Margaret
MacKay
Professor
Sonia Begert
English
102
15 June
2015
Gluten Intolerance and GMOs
There seems to be an unfortunately
frequent occurrence of people not knowing specific aspects about their own
bodies until something regrettable occurs. I am more than familiar with this,
it was through recovery from a minor car accident that I learned about my
gluten sensitivity. During one session of therapy, I was told that I was
bloated as a result of eating too much gluten. This became a frequent source of
amusement for a friend of mine, whenever I was asked about why I attempted to
cut back on grains or follow a gluten-free diet, she would pipe up “it’s
because she’s puffy.” It was a rather strange realization, an unexpected
confrontation with the effects of gluten sensitivity. My massage therapist said
it was my body trying to expel the toxins, she briefly explained that it was a
result of the nation’s tampering with its grain sources. This line of reasoning
seemed logical enough, I had heard bits and pieces of conversations about the
dangers of genetically modified food products. These individual snippets of
information filed themselves together somewhere in the back of my mind, after
all they were too similar to not be connected. Over time I continued to go on
my way, unintentionally gathering more information on the subject. But I
failed, as I am sure others have as well, to ask one simple question: are these
things really connected? No one in the medical profession had given me any
reason to think otherwise, not that I was asking, and whenever I would talk
with another member of the general public, they seemed to follow the same line
of thought that I had. Imagine my surprise when, in conducting research for
this paper, I found that much of what I believed was far from reality.
Genetically engineered organisms
(GMOs) are a highly controversial topic at the moment, but astonishingly
un-defined. Admittedly the term seems rather self-explanatory, but that should
not be an acceptable excuse to neglect informing the public. So what are GMOs,
and why are so many people concerned with them? To put it simply, genetic
engineering involves the altering of genes to resist pests, grow more easily or
boost the crop’s nutritional value (Should You Worry About GMOs?). That in
itself opens a myriad of possibilities for the agriculture industry, but the
general public seems less then optimistic. The concern seems to spring from the
idea that such alterations could make these crops harmful for humans to consume
and as a result, people aim to avoid eating GM foods. The Tuft’s University Health & Nutrition Letter points out that what
most people don’t know is that the processing of GM crops eliminated most
modified genes and proteins, and as a result of heavy processing, only a very
small fraction of these genes make it to the grocery store. Also, most fresh produce does not come from a
GMO source (Should You Worry About GMOs?). Still, the debate over labeling GM
ingredients endures, probably in the hopes that we may better avoid consuming
GMOs. Perhaps it will work in the future, maybe as a result of labeling
corporations will avoid using such products. For today however, it may be that
avoiding these products is unrealistic, whether they are labeled or not. It
might be a surprise for people to find out just how frequently they run into
genetic engineering in their food. As explained by Laura Parker in an article
for National Geographic, genetically
engineered crops such as soybeans, sugar beets, and feed corn make up about 90
percent of the commodity crops in America’s food supply.
Knowing this, it’s not hard to
understand why people, such as myself, would find it easy to place the blame
for things like food allergies on genetic engineering. This paper will be
taking a look at the truth about GMOs and wheat breeding and its effects on
health. Specifically, it will be identifying some pros and cons to genetically
engineered products and their effects and involvement in, or lack thereof, the
development of food allergies or gluten sensitivities. The paper is divided
into the clarification of definitions of GMOs and gluten, what each side of the
debate is saying about GMOs, the study of GMOs and organism’s health, and
finally, what other factors, such as the evolution of human diet, may
contribute to food allergies. By the conclusion, it will be established that,
though still highly controversial, GMOs are not a root cause of the development
of gluten sensitivities or allergies, and should not be publicized as such by
members of the anti-GMO debate.
Definitions of Terms
To
best understand the debate over GMOs, you must first have a basic understanding
of all key concepts involved. Since this paper is focusing on to connection
between GMOs and gluten, it is crucial to understand the involvement of wheat.
The best place to start is with the hybridization of wheat. Wheat is not a
genetically engineered product, it has been developed through cross breeding to
make it stronger or more nutritious. The National Wheat Improvement Committee
explains that there are two different types of wheat breeding, conventional
crossing that combines genes of complementary wheat plants to produce new
genetic combinations, but not new genes from other plant sources, and the
minimal incorporation of indigenous genes of ancestral wheat species into new
varieties of wheat. Both of these breeding techniques are considered to be the
crossing of different wheat species, and neither fall under the category of
genetic engineering.
