Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10.1 A Organismos Modificados Geneticamnete Como Fuente Añimentaria
10.1 A Organismos Modificados Geneticamnete Como Fuente Añimentaria
204
Orna et al.; Chemistry’s Role in Food Production and Sustainability: Past and Present
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
Genetic Modification of Food
Genetic engineering might make sense to provide better or more available medicines, such as
insulin, or to grow special bacteria that take in oil spills or spit out biopetrol. Why, though, mess with
our food? The answer is simple and rather obvious: to strengthen the life cycles and yields of our
food. That is, we need to help crops grow in sometimes austere conditions or be able to better battle
pests that consume them before they get to our plates. We are a population of 7 billion, likely growing
to 9 billion before mid-century. Food yields and security are certainly among the critical issues
in sustaining that many people. Enhancing the durability and yields of our food through genetic
modification is arguably a strategy to address the needs of this population size.
Scientists have worked on food modifications for a few decades. Flavr Savr tomatoes were the
first GMO to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. They became available in 1994
with slower ripening and enhanced flavor traits. They were marketed as premium produce, which
caused them to be economically unviable. They faded away, but their genes did make their way into
other tomato crops (4).
Papaya and rice were the next organisms to be genetically modified commercially. Creating a
GMO papaya plant that was resistant to the papaya ringspot virus helped successfully maintain the
viability of the crop. The modified papaya became resistant to the virus and the papaya plants could
thrive. By doing so, a critical economy for Hawaiian farmers was also saved (5).
Another example of modifying a food to address a need was Golden Rice. In impoverished
communities across the world, poor nutrition is real and deficiency in vitamin A can be high.
Industries genetically engineered rice to contain beta carotene, which humans use to synthesize
vitamin A in the body. The grain’s light yellow color, due to the presence of beta carotene, gave it the
name Golden Rice. According to a Time Magazine headline in 2000, “This Rice Could Save a Million
Kids a Year (6).” However, at the same time, the controversy about the long-term effects and impacts
of using GMOs grew. This controversy brought challenges and even protests to the widespread use of
Golden Rice.
205
Orna et al.; Chemistry’s Role in Food Production and Sustainability: Past and Present
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
Our engineering does not stop nature’s pathways; rather, it engages with them. Even though we
engineer in a lab, organisms in nature still mutate, adapt, and reproduce. Thus, in the late 20th and
early 21st century, when organisms were discovered that were resistant to the herbicide glyphosate,
other concerns about using GMOs elevated. Continuing in the 21st century, larger issues arose
with the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin that had been engineered into cotton crops to ward off pests.
Caterpillars were discovered that were immune to the toxin, and the toxin itself had been discovered
in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses. The debate about the utility and safety of GMOs
escalated to a roaring crescendo. As a result, GMOs take their place in the tension between harming
and enhancing life. Here are some other issues in the current debate.
206
Orna et al.; Chemistry’s Role in Food Production and Sustainability: Past and Present
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
pesticide—one that is specific to insects and does not interact with the biology of other animals—in
levels much lower than that required to treat the outside surface of the plant. As for glyphosate, its
increased use has led to the decrease in use of other herbicides that are more toxic (13, 14). The
application of glyphosate typically calls for 360 mL/acre, or about a soda can’s worth of herbicide for
about 43,500 ft2. To put this in perspective, an American football field (excluding the end zones) is
48,000 ft2. If the plant is growing its own pesticide, no additional amount needs to be applied.
207
Orna et al.; Chemistry’s Role in Food Production and Sustainability: Past and Present
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
Valid claims are made on both sides, but these claims are also interwoven with advocacy, political
viewpoints, and the influence of business and industry (18). In this ongoing debate, as with any
application of scientific processes, astute study and ethical reasoning must continue to be jointly
employed when making decisions about the use of GMOs.
Hunger and malnutrition affect every aspect of human development and persist for various reasons
including unequal access to land, to sufficient and nutritious food, and to other productive resources.
Adequate food production is necessary but insufficient to ensure national nutritional security. .
. So the challenge for agriculture is three-fold: to increase agricultural production, especially of
nutrient-rich foods, to do so in ways which reduce inequality, and to reverse and prevent resource
degradation. [Science and Technology] can play a vital role in meeting these challenges.
