow of seed genetic modification (modified from Biosafety Cleaning-House,2010)

3.0 Opinions concerning food genetic modification

Food genetic modification despite its perceived benefits has not been welcomed by every

food consumer. Critics in the European Union countries have labelled genetically modified

foods with names such as “Frankenfood” and “Farmageddon” (Uzogara, 2000) because they

believe genetically modified foods are threats to the world of agriculture, human health and the

environment. The critics are of the opinion that safety, ethical, religious and environmental

2 A vector aids the transfer of transformation cassette into recipient organism

Identification and issolation of gene from

donor organism

Building of genes in orderly

sequence into a cassette

Incorporarting transformation cassette into

DNA molecules

Integration of cassette into genome of

recepient seed

concerns should be of more priority than improved food quality and production enhanced by

genetic engineering (Uzogara, 2000).

Scientific reasons for the disapproval of genetically modified foods can be drawn from a

literature by Fagan (1996); which explains that the genes introduced to food through genetic

engineering can be duplicated and lead to the formation of new proteins which humans have

never been exposed to in food. These new proteins may produce an adverse effect with an

unknown remedy. The proteins might be either allergenic or toxic. Despite the worries, some

GM supporters are of the opinion that genetic engineering is a beneficial practice. They claim

that food manufacturers are committed to providing safe and wholesome food to the consumers

and will by no means make use of harmful raw materials or ingredients when producing food

(Uzogara, 2000).

Several literatures have pointed out the failures of researchers to provide scientific

evidence to prove that genetically modified foods are harmful (Agbioworld.org, 2001;

Monsanto.com 2002, and Greenfacts.org, 2015). Monsanto3 (2002) mentioned that farmers have

grown biotech crops since 1996 and so far, there have been no credible evidence supporting

modified crop’s harm to humans or animals. Monsanto also based its argument on the fact that

no evidence was found in summarized results from 50 research projects conducted in 2010 on

the safety of genetically modified products. Furthermore, the International Council of Science

has given consensus to transgenic4 crops stating that they are safe for human and animal

consumption (ICSU (2003) cited in Greenfacts.org, 2015).

3 Monsanto is a sustainable agriculture company that deals with the production of genetically modified products4 Transgenic crops are genetically modified crops i.e. gene incorporation in plant genome

3.1 Arguments against food genetic modification

Genetically modified food products have been feared for several reasons. Some of which

includes; tendency to cause antibiotic resistance, alteration of natural food nutrient, tendency to

cause food toxicity and tendency to cause allergic reaction. It has also been questioned for

denying people the ability to decide what they choose to consume.

3.1.1 Antibiotic resistance

Most genetically modified foods are made with antibiotic resistance maker genes

(Sustainabletable.org, 2015). Marker genes enable genetic engineers know when genetic

materials have been successfully transferred to a host plant or animal. The use of antibiotic

resistant markers have been criticized for its ability to transfer resistant trait to disease causing

bacteria making them more virulent (Sustainabletable.org, 2015; gmo-compass.org, 2006). It is

feared that resistant traits can be transferred to the bacteria in the human gut and this might boost

their ability to withstand antibiotic treatments (pbs.org, 2001; gmo-compass.org, 2006)

3.1.2 Alteration of natural food nutrient

There are concerns that the genetic modification of food might affect the nutritional

characteristics of food. When new genes are introduced into food plants, there might be

alterations in their natural food production mechanism which can consequently affect their

nutritional content. The nutritional content of genetically modified soybeans [Roundup Ready]

was studied by Lappe et al in 1999 and it was discovered that the modified soybeans had a

reduced level of isoflavones [genistin and daidzin] (Lappe et al., cited in ucbiotech.org, 2012).

3.1.3 Tendency to cause food toxicity

Claims have been made by some studies that genetically modified foods may have

hepatic, pancreatic, renal and reproductive effects on humans although these claims have been

labelled as scientifically meaningless by industries and food regulators (gmeducation.org, 2015).

A scenario of food toxicity from genetic engineering can be drawn from an incidence in 1967,

when a new variety of potato was bred for its high solids content which was desired in the

production of potato chips. It was discovered after two years that modified potato developed a

toxin [solanine] hence it was withdrawn from the market (Uzogara, 2009).