Determining what people are talking
about when they complain of gluten intolerance or sensitivity can be very
confusing, and if you’re anything like me, you would not have known there was a
difference at all. People tend to recognize such symptoms as abdominal pain,
headaches, or bloating and blame them on a sensitivity. Here again I was faced
with a lack of sufficient information about how my body worked. I have been
told to avoid gluten, and grains in general, because my stomach could not
digest it well. Talking with others, I have heard many reports similar to mine,
but all lacked a certain amount of explanation. One of the biggest things
people should understand is that a sensitivity and an intolerance are not the
same.
People suffering from a gluten
intolerance have what is called celiac disease. Celiac is a widely prevalent
autoimmune disease found in the small intestine, and the primary factor in an inflammatory
response to gluten (Lu et al.). But not all people who suffer from those common
symptoms and effects are positive for celiac disease, instead, they are
suffering from a gluten sensitivity. The most apparent difference between
gluten intolerance and a sensitivity is the damage done to the intestines.
“Gluten sensitivity doesn’t damage the intestine,” writes Katherine Kam for
WebMD, and there is “no accepted medical test for gluten sensitivity” which
means there are fewer ways of dealing with a sensitivity as opposed to a
diagnosable intolerance.
A slightly less simple definition
is that of gluten. In a 2014 issue of PLOS One, an article titled “The Shutdown
of Celiac Disease-Related Gliadin Epitopes in Bread Wheat by RNAi Provides
Flours with Increased Stability and Better Tolerance to Over-Mixing” attempts
to determine the value of breads with lower gluten protein content. It gives a
more in depth explanation about gluten proteins, stating that “gluten proteins
account for around 80% of the total grain proteins and they are classified into
two families: glutenins and gliadins.” The specific explanation of gluten
proteins is somewhat confusing for those of us outside of the scientific
community, the article describes the low or high molecular weight fractions
forming polymers of the proteins. This is, perhaps, more than the every-day
wonderer needs to know about gluten to comprehend the intolerance or
sensitivity, but it does explain certain aspects of some of the studies being
conducted for the benefit of those suffering from such and intolerance. “The
ratio of gliadin to glutenin type proteins [is] the main factor influencing the
gluten properties” explains Radomir Lásztity and Tibor Abonyi in an article for
Food Reviews International. They go on to describe that the ratio of these two
main fractions can significantly impact the quality of bread.
Debate over GMOs
Genetic
engineering is still a somewhat new science that requires further
investigation, but some aspects are fairly clear. It may be that there are some
negatives to developing such a controversial science, according to HealthResearchFunding.org
(HRF), there is no economic value to GMOs as they take just as long to mature
and no less effort to grow and growing GM crops could potentially cause
environmental damage by creating weeds resistant to herbicides. The HRF also
mentions some of the possible benefits that come with the further development
of GMOs, such as crops that are more resistant to diseases to prevent
unexpected crop failures. Also, they mention that GMOs could not only improve
the taste and quality of crops, but the nutritional value as well. The question
then becomes do the benefits, like eradicating hunger, outweigh the risks such
as increasing allergic reactions to foods? Just as GMOs have pros and cons, so
too does the matter of labeling them. Claire B. Herrick, in an article titled
“Cultures of GM” that describes these cultures as legitimized through the
cultural concepts of risks and food labeling policies, states:
On one hand are those who view
labels on food as the only possible route to informed consumer choice, ensuring
civil rights and continuing democracy. On the other side is the view that
labels will only confuse and mislead consumers due to the difficulty in
composing accurate and straightforward wording. These stances are polar
extremes, but under close examination both have equal merit. Labelling of GMOs
has consistently divided the public and regulatory agencies alike. As such, if
labelling can be understood as the visual representation and elucidation of
consumer concerns over the risks posed by biotechnology to the integrity of not
just the food supply, but also the environment, then it is one of the key
controversies at the root of the current transatlantic debate
Also supporting this line of
thought is Laura Parker who, in her National
Geographic article, explained that companies have been fighting to keep
labels off of their products in an attempt to prevent the public from going
into hysterics over GM foods. She mentions that companies such as Cheerios are
just playing on the growing consumer mistrust of GMOs, and that the Food and
Drug Administration have determined it safe for humans to consume GMOs, but
still, 9 out of 10 Americans support the labeling of modified foods.
