Building a Better Animal

The story briefly highlights the work of Cecil Forsberg a biologist from the University of Guelph in Ontario, who wanted to spare the environment the impact of pig farming.  The problem with swine CAFOs is they produce huge amounts of waste that are stored in so called ‘swine lagoons‘.  These open air pig waste ponds have been the subject of much debate, with the EPA studying them for polluting ground water with estrogenic compounds while the hog farming capital of the world, North Carolina, has gone so far as to ban their new construction outright.  But the real problem with the pig waste is what happens once it leaves the lagoon.

Much of swine effluent is sold as a spray on fertilizer for crops near the hog farms because of it’s high NPK values (ag talk for Nitrogen-Phosphorous-Potassium levels, critical to grow American corn and soy agronomic crops).  This concept makes logical sense and could even promote regional foodshed growth as a cheap form of nutrient dense fertilizer that comes from a natural source.  The problem is the volume of waste from giant hog farms far outstrips the local farmland’s ability to use it.  Most notable, is that phosphorous runoff from the pig waste finds its way into sensitive waterways where it promotes runaway algae growth that chokes off aquatic life from the oxygen it needs to survive, a process known as eutrophication.

Domesticated pigs eat a largely vegetarian diet of grain and soy that contains prodigious amounts of phytate, a complex compound their bodies cannot normally break down, causing these high phosphorous levels in the waste fertilizer.  Pigs still need phosphorous to make DNA so farmers solve this issue by buying free phosphorous for their pigs or supplementing with an enzyme called, appropriately enough, phytase.  But what if that was all unecessary?  What if the pig made phytase itself?

Enter Enviropig.

Forsberg, et al, have genetically engineered these Yorkshire pigs to produce phytase in their salivary glands, which breaks down the phytate into usable phosphorous for the pig.  The result?  30-65% reduction in phosphorous excretions. Enviropigs cost more than traditional breeds but, according to the Popsci article, save farmers $1.75 annually in supplementation costs – a big savings in the world of livestock production.  In a CAFO with 100K head of swine (which unfortunately aren’t going anywhere anytime soon), this would be a huge win for the marine environment, currently being decimated by many forces.  The pig awaits USDA and Health Canada approval as it has now successfully been breed into an 8th generation with no problems.

Ick, Ehh, or Yay?

GMO animals represent a promising new way to deal with the industrial scale of modern agriculture issues.  We say promising because, like always with genetic modification, the ideas are great but the implementation has left something to be desired.  It is heartening to see that the Enviropig was developed at the university level and not the corporate level, avoiding such pitfalls as the infamous terminator genes in some Monsanto GMO products.

It still strikes us as counterintuitive to create such a technology when simply lowering the density of swine at CAFOs would achieve the same effect.  Better yet, we could require CAFOs to treat swine waste much as we require cities to treat human waste before releasing it back into the environment.  Nevertheless, this is just one of many GMO animals to come and its a promising start.

Genetically modified foods have a significant image problem and much of that comes from the laissez-faire apparatus that has been put in place to regulate them. Scientists, in effect, over-estimated the scientific sophistication of the public and assumed no one would conflate the genetic modification of plants for humans. How this oversight has played out in the regulatory arena is instructive in trying to decipher some of the hatred pointed at GMOs and other scientific advances that may come to pass.

Understanding the Regulatory Apparatus

Right now, there is a lot of variation in the regulatory processes that monitor and label GMOs. Those that are tightest regulated are in the biomedical industry, where strict regulations on animal research in general ensure the ethical creation, treatment and use of GMOs. In the U.S., any procedure on an animal can be preformed if scientifically justified, though that justification isn’t always easy. Animals are regulated and protected under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, published by the National Academy of Sciences.

Any institution that conducts animal research must have a vet and an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which ensures that alternatives, including non-animal alternatives, have been considered, that the experiments don’t use more animals than necessary, and that pain relief is given unless it would interfere with the study. The IACUCs regulate all vertebrates in testing at institutions receiving federal funds in the USA. GM vertebrates purposefully bred for research are separately regulated under Public Health Service policies, and all of these regulations are enforced by the USDA, OLAW and the AAALAC. The hoops that researchers have to jump through to make and use GMOs are insane, though not in a bad way – they guarantee good science as well as the control and proper use of genetic technologies.