3.1.4 Tendency to cause allergic

Allergens5 can easily be transferred from one food material to another through gene

modification. For example the transfer of protein gene from Brazil nuts to a soy genome might

trigger an allergic reaction if consumed by a person allergic to Brazil nuts. There are also

possibilities of creating new allergens that can cause new allergic reactions if genes and traits are

forcefully combined (sustainable.org, 2015)

3.1.5 Unawareness amongst consumers

There are fears that genetic engineering can manipulate food materials to contain genes

from an undesired food (Uzogara, 2015). For example the transfer of pig genes to grains would

be offensive to Jews and Muslims who mistakenly consume modified grain. Some food

producers fail to label products containing genetically modified ingredients i.e. food producers in

Canada are not mandated by law to label every product containing genetically modified

ingredients (Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), 2015). This action is an

infringement on the rights of consumers to know and decide what they choose to consume

5 Allergen is a type of antigen that triggers an abnormal immune response in the body

3.2 Arguments supporting food genetic modification

Some individuals have been supportive of food genetic engineering for several reasons.

According to them, genetic engineering has been able to achieve the following; increased food

availability, improved shelf life of food, improved nutritional quality of food and biological

defence against diseases and pests in plants

3.2.1 Increased food availability

One of the reasons for the failure of agriculture and shortage in food supply in many parts

of the world is pest control. However; the emergence of genetic engineering has made it

possible to produce crops that are not only resistant to pest but also resistant to severe weather

such as extreme heat and draught [see appendix B for lists of genetically modified food] (Food

and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 2003). The cultivation of resistant crops will help curb the

problems that result to low food yield and consequently amount to increased availability of food.

3.2.2 Improved shelf life of food

Fruits and vegetables can be manipulated by genetic engineering to last longer. For

example; Flavr Savr tomato has been engineered to have a longer shelf life by delaying its

ripening process (Uzogara, 2000). The application of genetic engineering has helped to avert

massive food wastage and expand trade opportunities (FAO, 2003).

3.2.3 Improved nutritional quality of food

The problems of malnutrition in developing countries have been dealt with through the

help of genetically modified foods. Vitamin A deficiency is a common disease in developing

countries. However, a brand of genetically modified rice known as “Golden Rice” have been

developed to provide the required amount of vitamin A to the body. Considering the fact that

rice constitutes one of the three foods [wheat, rice and maize] that provides 50% of the world’s

plant derived energy (International Development Research Centre, no date), the problem of

vitamin A deficiency can be easily resolved by genetically engineered rice Golden Rice.

3.3.4 Biological defence against diseases, stresses, pests, weeds, herbicides

Farmers have benefitted from seeds modified to withstand environmental factors that

limit crop productivity. Genetic engineers have created crops that can withstand droughts, resist

pesticides and herbicides [Roundup ready] (Davis, 2015). Several approaches have been taken

to help plant deal with fungal infections for example; introducing enzymes such as chitinase or

glucanase into a plant can help in the breakdown of chitin and glucan [essential components of

fungal walls] respectively (GMO compass b, 2006).

3.3.5 Improvement of quantity and quality of meat, milk and livestock

The use of genetic engineering has promised a great impact toward improving the

efficiency of agricultural production including livestock and animal agriculture in a timely and

more cost-effective manner. The ever-increasing world population and evolving climate

conditions, highlights the need for such effective means of improving food production. Some of

which include improvement in the specific nutritional composition of milk (nutraceutical

protein) and meat (elevated levels of omega-3 fatty acids in transgenic pigs); enhancing growth

rates and carcass composition; enhanced animal welfare through improved disease resistance;

improving reproductive performance and fecundity; improving hair and fiber reduced

environmental impact. (Wheeler, et al., 2003)

4.0 Opinions of food regulators

4.1 Codex stands on genetically modified foods

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an international organization responsible for the

control of global food trade. They are made of other organizations which includes; the World

Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization (Ethical consumer, no date)

The primary purpose of codex is to ensure and promote the safety of foods however; Codex

allows the consumers a responsibility to decide what to consume. Codex provides the principles

and guide lines used in assessing the safety of food derived from recombinant DNA plants and

permits governments and food regulators the privilege to use these guidelines in developing their

regulatory mechanisms. Codex has not reached a consensus on labelling genetically modified

food products hence governments have been allowed to apply their own regulations (Codex

Alimentarius. (c2015).

The attitude of codex towards genetically modified foods have been perceived by Ethical

consumer (no date) as heavily influenced by highly placed industries in the food, agricultural and

pharmaceutical sectors.