When searching for the terms “GMOs”
and “food allergies” or “gluten intolerance” on a general web browser it is
easy to come up with a number sources arguing the dangers of consuming GM
foods. Of course, type any number of terms into a general browser and you can
find articles and websites arguing all possible sides of any argument. It is
easy to find some piece of writing to support your own beliefs. One of the
first, and most frequent, articles that appears for this particular argument
was put out by the Institute for Responsible Technology, a non-profit
organization founded by Jeffrey Smith. Smith does make the distinction between
wheat hybridization and GMOs, unlike some other articles with the same
argument, but links components of GMOs to gluten-related disorders. It goes on
to explain how each is a result of ingesting GMOs and how each leads to some
form of gluten sensitivity or celiac and ends with a warning to stay away from
eating GMOs, saying that many physicians prescribe non-GMO diets to patients
with some form of gluten sensitivity. Other articles found on various websites
and blogs make the same anti-GMO claims, connecting GMOs to the rise of gluten
intolerance, and stating the formation of new, indigestible proteins in wheat.
Of course there are some members of
the general public who take a different stance, and tend to bring along a bit
more logic and reason for support. One such argument is made by Layla Katiraee
for the Genetic Literacy Project. She states that “the greatest evidence that
GMOs are not tied to gluten allergies is that GMO wheat is not yet on the
market” as wheat is a product of hybridization not genetic engineering. The
Genetic Literacy Project, as well as various other sites, does not aim to
promote genetic engineering, only to clarify its role in gluten intolerance.
These sites even go so far as to call out some anti-GMO activists, stating, for
example, that Smith, who had no background in the science field, and the
Institute for Responsible Technology are incorrect in the declaration that the
consumption of GMOs directly correlates to the development of gluten
intolerance, and their report holds no ground in the scientific community.
Studies
The
best way to support either side of the debate is to follow it up with
experimentation, many studies have been done on connections between GMOs and
health. The Tuft’s University states that, in weighing the arguments both for
and against, the article suggests that the only real reasons for avoiding GMOs
are ethics based, not based on human health. The biggest things that needs to
be explained are the misconceptions about genetic engineering of wheat, or lack
thereof, and the scientific studies countering the claim that GMOs have some
negative dietary repercussions.
A page of Environmental Nutrition states common ideas about whole grains and
follows each with a counter argument to disprove the basis of each argument.
The article talks about whole grains as a whole, but it does specify some
aspects as pertaining to wheat. The responses are straight forward and easily
comprehended, but not lacking in directness of a point. There is no assumption
that the evidence equals or outweighs any evidence against whole grains. It is
good to remember that development of hybridized wheat is a response for the
demand of wheat, like most things, it is subject to supply and demand. This is
why scientists in the United States are working on understanding the wheat
genome for future breeding purposes. (The National Wheat Improvement Committee)
By fully understanding the genome of wheat to compare it to that of the human
genome to prevent negative side effects in the breeding process and prevent the
development of negative health repercussions.
Wheat is not the only subject
needing study, GMOs themselves are also under examination. One study conducted
on Atlantic salmon provides some insight to whether or not consuming GM foods
has negative health effects. The conclusion of the study showed that a large
fraction of the dietary DNA from the GM feed was taken up and distributed to
various organs in the salmon. It does state that it is yet to be determined if
dietary DNA is also integrated into the genome of tissue cells, but that no
differences were observed to specify a GM and non-GM origin of ingredients, and
that no dietary DNA was linked to specific health effects (Wilk-Nielsen).
Similarly, a study conducted in rats concluded that with the consumption of GM
food, various forms of abnormal changes were found in cell shape, and protein
formation, but no noticeably harmful impact on the health of the animals tested
(Oraby). This, of course, does not mean GMOs have no effect on those who
consume them, but it does suggest that there are no apparent health disadvantages
and no specific correlation between GMOs and food allergies.
An article describes a study done
to determine the quality of bread that has been made with reduced gliadin
proteins in comparison to wheat and rice based breads. The results of this
study indicated that there was no difference in terms of quality and that
consumers may find it preferable to rice bread. It goes on to state that the
value of this bread will depend on whether it can become commercially
available. There was no difference in terms of quality and consumers may find
the reduced gliadin bread preferable to rice bread as a gluten free alternative
(Gil-Humanes et al., “Reduced-Gliadin Wheat Bread…”).
Evolution of Diet
If
the scientific community can’t be blamed for a gluten allergy, than what can?
As with many scientific developments, the rise in gluten intolerance and sensitivities
could just be a rise in the number of people aware of the allergy, but it may
also be a result of human development and the evolution of human diets. People
argue that our ancestors have been eating grains over such a long time period
that our bodies should be sufficiently adapted to digest them. This, however,
is not entirely true, the evidence for how long humans have been consuming
grains varies widely, but that it may never have been a major food source. As
described by Stephan Guyenet on his blog Whole Health Source, the oldest grain
has only been a part of our diet for about 11,500 years. This sounds like a
long time, but as far as human evolution is concerned, this is hardly any time
at all. The result is that there has not been sufficient adaptations within in
the body to make grains a healthy food option to be consumed in such mass
quantities. Guyenet argues that there has not been sufficient adaptation to
make grains a healthy food option, and we have not yet become tolerant to wheat
which is the oldest grain.