The Food Fight

As I alluded to, regulation of GM food is different. There is no worldwide consensus as to how to regulate GM crops or livestock, and depending on the political, social and economic climate within a region or country, the government oversight and opinion varies. In Europe, for example, anti-GM activists are particularly vocal. GM crops are today very rare in Europe. In 2003, the European Union adopted regulations establishing an EU-wide system to trace and label GMOs and to regulate the sale and labeling of food derived from them, although this legislation did put an end to the ‘de facto’ moratorium on approving new GM products for the European market, which had been in place since 1998. Regardless, these strict labeling laws and regulations ensure that GM crops don’t hit stores easily. These include systematic genetic testing for GMOs using DNA barcoding technology and assurance that non-GM crops do not mix with GM ones.

In the United States, however, GMOs are much more common. The regulation is confusing because the EPA, USDA, and FDA all deal with different facets of GMOs. In short, the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. This means that the EPA is responsible for testing and regulating GMOs with pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment, like Bt corn, but not those that are modified only nutritionally or for other reasons like disease resistance. The USDA picks up where the EPA leaves off, including drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown for animal feeds, or any fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption. In general, the FDA focuses more on parts of things, not whole products. A box of cereal containing GM corn is regulated by the FDA, but the whole ear would be regulated by the USDA or EPA. In general, exactly what the FDA regulates with regards to GM foods is uncertain and confusing.

To protect the environment and other creatures, the EPA conducts risk assessment studies on pesticides and establishes tolerance and residue levels for them. These regulations aren’t just GM-oriented – there are strict limits on the amount of pesticides applied to crops during growth and production, the amount that remains in the food after processing, licensing for pesticides used and directions for how to use them to meet the EPA’s safety standards. Inspectors periodically visit farms and conduct investigations to ensure compliance.

When it comes to GMOs, for example, the EPA requires that growers have a license to grow modified crops, and requires those that do also plant 20%-50% unmodified versions to prevent insects from developing resistance to the pesticides as well as provide a refuge for non-target insects. The USDA has all kinds of specialized groups that share responsibility for assessing and monitoring GM foods, including the the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, which conducts field tests and issues permits to grow GM crops, the Agricultural Research Service, which performs the GM food research done by the USDA, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service which oversees the USDA risk assessment program. In general, these groups check whether GMOs harbor pests, act as weeds, or harm native species that surround planted areas, including the effects of escaped GMOs. Depending on their findings, these groups can stop the production or movement of anything deemed unacceptable, and can even destroy anything that is in violation if their regulations.

Under USDA regulation, a GM plant does not require a permit if it meets six criteria:

1. Is not a noxious weed
2. Has whatever genetic material that was introduced stably integrated into the plant’s own genome
3. The function of the introduced gene is known and does not cause plant disease
4. Is not toxic to non-target organisms
5. Will not cause the creation of new plant viruses
6. Does not genetic material from animal or human pathogen

Once the food is grown and processed somehow to be used in food, it’s the FDA’s problem. In my opinion, it is here, at the FDA level, that the US has failed to adequately regulate and monitor GMOs, and this failure is partly at fault for the negative attitude towards GMOs held by many. By FDA regulations, agri-biotech companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation, including the evaluation of how eating the product affects people. Companies working to create new GM foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to follow the FDA’s recommendations after the consultation.

The FDA does not demand special labeling of GM foods, as the FDA contends that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs and are “generally recognized as safe”. The FDA could do a lot better, and needs to. How can consumers trust in a regulatory system that basically says regulation isn’t necessary? Here is where the politicians need to step in and demand more efficient, required testing of GM foods. Doing so might slow down the release of GM products, but it will give the public a reason to trust that when those products are released, that they really are “substantially equivalent.” In other countries there is even more variation in how GMOs are regulated. Some completely ban GMOs, not even allowing them to be tested and evaluated. Others plant them vigorously with no concerns towards their safety. What we need is a worldwide set of regulations that ensures the quality, environmental safety, and lack of adverse health effects of any GMO eaten by people.