4.2 Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stands on genetically modified food

The production and use of transgenic food materials is not prohibited by the Canadian

food inspection agency however, there are certain procedures to be followed before a

novel/genetically modified food gains approval [see appendix A for the list of procedures]. A set

of guidelines have been developed for the labelling of genetically engineered foods by the CFIA

(2015). These guide lines were drawn from a consensus made from three major consultations

since 1993 that agrees that:

Genetically engineered food will require mandatory labelling if there is a health or safety

concern, i.e., from allergens or a significant nutrient or compositional change (these

decisions will be made by Health Canada), in order to inform consumers of the allergen

or change

Producers should ensure labelling is understandable, truthful and not misleading,

Voluntary positive labelling will be permitted on the condition that the claim is not

misleading or deceptive and the claim itself is factual.

Voluntary negative labelling will be permitted on the condition that the claim is not

misleading or deceptive and the claim itself is factual.

5.0 Conclusion

Genetically modified foods have not been scientifically proven to cause health

complications in humans. Even though several literatures have stated scientific reasons why

genetically modified foods may be harmful, there have been either few or no known documented

case(s) of harmful effects of genetically modified foods to humans. However, the strength of

genetic manipulation should not be underestimated. The long term effect of genetically modified

foods on humans will be an interesting area of research focus.

References

Agbioworld. (2011). Arguments in favour of Genetically-Modified Crops. Retrieved 22

November, 2015, from

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/in_favor.html

Biosafety Cleaning-House (2010). Overview of Biosafety and the Cartagena Protocol of

Biosafety. Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

https://bch.cbd.int/cpb_art15/training/module1.shtml

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (2015). Labelling. Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Labeling

Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (2015). Labelling of Genetically Engineered Food in

Canada.Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/labelling/food-labelling-for-industry/method-of-

production-claims/genetically-engineered-foods/eng/1333373177199/1333373638071

Codex Alimentarius. (c2015). Codex alimentarius international food standards: FAQs :

Questions about specific Codex work. Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

http://www.codexalimentarius.org/faqs/specific-codex-work/en/

Davis, J. B. (2015). Exploring the Legal Liability of Genetically Modified Organisms and their

Impact on Society (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida).

Ethical consumer. (no date). Codex alimentarius. Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/commentanalysis/factsvgreenwash/codexalimentarius.as

px

Fagan, J. B. (1996). Assessing the safety and nutritional quality of genetically engineered

foods. Draft assessment of genetically engineered organisms in the environment.

Food and Agricultural Organization. (2009). Global agriculture towards 2050.  Retrieved 22

November, 2015, from

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agr

iculture.pdf

Food and Agricultural Organization. (2003). Weighing the GMO arguments. Retrieved 22

November, 2015, from http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm

GMeducation. (2015). GM Foods can be toxic or allergenic. Retrieved 22 November, 2015,

from http://www.gmeducation.org/faqs/p149399-gm-foods-can-be-toxic-or-

allergenic.html

GMO-Compassa (2006). Antibiotic resistance genes; A threat?. Retrieved 22 November,

2015, from .

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/46.antibiotic_resistance_genes_t

hreat.html

GMO compass b. (2006). Disease Resistance. Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_aims/

148.disease_resistant_crops.html

Grace. (c2015). Genetic Engineering. Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

http://www.sustainabletable.org/264/genetic-engineering

Greenfacts. (2015). Genetically Modified Crops. Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/3-genetically-engineered-food/4-food-safety-

labelling.htm

International Development Research Centre, . (no date). Facts and figures on food and

biodiversity.Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?

PublicationID=565

Learn genetics. (c2015).  Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/science/gmfoods/

Monsanto. (2002). Commonly asked questions about the food safety of GMOs. Retrieved 22

November, 2015, from http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/food-safety.aspx

Pbs. (2001). Should we Grow GM Crops. Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/yes1.html

Ucbiotech. (2012). Do genetically engineered foods have changes in nutritional

content.Retrieved 22 November, 2015, from http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=30

United Concerned Scientists. (2015). What is genetic engineering . Retrieved 22 November,

2015, from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-

engineering/what-is-genetic-engineering.html

Uzogara, S. G. (2000). The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: A

review. Biotechnology Advances, 18(3), 179-206.