He is not alone in this
perspective, A similar article for National
Geographic called “The Evolution of Diet,” that provides the basis for the
argument about the Paleo diet. The article, which was written by Ann Gibbons, explains
that this craze is based on a few misconceptions and the story is a bit more
complicated. Following the path of human diet through history, the article
describes some important changes caused by each new development in the human
diet, eating meat caused smaller guts, agriculture lead to a population boom.
Gibbons explains that each new addition to the human diet had some effect on
the human civilization, eating meat caused smaller guts, and agriculture lead
to a population boom. There is no one ideal human diet and the revolution of
our diets may not have started with eating meat, but the invention of cooking,
which breaks down food to make it more digestible, eventually lead to the shift
to processed foods like Twinkies (Gibbons). Looking at how each new addition to
the human diet has changed the lives of our ancestors and given the relatively
short time span over which humans have been consuming grains, it seems
unreasonable to assume that our bodies are made to absorb some things, like
natural grains, and not others, like GMOs.
Conclusion
Regardless
of whether it is better to label GMOs in food products or not, genetic
engineering is not the cause in the rise of gluten intolerance and should not
be publicized as such. I have learned a great deal from this research and my
opinion has changed much since I started looking into gluten intolerance and
GMOs. The intent of this paper is to provide readers with a clearer
understanding of GMOs and gluten intolerance and to aid them in developing
their own, informed, opinion for the debate over labeling or consuming GMOs.
Works Cited
Gibbons,
Ann. “The Evolution of Diet.” National
Geographic. National Geographic. Web. 25 May 2015.
Gil-Humanes,
Javier, et al. “Reduced-Gliadin
Wheat Bread: An Alternative to the Gluten-Free Diet for Consumers Suffering
Gluten-Related Pathologies” PLOS One
9.3 (2014): 1-9. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 22 Apr. 2015.
- - -. “The Shutdown of Celiac
Disease-Related Gliadin Epitopes in Bread Wheat by RNAi Provides Flours with
Increased Stability and Better Tolerance to Over-Mixing” PLOS One 9.3 (2014): 1-11. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.
Guyenet, Stephan. “Grains and Human
Evolution.” Whole Health Source. N.p. 10 July 2008. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Herrick, Clare B. “’Cultures of
GM’: Discourses of Risk and Labelling of GMOs in the UK and EU.” Area 37.3 (Sep 2005): 286-294. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Jun
2015.
Kam, Katherine. “Going
Gluten-Free.” WebMD. WebMD, 19 July
2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
Katiraee, Layla. “Do Genetically
Modified Foods Cause Gluten Allergies?” Genetic
Literacy Project. Genetic Literacy Project, 28 March 2014. Web. 20 Apr.
2015.
Lásztity, Radomir, Tibor Abonyi.
“Prediction of Wheat Quality—Past, Present, Future. A Review.” Food Reviews International 25.2 (2009):
126-141. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 22 Apr. 2015.
Lu, Shan, et al. “Structural Basis
for Gluten Intolerance in Celiac Sprue.” Science
297.5590 (2002): 2275-2279. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.
Oraby, Hanaa, et al. “Biological
Impact of Feeding Rats with a Genetically Modified-Based Diet.” Turkish Journal of Biology 39.2 (2015):
265-275. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 22 Apr. 2015.
Parker, Laura. “The GMO Labeling
Battle Is Heating Up - Here’s Why.” National
Geographic. National Geographic, 12 Jan. 2014. Web. 25 May 2015.
“Pros and Cons of Genetically
Modified Foods.” HealthResearchFunding.org.
HealthResearchFunding.org, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
“Should You Worry About GMOs?” Tufts University Health &Nutrition
Letter 31.9 (2013): 4-5. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.
Smith, Jeffery M. “Are Genetically
Modified Foods a Gut-Wrenching Combination?” Institute for Responsible Technology. Institute for Responsible
Technology. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
The National Wheat Improvement
Committee. “Wheat Improvement: The Truth Unveiled.”(2013): 1-5. Web. 20 Apr.
2015.
Wilk-Nielsen, C.R., et al.
“Quantification of Dietary DNA in Tissues of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.)
Fed Genetically Modified Feed Ingredients.” Aquaculture
Nutrition 17.2 (2011): e668-e674. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.