A Quick Run-Down of the Pros and Cons

To try and explain the entirety of the debate on GMOs would take an entire book or two. But, for your edification, here’s a cliff notes version:

Potential Benefits of GMOs

• In Agriculture:
  • Increase productivity by reducing maturation time, increasing resistance to pests, disease, environmental stressors (like drought) or herbicides
  • Enhanced taste and quality, including added vitamins and minerals to increase the nutritional value of foods
  • Other new products and growing techniques that take less space or energy and have reduced environmental impacts
• Using Animals
  • Breakthroughs in biological and medical technologies through research
  • Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency of food animals
  • Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
  • Increased nutritional value of food animals
  • Improved animal health including resistance to diseases and parasites
• To The Environment
  • Bioherbicides and bioinsecticides that have negligable impacts
  • Conservation of soil, water, and energy
  • Bioprocessing of waste, improving waste management
• To Society
  • Increased food security and nutritional needs met for growing populations
  • Better and more affordable medical treatments for tough or incurable diseases

The Things People Worry About With GMOs

• Safety
  • Potential human health impacts of eating GMOs, including allergic reactions, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers and other unknown effects
  • Potential environmental impacts, including transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms, and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
• Who Owns It?
  • World food production by a few companies (like Monsanto), and the problems of monopolies on food
  • Increased dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries
  • Rich nations getting the majority of the benefits, advances skewed to interests of rich countries
• Ethical Questions
  • Whether “unnatural” is bad or the violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values
  • “Playing God” or tampering with nature by mixing genes among species, particularly animal genes in plants and vice versa
• Labeling
  • Lack of choice in consumption due to poor or no labelling
  • Mixing GM crops with non-GM crops

Hopefully, this list, combined with the information above, can give you some basis for your own opinions on GMOs. When arguing about genetic modification, remember that it’s not all about food – this technology is used for far more than Bt crops and fast-growing fish. Now that you have the back story, you can better understand the different sides of the GMO debate.

The Future of GMOs: My Two Cents

What lies ahead for genetically modified organisms is uncertain. A lot of it depends on public opinion, which, right now, is extremely negative. There are definitely some concerns with GMOs that need to be addressed, including their potential interactions with wildlife and native plants, the societal issues of who owns GMOs and who benefits from them, and the ability of consumers to make informed decisions when it comes to their food. But it seems that most who dislike the idea of GMOs have few facts and don’t think of the many other uses of GMOs besides Frankenfood. Just look at the list of negatives – almost none apply to GMOs for use in biomedical research. Yet legislation seeks to prevent all GMOs wholesale – laws which would hinder medical advances. Anti-GMO feelings are spurred onwards by those who fear that by altering the genetic makeup of creatures, we are, in essence, playing God. It’s a line of thinking that feels anything unnatural is therefore unsafe – an entire culture of thought that thinks that anything produced by science or technology is automatically bad.

Let me just share my two cents on this mode of thinking: first off, nothing about our lives is “natural”. We build things out of reinforced steel and other metals that never occur naturally. Houses never form in the wild, nor do clothes. X-ray machines don’t occur spontaneously, nor do heart transplants. So if you’re really dedicated to living naturally, you’ve got to rethink a lot more than GMOs. Secondly, we have been messing with creatures’ genetics and “playing God” for centuries. Over 50 million of us worldwide proudly own the products of this genetic manipulation – you might call them pets. Dogs, for example, have more physical variation within their species than there is in the entire rest of the order of carnivores. In other words, a pug’s skull is more different from a pit bull’s than a mouse’s is from a bear’s. If that’s not some serious genetic manipulation, I don’t know what is. We’ve bred not just different varieties of one species to create ideal plants, we’ve bred together different species, and long before we could do it with genetic engineering. Changing creatures’ genetics to suit our desires is nothing new. Thirdly, the transfer of genes from one organism to a wholly unrelated organism isn’t unnatural. Yeah, I know, the way we do it is, but it’s not like it’s never happened before in nature. Viruses and bacteria donate their genes to other creatures all the time – that’s why their machinery is often used to do genetic engineering. Even the transfer of genes between higher-order animals isn’t unheard of. We’ve found plant genes in sea slugs, for example – which is really, unbelievably cool, by the way.

I’m not saying that we should all just go out and blindly trust Monsanto and the other GM producers. We shouldn’t just shovel GMOs down our throats and presume they’re safe and better for us. That’s what science is for – to test this kind of thing. Have the lawmakers make stricter regulations regarding the safety evaluation of GMOs. Let scientists study and debate GMOs until they feel like they’re beating a dead FrankenHorse. Let it take years and years for these products to be tested, evaluated, and released. But don’t stop them from being created. Don’t make laws that outlaw the GMOs that are so vital to biomedical research because of fear. The reason Monsanto has a near-monopoly is because we stifle smaller companies and universities from competing with them, competition which is not only healthy but necessary – and we can fix that. In the end, the global benefits of the GMOs of the future are too great to be prevented by idealized notions of a natural world, and this is coming from an ecologist. Progress isn’t a dirty word, no matter what you hear, and we should be excited about the amazing possibilities that ever advancing technologies afford us.