- Zareen Pervez Bharucha (20)
Although the debate rages on, the history of GMOs appears to continue as they remain likely
players in forging solutions to feeding this world. They alone are not the solution, but for now, they
appear to have a seat at the table. They are joined by others such as sustainable farming, agroecology
principles and practices, and innovations for farmers of small lands. The cautions and pauses
associated with the use of GMOs must continue to be considered. Together, we cannot lose sight
of the vision of our American Chemical Society: to improve people’s lives through the transforming
power of chemistry! GMOs, as debated as they as, are chemical tools we have for potentially
transforming food into a sustainable resource for this planet.
References
1. Rangel, G. From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology, 2015.
Science in the News Blog, Harvard University Graduate School for the Arts and Sciences Web
site. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-
history-of-gmo-technology/ (accessed Oct 26, 2018).
2. Berg, P.; Baltimore, D.; Brenner, S.; Roblin, R. O.; Singer, M. F. Summary Statement of
the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A
1975June.
3. Rodriguez, E. Ethical Issues in Genome Editing for Non-Human Organisms Using CRISPR/
Cas9 System. J. Clin. Res. Bioeth. 2017, 8, 300.
4. American Chemical Society. Chem. Eng. News 1999, 77, 27.
5. Smyth, S. How GM Papaya Saved Hawaii’s Papaya Industry, 2015. SAIFood Web site.
https://saifood.ca/gm-papaya/ (accessed Oct 26, 2018).
6. Nash, J. M. This Rice Could Save a Million Kids a Year. Time Magazine 2000July31.
208
Orna et al.; Chemistry’s Role in Food Production and Sustainability: Past and Present
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.
7. Much of the source material for this section comes from Fahlman, B., ed. (2017). Chemistry in
Context, 9th edition. American Chemical Society.
8. Diao, X.; Freeling, M.; Lisch, D. Horizontal Transfer of a Plant Transposon. PLoS Biol. 2005,
4, e5.
9. Kyndt, T.; Quispe, D.; Zhai, H.; Jarret, R.; Ghislain, M.; Liu, Q.; Gheysen, G.; Kreuze, J.
F. Sweet Potato: A Naturally Transgenic Food Crop. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2015, 112,
5844–5849.
10. Goodman, R. E.; Vieths, S.; Sampson, H. A.; Hill, D.; Ebisawa, M.; Taylor, S. L.; van Ree, R.
Allergenicity Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops—What Makes Sense? Nat. Biotechnol.
2008, 26, 73–81.
11. Lehrer, S. B.; Bannon, G. A. Risks of Allergic Reactions to Biotech Proteins in Foods:
Perception and Reality. Allergy 2005, 60, 559–564.
12. Nicolia, A.; Manzo, A.; Veronesi, F.; Rosellini, D. An Overview of the Last 10 Years of
Genetically Engineered Crop Safety Research. Crit. Rev. Biotech. 2014, 32.
13. Benbrook, C. M. Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the U.S.—the
first sixteen years. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2012.
14. Ferrell, J. A.; Witt, W. W. Comparison of Glyphosate with Other Herbicides for Weed Control
in Corn (Zea mays): Efficacy and Economics. Weed Technol. 2002, 16, 701–706.
15. Bakhsh, A.; Khabbazi, S. D.; Baloch, F. S.; Demirel, U.; Caliskan, M. E; Hatipoglu, R.; Ozcan,
S.; Ozcan, H. Insect-Resistant Transgenic Crops: Retrospect and Challenges. Turk J. Agric. For.
2015, 39, 531–548.
16. Gurian-Sherman, D. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops;
Union of Concerned Scientists: Cambridge, MA, April 2009. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/
default/files/legacy/assets/documents/foodandagriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf (accessed Dec
5, 2018).
17. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Genetically Engineered Crops:
Experiences and Prospects. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2016.
18. Zhang, C.; Wohlhueter, R.; Zhang, H. Genetically Modified Foods: A Critical Review of Their
Promise and Problems. Food Science and Human Wellness 2016, 5, 116–123.
19. United Natons. Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed Oct 15, 2018).
20. Bharucha, Z. P. Sustainable Food Production: Past and Present, 2013. SciDiv.net. https://www.
scidev.net/global/food-security/feature/sustainable-food-production-facts-and-figures.html
(accessed Dec 5, 2018).
209
Orna et al.; Chemistry’s Role in Food Production and Sustainability: Past and Present
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2019.