There is a big debate today over
the labeling of genetically modified foods and ingredients in products.
However, despite it being a popular issue of the times, it seems that the
public actually knows very little about GMOs. Most of what we hear about the dangers
of engineered foods is usually in the context of health risks, but what role do
GMOs play in health? Many of the statements made about GMOs causing food
allergies, specifically gluten intolerance, seem believable, mess with the genetics of our
food and there will be consequences, but where are these statements coming
from, what basis do they have? Just from personal experience I can say that of
the people warning me against GMOs, known had any medical or scientific
experience. The various sources I have gathered tend to revolve around the same
four categories: clarifying 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.
To fully understand the debate, you
must first have a basic understanding and clear definitions about the subjects
being debated. In the controversy over GMOs, this first steep seems to be
easily skipped over. An article put out by the National Wheat Improvement
Committee titled “Wheat Improvement: The Truth Unveiled provides an easily
comprehendible explanation of the different types of wheat breading, both of
which are considered to be crossing of species, not genetic engineering. It
provides some background on the development and demand of wheat and mentions
where and why scientists in the United States are working on understanding the
wheat genome for future breeding purposes. Following these descriptions, the
article lists several myths about wheat and provides specific facts in response
to each misconception. Though some of the myths are easily disputed, wheat is
either genetically modified or it isn’t, others are not as deeply discussed to
provide sufficient counter arguments. Saying there is no evidence is not the
same as saying there is evidence against, and it does not discount potential
relationships. The article ends by stating all the positives about wheat and
the breeding process. I do feel that some of their arguments seem a bit thin,
but the facts they do provide speak to some of the questions I have had about
the aspects of wheat breading that I hope to apply in my paper when
differentiating between the process of breeding and genetically engineering. As this is a growing issue, more studies have
been done to try and fully understand the factors involved with human health. An
article “Gluten intolerance: Gender- and Age-Related Differences in Symptoms,”
written by Maria Teresa Bardella and her colleagues for a 2005 issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
describes a study that was done to determine if there is any correlation
between gender and gluten intolerance. The study determined that the diagnosis
of coeliac disease is more frequent in women, but this could be disproven in
time with improved diagnostics of men. They also stated that the difference was
only significant when diagnosed in adulthood when there is a greater
association of iron-deficiency anaemia in women. A more specific study which
was published in a 2014 edition of PLOS
One. Javier Gil-Humanes and his
associates wrote an article, “Reduced-Gliadin Wheat Bread: An Alternative to
the Gluten-Free Diet for Consumers Suffering Gluten-Related Pathologies,” which
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. A similar, more in depth article written by the same
set of colleagues 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 give more in depth explanations about gliadin
proteins and celiac disease and the classification of gluten proteins (glutenins
and gliadins) as well as some past studies done on reducing gluten properties
in grain. The article goes on to describe the process of making bread and the
properties of the bread/dough throughout the transformation. It then explains
and compares the different properties described before in the study. Finally,
the article explains its results, stating that the quality of the goods are
similar to those of gluten containing baked goods. For further description, the
introduction of an article called “Prediction of Wheat Quality—Past, Present,
Future. A Review,” written for Food
Reviews International in 2009 by Radomir Lásztity and Tibor Abonyi, there
is a brief history of the discovery and preparation of gluten. This is followed
by an explanation of protein ratios and gluten properties. Then, a description
is given of gliadin composition of wheat and it effect on grain quality. Each
piece serves as a dissection of the gluten, gliadin, glutenin, and other
gluten-related proteins. The article ends with a prediction of how quality will
improve over the years to come. Looking more specifically at gluten, Shan Lu
wrote an article called “Structural Basis for Gluten Intolerance in Celiac
Sprue” for a 2002 issue of Science
that focused on describing Gluten Intolerance as opposed to a sensitivity. It
explains that the Celiac Sprue, a widely prevalent autoimmune disease found in
the small intestine, is the primary factor in an inflammatory response to
gluten in a patient with a gluten sensitivity. This study was mostly
informative and had little by way of a direct thesis to prove, or disprove. It
may be useful as a reference that provides a more in depth explanation of the
differences between an allergy and a sensitivity. And to put it in to laymen’s
terms, an article written for WebMD
by Katherine Kam provides an easily understandable explanation about gluten
allergies. This particular article, “Going Gluten-Free,” was very brief with no
specific message. The entire article focused on the description on gluten
sensitivity and celiac disease, as well as the benefits of a gluten free diet.
The benefits are mainly helping those with a sensitivity, there is no proof
that it helps with other issues, such as weight loss. This article may come in
handy for definition purposes, as the descriptions in many of the other article
can be difficult to comprehend. In contrast, this article was written for the
general public, not just specifically for the scientific community.