GM Plants

The small group of GMOs that are well-known and hotly debated are those used in agriculture. While many seem to argue whether or not they should exist, the fact is genetically modified crops are already all over the place. In 2006, for example, 252 million acres of transgenic crops were farmed in 22 countries by 10 million farmers. Of these, 53% were grown in the United States, where the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) keeps a close watch on the total area of GMO seeds planted. Genetically modified plants totaled as high as 86 percent of corn, 90 percent of the soybean, and 93 percent of upland cotton planted (by area).

It’s not just developed nations that are growing GMOs: according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), 90% of the GMO-growing farmers in 2005 were resource-poor farmers in developing countries. So what, exactly, are these farmers planting? The majority are soybeans, corn, cotton, canola and alfalfa that carry genes that either make them tolerant to the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate or produce the insecticide Bt toxin, a compound originally from bacteria that is a widely used pesticide by organic farmers.

Why should we want GM foods around in the first place? For one, they have the potential to make the production of certain crops cheaper and even more environmentally friendly. But really, what we have done so far is child’s play compared to what we may be able to do in the near future with GM crops.

On the horizon are a variety of crops that could revolutionize agriculture, and not just in cost-saving ways like insecticides and herbicides. Sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world. Rice is being created which is high in iron and vitamins to supplement the diet of the malnourished masses in many areas. Similarly, scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people.

Even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepititis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. Just for the record, not all GM crops are made to be eaten; some trees, for example, are being modified to produce plastics, of all things. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical.

GM Animals

Most genetically modified animals are used for scientific research, as I explained in the first segment of this series. But GM animals don’t just live in labs. The first GM animals for commercial sale were glow in the dark zebra fish, now quite popular in freshwater aquariums (you might call them GloFish). GM animals aren’t just for show, though – some are making their way onto our dinner plates. Like for their floral counterparts, the use genetically modified animals as food is hotly debated.

Right now, the most likely GM animals on the verge of wide-scale sale are fish. Fish are becoming more and more popular as a source for protein. By 2015, it’s expected that the world demand for fish and fish products will expand by 50 million tonnes to over 180 million tonnes per year. That is a lot of fish. As worldwide fish stocks continue to collapse, it’s expected that much of this will come from aquaculture, and GM fish are ready to swim into the market through these farms. Aquabounty Inc., for example, has developed genetically modified salmon called AquAdvantage, which are capable of reaching maturity twice as fast as their unmodified counterparts. Similarly, transgenic sockeye salmon have been given an extra growth boost, as have transgenic carp and tilapia. These animals have yet to hit supermarket shelves because of concerns not only for their safety to humans but also their ecological safety to their wild counterparts should some escape.

Already, non-transgenic farm fish pose threats to some species of fish, and studies have found that the offspring between enhanced and wild fish are compromised compared to natural offspring. Those in favor of GM fish, however, say that these farms can be restricted to land-locked areas to reduce risk, that the GM fish can be sterilized, and that the benefits of these faster-growing fish overwhelmingly outweigh the risks. Fish aren’t the only animals being modified for food. Farmed mammals, too, are being genetically modified. Cows are being created which increase the calcium content of their milk by producing more casein proteins.

Pigs are popular targets: some are being cloned to produce omega-3 fatty acids which are normally found in fish, and separately others are being modified to express a phytase which breaks down phosphorus to reduce the environmental impact of their feed. Pigs are even being engineered to contain high vitamin C levels. Transgenic chickens now express an enzyme so they can eat lactose-containing feed, widening their possible food options. While these animals aren’t for sale yet, either, they have the potential to make meats more affordable, more environmentally friendly, and more nutritious. Unlike plants, GM animals are not widely available or currently on supermarket shelves. However, that is expected to change in the near future, once further tests have been done to determine their safety.