Appendix

Appendix A: Steps in regulating genetically modified foods in Canada

Pre-submission

consultation

Health Canada encourages proponents to consult with the Novel Foods

Section of the Food Directorate in advance of notifying a GM food to Health

Canada for safety assessment. This provides the opportunity for regulatory

process requirements to be clarified and for any specific safety issues to be

raised.

Pre-market

notification

When the product's proponent believes it has sufficient information about the

safety of a GM food to address Health Canada's criteria, a submission is

made to the Novel Foods Section. This office coordinates a full safety

assessment of the product, which involves a rigorous scientific evaluation by

Health Canada scientific evaluators. These criteria are described in Health

Canada's Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods.

Scientific

Assessment

Scientific evaluators, with individual expertise in molecular biology,

toxicology, chemistry, nutritional sciences and microbiology, assess the

following:

development of the modified organism, including the molecular

biological data that characterizes the genetic change;

composition of and nutritional information about the GM food

compared to a non-modified counterpart food;

the potential for production of new toxins in the food

the potential for causing allergic reactions;

microbiological and chemical safety of the food;

the potential for any unintended or secondary effects;

key nutrients and toxicants;

Major constituents (for example, fats, proteins, carbohydrates) and

minor constituents (for example, minerals and vitamins).

Requests for

additional

information

If Health Canada evaluators find that any of the information provided about a

GM food is insufficient, further documentation is requested from the

proponent of the submission. Health Canada does not give any further

consideration to the submission until all requested material is provided and

deemed to be scientifically valid.

Summary

report of

findings

Once evaluators have completed their assessments, they summarize their

findings and recommendations in a report.

Preparation of

food rulings

proposal

Once the evaluation of the product is completed, a Health Canada Food

Rulings Proposal is prepared. This proposal is reviewed by senior staff

(Directors and Director General) in the Food Directorate to ensure that all

issues have been addressed. Once this has been done, a decision is made

whether or not to approve the product.

Letter of no

objection

If a product has successfully completed the evaluation process, and the other

regulatory approvals such as environmental and feed safety are in place, a

"Letter of No Objection" is sent to the product proponent. This letter

indicates that the product can be sold in Canada for the intended uses, as

listed in the submission, and whether there are any restrictions or

requirements associated with the Health Canada decision.

Decision

document on

Health Canada

Web site

A decision document, describing the novel food and summarizing the safety

information used to determine its safety as a food, is posted on the Novel

Foods and Ingredients page of Health Canada's Web site.

Source: Modified from Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2015)

Appendix B: Genetically engineered foods approved by Health Canada

Decision Date

(YY/MM/DD)

Product Proponent

2015/03/20 Arctic® Apple Events GD743 and GS784 Okanagan Specialty Fruits

2014/10/31 Insect Resistant Soy - MON 87751 Monsanto Canada Inc.

2014/09/24 Reduced Lignin Alfalfa KK179 Monsanto Canada Inc. and

Forage Genetics LLC

2014/05/15 Herbicide Tolerant Soybean SYHT0H2 Syngenta Seeds Canada Inc.

Bayer Crop Science Inc.

2014/02/12 Herbicide Tolerant Maize Event VCO-

1981-5

Genective SA

2013/11/26 Cibus Canola Line 5715 (imidazolinone and

sulfonylurea herbicide tolerant)

Cibus US LLC

2013/09/10 Soybean Modified to Increase Yield MON

87712

Monsanto Canada Inc.

2013/06/21 Insect Resistant and Herbicide Tolerant

Maize Event 4114

Pioneer Hi-Bred Canada Inc.

2013/06/07 Herbicide Tolerant Soybean DAS-44406-6 Dow Agrosciences Canada Inc.

2012/10/12 Dicamba Tolerant Soybean MON 87708 Monsanto Canada Inc.

2012/06/20 Double Herbicide Tolerant Soybean Event

FG72

Bayer CropScience Inc.

2011/01/20 Drought Tolerant Corn MON 87460 Monsanto Canada Inc.

2003/01/10 Virus resistant papaya Line 55 Papaya Administrative

Committee

2000/10/02 Insect resistant tomato (Bt tomato line

5345)

Monsanto Canada Inc

1999/05/13 Glyphosate tolerant corn (GA21) Monsanto Canada Inc.

1998/06/08 Imidazolinone Tolerant Corn (Mutation of

AHAS Enzyme)

Pioneer Hi-Bred International

Source: Modified from Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2015)

Appendix C: creation of an insect resistant tomato plant

Source: Learn genetics. (c2015).