The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service approved two varieties of genetically modified (GM) apples, known as Arctic apples, on Feb. 13. As reported by the Rodale Report, the approval of the apples by the USDA and the fact that the government will not require special labeling has garnered further debate about the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Okanagan, a small company in British Columbia, has genetically modified two varieties of apples, Granny Smith and Golden Delicious, to prevent browning after the apples have been sliced, according to the New York Times.
Patricia Sciscione, a specialist professor of nursing, said, “I really do not understand why we need to have apples that do not turn brown after a certain amount of time. That’s just the normal enzymes in the fruit at work. How will people know that the apple is rotten if it never bruises and turns brown?”
GMOs are produced by inserting DNA from one species into a different species, typically either to produce a pesticide to destroy insects and other harmful organisms or to help the crops outlive chemicals used to kill weeds, according to Rodale.
Katherine Lepis, an adjunct professor of biology, said, “The gene that was inserted into the GM apples is actually an apple gene. They simply inserted an extra copy of a particular gene and the two copies prevent the apple tissue from turning brown after it has been sliced. Normally you would need to put lemon juice or a similar chemical on the apple to prevent this. This is beneficial to places like McDonald’s that sell sliced apples in happy meals and other food service companies.”
Lepis explained the downside to this new crop, “What turns me off about this particular GM crop is the ability to extend the shelf life of sliced apples. That may sound like a good thing, but I would prefer to know I am eating a freshly sliced apple opposed to one that was sliced a few weeks ago and may look good, but probably doesn’t taste as good as a fresh slice.” Additionally, Lepis said that the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables decreases over time, so this technology will allow for an apple to look fresh that actually isn’t.
The Arctic apples will not be readily available, as the apple trees must first be planted, according to the New York Times. Neal Carter, President of Okanagan, told the New York Times that approximately 20,000 trees will be planted this spring, which he hopes will yield 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of apples by the fall of 2016. Yet, these apples will only be samples for food service companies and other buyers.
Apples will be available for consumer purchase in stores sometime in 2017.
Furthermore, the 20,000 Arctic apples will only cover about 20 acres; however, approximately 165 million acres currently contain GMO crops in America, according to Rodale.
Charles Balzer, a nutrition science professor, said, “Many people are surprised to hear that commercial sale of GM foods began as far back as 1994. Also surprising is the high percentage of foods that are affected by this practice. As of 2013, roughly 85 percent of corn, 91 percent of soybeans, and 88 percent of cotton produced in the United States are genetically modified. Estimates are that GMOs are in as much as 80 percent of conventional processed foods.”
Despite the abundance of GM crops in the United States, only a few GM foods have been approved to be sold directly to consumers, according to the Wall Street Journal. Merrily Ervin, Coordinator of General Education Science, said, “I am glad that these apple trees have been found to be safe. I expect there will be many more GMO crops in the future. They may help us increase the yield and the nutritional value of our food supply.”
Jaime Myers, a health and physical education professor, said, “The debate among scientists about the environmental impact of GM crops is a little more ambiguous than the food safety of the products. That is where the USDA’s decision about GM apples comes into play – after evaluating the risks to other plants and animals, they have decided that the environmental risks of this new crop are acceptable.”
A CNN article explained that many companies, such as Okanagan, voluntarily seek review of their GM foods from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, after receiving USDA approval, GM foods are not required to receive FDA approval for consumption before they are made available to consumers. On Jan. 29, a collaborative report from Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found that 88 percent of scientists believe genetically modified food is safe to eat, yet only 37 percent of the general public believes it is safe.
Ervin said, “I do not think the general public has a good understanding of GMOs, and they are very skeptical of a science they do not understand. It is healthy to be skeptical, but I hope they will soon see the benefits of the technology and be more accepting of it.”
The AAAS and Pew Research Center survey also found that 67 percent of the public believes that scientists do not have a clear understanding about the health effects of genetically modified crops.