GM Foods and Us

The major concern that most of us have is whether GM crops are safe. It is, literally, a billion dollar question. The vast majority of the anti-GMO platform is that they’re not. The main basis of this opinion is that because GMOs contain genes that produce proteins otherwise never found in a given food, they are likely to be dangerous. For example, foreign protein products may cause allergic reactions in people.

A case often cited as proof that GMOs are inherently dangerous is Pioneer Hi-Bred’s GM soybeans that were being developed in the ’90s. Pioneer Hi-Bred introduced genes from Brazil nuts into soybeans to increase the level of sulphur-rich amino acids. While the product was intended for animal feed, not human consumption, it became clear during testing that the nut protein that was being transferred was an allergen to humans. Because of this, the company discontinued development. People also believe that, since many plants are being engineered to produce pesticides, the overall consumption of these health hazards will be increased if GMOs are eaten regularly.

As it stands, the science is mixed, but most supports that these foods do not cause adverse health affects. Feeding trials have found little to no toxic effects and studies have documented that GM foods have the same nutritional qualities as unmodified versions. Perhaps the most supportive evidence of GM crops’ safety, though, is simply that we’ve been eating them for 15 years in the US and have yet to see population-wide adverse effects. Despite the evidence towards their safety, public support for GM crops remains low, and many say that we can’t really know whether they’re safe with the tests that are done now.

To that end, there is a lot of variety in the regulations and studies of the effects of eating GMOs (I’ll explain that in my next post). Many, including myself, believe that more rigorous and standardized testing is necessary, as it would build consumer confidence in the safety evaluations and lead to much wider spread acceptance of GM foods.

The GM Debate

While I understand the worry about Frakenfoods, I think it’s important to look at the bigger picture. DNA is a part of our diet. We eat millions of copies of thousands of genes every day, most of which science has yet to determine the products of. We breathe in even more microorganisms and other microscopic creatures that have all kinds of unknown proteins in them, and we rarely stop to worry if they will have an adverse impact on our health. Moreover, we do eat many of the genes being transferred around between GM species. The fact is, most proteins get chewed up beyond recognition in our stomachs (this is why most health supplements don’t actually work).

We must take the debate about the development of GMOs very seriously, and critically analyze the risks that come with them. But at the same time, we must also avoid being hysterical about the issue, and tackle the assurance of their safety with science and reason instead of rhetoric. To that end, we must ensure that they are safe via thorough testing and regulation. What are we doing about that?

Next post I’ll explain the complex system that is GMO regulation, particularly in the US, so you can have a better idea about what analysis GM products go through before they end up on supermarket shelves.

The Publishing Journal

Recently, a reinterpretation of an original Monsanto GMO study was published in the International Journal of Biological Studies which appeared to demonstrate that some aspect of Monsanto’s GMO corn – potentially just additional pesticides – was causing kidney problems in their reexamination of the data.  This study was widely proclaimed to be the first published study from by an independent group of Monsanto’s GMO corn (which it was not). None the less, the findings have generated a good bit of conversation on the issue of GMOs and their safety record.

It was way back in the 1970s – almost 40 years earlier – that scientists discovered the machinery and mechanisms that made the direct genetic modification of all kinds of organisms possible.  The idea of genetic manipulation is centuries old, as humans have been planting, breeding, and changing creatures for thousands of years.  However, the onset of genetic engineering suddenly widened the possibilities far beyond what our ancestors could have imagined – plant genes in animals, animal genes in bacteria!

But what do most people really know about GMOs?  Probably not that much.  I’m not trying to be insulting – the fact is that both sides of the GMO argument don’t give the back story. They throw out random statistics and statements to try and sway the masses without citing the science. GMOs are synonymous with crops like Bt corn, as if the only creatures ever genetically modified are plants. But, for example, did you know that there are GMOs being sold in pet stores? Do you know how GMOs are made, or what other uses they have?

This subject is complex – so complex I have prepared a three part series that helps explain what is going on underneath the heated debates.  This first piece will explain the technology and its widespread use in science. The second installment will then focus on how genetic modification applies to the food supply, and finally, the final post in this trilogy will review the regulatory structure in place to ensure GMO safety. Without further ado, let’s begin exploring what GMOs are, and how they are being used today.

First off: What Are GMOs?

A “genetically modified organism” is any creature whose genetic material has been altered by people using genetic engineering techniques. This usually involves the introduction of a particular gene to a creature which didn’t have it before. Genes are the pieces of DNA that act as blueprints for the thousands of proteins that form the building blocks of life. Proteins provide structure, allow for communication between body parts, and act as enzymes that carry out a cell’s function in the body.

In general, “genetic engineering techniques” refers to recombinant DNA technology. How does it work? Well, recombinant DNA technology uses the cell’s natural process called recombination to introduce new genetic material into a cell.

Normally, when an animal makes its sexual cells, called germ cells (like sperm and eggs), the maternal and paternal DNA in the cell undergo recombination, where bits and pieces from mom’s chromosomes replace ones on dad’s, and vice versa. This genetic shuffling allows the organism to create hundreds of germ cells that are completely, 100% unique. I won’t get into the evolutionary explanation right now for why this is good, but trust me, the more variety in a creature’s offspring, the better, which is why our cells do this.

What GMO scientists do is take advantage of the system already set up in cells to swap around chunks of DNA. There are a number of methods for how to get the DNA in the cell, including hijacking virus machinery, using small, circular bacterial DNA rings called plasmids, creating pores in cell membranes using electric current, or even directly injecting it (there are really, really tiny needles).

In general, scientists expose cells to the desired DNA and whatever vector is being used to get it into the cells, and some cells incorporate the DNA in a useful manner such that the desired protein is produced without altering other functions in the cell. That’s harder to achieve than it sounds. The scientists then use various methods to choose those select cells, and breed them into a population of GMOs.

GMOs as a Process

When making a genetically modified microorganism (GMM), the process is easy – once they’ve got their microbe carrying the desired gene, they’ve got their population. Plants, too, tend to be fairly easy to grow after recombination, though the DNA addition itself can be difficult because their cells have what are called cell walls that make it harder to get DNA into the cell. For animals, the genetic modification is usually done on some kind of stem cell or germ cell, which then has to be implanted into a pregnant mom to be born. The GMO is then bred with other non-GMOs (“wild-type”) to produce offspring that act as carriers, having one copy o fthe desired gene, which are then further interbred to produce a creature with two copies.

The advances in genetic technology over the past few decades have been enormous. What was once a blind process that just hoped to get a gene into a given spot can now be targeted precisely, if we have the genome of the creature mapped. We can create genes that can be turned on at specific times or in specific tissues, that glow to tell us where they are, or even can be removed at will later on.

Make no mistake – there is nothing imprecise about this science. The transfer of genes is highly specific. No matter how long someone works on or eats Bt corn, they will never, ever have the gene incorporate into their tissues – it just doesn’t work that way. These techniques are widely used by all kinds of scientists all over the world, and no one has suddenly “caught” whatever gene(s) they’re working with. While there may be uncertainties about genetic technologies, how to do it in a way that ensures the change only occurs in the desired organism isn’t one of them.

GMOs as a Danger

What is possibly dangerous about this technology is that there isn’t anything keeping these altered, or “transgenetic” organisms from breeding with their non-modified counterparts, thus spreading the transferred gene (transgene) into wild populations. Scientists intentionally breed GMO/non-GMO organisms do this all the time in medical research, for example to create mice with one copy of an altered gene, to determine how being heterozygous (having two different varieties of a gene) affects the organism – but these are unlikely to spread in any way as they are strictly controlled and kept in labs.

When GMO organisms, by default, are grown where they can interact with other organisms (like in the case of crops), there is a chance that these transgenes will be spread from GMO to wild species. What the dangers of this are, exactly, aren’t entirely known, but in general, changing the genetics of wild populations of animals has the potential to have many ecological impacts.

Some of these have been identified – for example, the offspring of GM fish and wild-type fish are less viable, so a release of GM fish into streams could doom the local population of a species. But most are amorphous and still untested – like whether having pesticide genes in plants has any lasting effects on the soil they’re grown in or the flora and fauna that surround them.

Sometimes, affecting other animals is actually desired: scientists are working on releasing a kind of modified mosquito which is resistant to the parasite which causes malaria, and are hoping that these resistance genes spread throughout the mosquito population where malaria is most deadly. But in general, the effects that transgenes have on others species that interact or that eat the modified organism are still being evaluated by scientists.

What are GMOs used for?

While people debate about GM corn, the truth is that genetically modified foods are but one of many areas where GMOs are used, and one of the smallest. Most GMOs never go near our tables, and yet they are vital to our every day lives in ways most of us don’t even realize. The big use of GMOs is Scientific Research.