Balzer said, “There is wide scientific support from reputable bodies that GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food. Groups on this side of the issue include the FDA, the AAAS, and the American Medical Association. Opponents of GMOs include groups such as the Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace. Some of the key issues that these opponents raise include the uncertainty of effects of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect of pesticide resistance, and the impact of genetically modified crops for farmers.”
Myers said, “Unfortunately, the words ‘genetically modified’ just don’t sound positive and there have been a lot of scare tactics built around this alone. The media has not done well at explaining GMOs either. This has led to a lot of misinformation and fear of the term even when people are commonly consuming foods that fall under this category.”
The only way to ensure GMOs are not consumed is to buy organic foods, as organic standards ban the use of GMOs, according to Rodale.
Mary Harris, a communications professor, said, “I recommend that people consider planting their own organic gardens and supporting local, organic farmers as well. My stance on GMOs is that it is not worth the risk to consume them. It is impossible to know if they are safe for everyone over a long-term time span. Despite what many pro-GMO scientists say, no one knows for certain what GMOs will do to people and the environment over the long term. I am not suggesting that GMOs are necessarily dangerous to human health either – that’s the thing; it’s inconclusive.”
Rodale is an opponent of GMOs, arguing that organic foods are better for human health and the environment. Rodale supported the argument with a study conducted by the British Journal of Nutrition, which found that organic foods contain 20 to 40 percent more antioxidants and have up to 70 percent higher levels of healthy plant compounds and fewer chemicals inside the food.
Lepis said, “The biggest problem I see with GM crops is how they are produced. 80 percent of the GM crops grown in this country are designed to be resistant to herbicides, like Roundup. Herbicides are chemicals used to kill weeds and prior to GMO crop development a farmer would have had to carefully spray between the rows of crops to kill the weeds without spraying the crops because then they would perish as well.”
Lepis explains that as a result of GMOs designed to be herbicide resistant, the rate of herbicide use is now 15 times greater than it was in the 1990s. “For instance, the amount of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, used in the production of soybeans in the U.S. has increased by more than 450 percent since 1997. The EPA considers glyphosate to be very safe and non-toxic to animals, but the amount we are adding to the environment has increased so drastically it raises concerns over human and environmental health,” she continued.
The British Journal of Nutrition study also explained that it is legal for nonorganic farmers to use human sewage sludge as fertilizer and that approximately 90,000 people die each year due to antibiotic-resistant superbug infections; however, organic food is over 30 percent less likely to be exposed to superbugs. Another finding stated that annual carbon emissions could be reduced by 55 percent if just half of the world’s cropland and pastureland were treated organically.
Harris elaborated on the case against GMOs, stating, “GMOs encourage an increased use of pesticides, which is another major issue. Conventional farming practices employ monoculture, a growing system where a single type of crop is grown in a large area of land. This leads to soil erosion and depletes the nutrition of the Earth and kills the microorganisms in the soil, which therefore harms beneficial insects that pollinate plants.” Harris explained how this process destroys the soil as well as the ecosystem and said that unfortunately people on both sides of the GMO debate are not aware of the science behind it.
Lepis explained the use of pesticides even further and the harm that it has on humans, stating, “This is how it works: You use a chemical to kill a pest, it could be bacteria (antibiotics), insects (insecticides), rodents (rodenticides), or weeds (herbicides). Now because every individual in a population is a little different there may be a few individuals that naturally have a resistance to the antibiotic or pesticide and are not killed by the application. Since most of the other individuals in the population were eliminated, that leaves only the resistant individuals left to reproduce and pass on their resistant traits to the next generation. Over time you end up with an entire population of pests that can no longer be controlled by that antibiotic or pesticide. The more you use an antibiotic or a pesticide you increase the chances of the development of a resistant population.”
The AAAS and Pew Research Center survey also considered the pesticide use involved with GMOs and observed that 68 percent of scientists think foods grown with pesticides are safe to eat, while only 28 percent of the public believes they are safe.