By far the most varied and consistent use of genetic engineering is for biological and medical research. They are not just a neat tool to study biology, they are an essential one. Scientists use genetic engineering to eliminate certain genes altogether within an organism, modify genes by turning them off or on, alter their location, or add copies of specific genes from other organisms. These uses are important tools in all kinds of biological research, including developmental biology, sensory biology, and medical science. The use of GMOs in research cannot be overstated.

Perhaps the field that most uses GMOs, however, is biomedical science. GMOs are central to the study of disease and the development of new vaccines, antibodies, and pharmaceuticals. For example, the life-saving insulin that diabetics must have is produced by a transgenic strain of E. coli, as it has been for over 20 years. The ability to use GMMs like E. coli to produce pharmaceuticals has revolutionized the industry, making some cheaper and safer, not to mention more environmentally friendly. Instead of harvesting large numbers of an animal or plant to extract a medicine, we can engineer a bacteria to make it for us.

More current research is looking into using GMOs to produce vaccines, including one for HIV. Other amazing projects include modifying peanut proteins to protect those with peanut allergies from reacting to them and engineering bacteria to prevent cavities in teeth instead of promoting them.

We’re not just talking about genetically engineered microbes. Transgenic animals are being used much like bacteria to produce pharmaceuticals. While bacteria are great, they are unable to produce certain proteins that require processing by more complicated mammalian systems. While fairly new, research into pharmaceutical production in transgenic animals is already showing promise. In 2009, the US FDA approved ATryn, an anticoagulant, which is produced in the milk of goats.

Transgenic animals are vital to many fields of medical research, not just pharmaceutical production. Most diseases are partly caused by our genetic makeup and over 10,000 diseases are caused by a mutation in a single gene. GMOs allow us to create animal models that can be used to study and understand these diseases, leading to the development of treatments, and every drug that eventually ends up in human clinical trials passes first through these animal models.

Gene knockouts (often in mice) allow researchers to delete specific genes, revealing their hidden functions in the body. Introducing other, novel genes (often from humans) allows scientists to study proteins in a living system without crossing the ethical lines of human research. Much of the research on proteins is done through GM methods, and these studies help us understand how our bodies work at the smallest levels. Studying proteins can lead to understanding diseases and even possible treatments. These methods are so used by biologists that knockout and overexpression models are basically required to get physiological research published in high-impact journals like Science or Cell.

These studies don’t just help understand pathways in cells. Studies into the proteins involved in Anthrax’s pathogenic behavior have not only led to a vaccine but are leading to specific inhibitors that can be taken after exposure to prevent death. Soon enough, the threat of Anthrax as a bioterroist agent will be nullified. Indeed, counter-bioterrorist research relies on GMOs.  Transgenic animals are also vital in the emerging research into antibodies, which are quickly rising as a highly safe and effective way to treat a variety of diseases and pathogens. Because antibodies are specific to single compounds, they are an effective and safe way of removing problematic things from our bodies. Until now, antibodies have been hard to use because we naturally produce such small amounts of them. GMOs, however, allow us to produce much larger quantities. Because of GMOs (mostly mice), over 30 fully human antibodies that are produced by other animals have begun clinical trials.

GMOs in Gene Therapy

Perhaps the most up-and-coming role for genetic engineering in biomedical research is its use in gene therapy. Gene therapy uses GM viruses to deliver genes directly into our cells, allowing us to produce products that treat or cure disease. It’s already being used to create diseases caused by lacking genes like severe combined immunodeficiency, but medical scientists predict that gene therapy will explode in the coming century.

Gene therapy may be used to cure a wide range of incurable, genetic diseases, and while it’s hotly debated, it may even be used to cure disease in germ cells and embryos in the future. Because gene therapy affects a person’s genetics directly, it has the potential to revolutionize the way we treat disease, stopping damage at the source instead of trying to patch it up afterward.

I could go on and on about how GMOs have revolutionized biology because the uses of GMOs in research are endless. Catchy phrases like “Just Say No to GMOs” are leading consumers to believe that all GMOs are bad and to support legislation that bans them altogether. Suffice it to say that any complete ban on GMOs would devastate the medical and biological sciences. There are no alternative methods or ways to work around genetic engineering – it is vital to the modern study of biology and disease, period.  But what does this all have to do with food? We’ll learn more about that in my next piece about GMOs.