Another argument opposing GMOs is that the studies used to determine approval of GMO crops are conducted by large corporations, such as Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, which control over half of the seed market and create the chemicals used on the seeds. An article in Rodale stated, “Can you say conflict of interest? These studies generally are short-term and aren’t reviewed by other scientists. The raw data used for approval generally isn’t shared with the public. There are no independent, long-term studies investigating how this new genetic experiment affects human health, although some emerging research suggests the genetically altered foods could cause organ damage and food allergies.”
Rebecca Zidik, a senior communication major, said, “As of now so many people potentially eat them [GMOs], so I don’t see too much harm, but you can never tell into the future. Big companies like Monsanto share propaganda because it’s the job, not because they want to protect people.”
The controversy about the safety and usage of GMOs has even extended to Congress. According to Rodale, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut have already passed GMO labeling laws and over 20 other states have similar bills pending that support the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act; however, the Deny Americans the Right-to-Know Act was also proposed to Congress and would undermine all prior labeling bills if it is passed.
Balzer said, “I do strongly believe that it should be mandatory for GMO containing foods to be labeled as such. Polls have recently shown that Americans are in agreement with this. It would be extremely unfortunate if down the road we find that concerns about the deleterious effects of GMOs on human health and the environment are legitimate, but were pushed to the side in the name of politics, special interests, and profits.”
According to Rodale, over 90 percent of Americans want GMO labeling to be required so they can know what is in their food, just like 64 other countries around the world that already require GMO labeling.
Sciscione said, “I think overall organic foods are healthier alternatives, but I believe that even when they are labeled ‘organic’ you cannot be entirely sure they are truly organic. Labeling foods ‘organic’ means they have been grown in soil that has not been exposed to pesticides within the past three years, but pesticides have been so widely used over decades in the U.S. that expecting soil to be totally pesticide-free may be unrealistic.”
Currently, the Arctic apples will not be required to have special labeling. Carter said in a CNN article, “We’ve spent time and money on five years of regulatory work to prove and to demonstrate our product is as safe as any other. Label it just like any other apple. We’ll have information at the point of sale, and we’re very transparent on our website. Let the consumer decide.”
Regardless of how the Arctic apples will be labeled, Sciscione raised another point, stating, “From what I understand, the major market for these apples are food service companies that serve sliced apples to consumers who may not be aware that the apples they are eating are genetically modified.”
In fact, many individuals are uneducated about GM foods in general. According to Forbes, a study conducted by Rutgers University found that 54 percent of Americans know very little or nothing about GM foods and 25 percent had never heard the term ‘genetically modified’.
Sciscione said, “I teach Environmental Health here at Monmouth University, and in my experience, very few students in the course are knowledgeable about, or even aware of, GM foods. We do discuss the topic during the course, so hopefully this is increasing awareness of GMOs among students on campus.”
Some students on campus are aware of GMOs and are conscious of what they ingest. Sydney Underhill, a sophomore political science major, said, “I 100 percent believe that GM foods should be labeled. People have a right to know what they are putting in their bodies. Some of the products sold on campus are labeled organic; however, I believe the school could do a better job of labeling products in the dining hall and student center if they are organic and should make the move towards offering more organic products if they don’t truly offer that many.”
Mark Vallaro, general manager of Aramark, said, “At this point, the only option to ensure foods do not contain GMOs would be to purchase foods and products that are 100 percent USDA Organic or verified as non-GMO by organizations, such as the Non-GMO Project. Due to the large quantity and variety of food needed to serve the campus, the options are very limited. One of Aramark’s top priorities is to ensure the integrity of the food served to our customers. We use fresh, quality foods and cook from scratch, avoiding packaged and processed foods, whenever possible.”
Though it will be awhile before Arctic apples are available for purchase, the debate over GMOs will likely persist until more conclusive, long-term research has been conducted.
IMAGE TAKEN from peekintomylifeasasportsmom.com