Several of the articles gathered
discuss what either side of the debate is saying about GMOs.Much of the article
“Celiac Disease Foundation, Plant Geneticist, Challenge Report Linking GMOs to
Celiac Disease, Gluten Sensitivity” written in 2013 by Maggie Hennessy for the William Reed Business Media website focuses
on disproving a report on the Institute for Responsible Technology website
because of its speculative nature. The article provides quotes from several
professionals to discredit the idea made by Smith and the Institute for
Responsible Technology that the consumption of GMOs directly correlates to the
development of gluten intolerance. Similarly, the article “Do Genetically
Modified Foods Cause Gluten Allergies?” written in 2014 by Layla Katiraee for
the website Genetic Literacy Project
also aims to disprove a press release issued by the Institute for Responsible
Technology, a one-person NGO founded by Jeffrey Smith. Katiree explains that
Smith had no background in the science field and is statements were not given
attention by the science community. She does go on to explain the difference
between gluten sensitivities and allergies as well as where gluten data can be
found, before delving into the essential question. In the article, some
arguments both for and against the arguments of anti-GMO campaigners and the
Celiac Disease Foundation (CDF) are explained, before stating that “the
greatest evidence that GMOs are not tied to gluten allergies is that GMO wheat
is not yet on the market.” One particular article “Are Genetically Modified
Foods a Gut-Wrenching Combination?” written by Jeffery M. Smith for the Institute for Responsible Technology website
is highly controversial. The article itself 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. The article ends with a warning to stay
away from eating GMOs and saying that many physicians prescribe non-GMO diets
to patients with some form of gluten sensitivity. Another view is provided by
the article “The GMO Labeling Battle Is Heating Up - Here’s Why” by Laura
Parker for National Geographic which explains
the concerns of manufacturers about giving consumers the wrong idea about a
product by labeling GMO ingredients. It focuses the event of Cheerios are
removing GMOs from their ingredients, and points out other companies, like Ben
and Jerry’s and Chipotle Mexican Grill, or Trader Joes who have already or are
working to eliminate GMOs from their products. The article makes the argument
that Cheerios is 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 labeling of modified foods.
Similarly to the last article, this article from Environmental Nutrition titled “10 Whole Grain Myths Busted” by
Densie Webb 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. A more easily understandable
description of the debate is provided by a 2013 article titled “Pros and Cons
of Genetically Modified Foods” for the website HealthResearchFunding.org. The brief article lists the three major
reasons both for and against GMOs, including increased allergic reactions. It
follows the list with a debate over whether the benefits outweigh the risks, to
which it states that the benefits depend on the specific issues of an
individual area, such as hunger. The article also shows a series of images that
describes aspects of GMOs, such as percent grown in the U.S., two reasons we
may need them, and who requires labels or bans on GMOs.
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. A 2003 article for Environmental Health Perspectives titled “Introduction: What Are
the Issues in Addressing the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified
Foods?” and written by Dean D. Metcalfe sums up the basis of the debate surrounding
GMOs and food allergies. It provides an explanation of food allergies on the
whole, how a reaction to food is caused, as well as potential results of a
reaction. It also describes forms of testing for food allergies and procedures
to treat an allergic reaction, and the process of detection of allergenic
properties of certain genes and the process of avoiding transferring these
genes to GMOs. In the end, the article
determines that decisions made as to how to apply existing knowledge and
databases in the assessment of GMO foods for potential allergenicity will be
only successful if they are creditable to research scientists, industry and to
the public at large. Hanaa Oraby wrote another article called
“Biological Impact of Feeding Rats with a Genetically Modified-Based Diet“ in 2015
for the Turkish Journal of Biology which
describes a study done on rats to determine the development of genetically
modified organisms and their potential risk factor. It gives detailed
explanation of the process of the study from feeding the rats to investigations
of their organs and blood analysis. The last part of the article discusses the
findings of the experiment which showed various forms of abnormal changes in
cell shape, and protein formation, but no noticeably harmful impact on the
health of the animals tested. A similar article written by C.R. Wilk-Nielsen
and his associates in 2011 titled “Quantification of Dietary DNA in Tissues of
Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) Fed Genetically Modified Feed Ingredients” for
Aquaculture Nutrition briefly
describes a study the farming and feeding of Atlantic salmon. It then goes on
to explain the basis of the study and feed ingredients, maize, both non-GM and
GM, and non-GM and GM soybean, and the feeding and testing routine. The
conclusion of the study showed that a large fraction of the dietary DNA 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. Another perspective is described in an article written by Christina
Sarich for Natural Society. The 2014
article titled “18 Million Americans Suffer From GMO And Gluten Intolerance” is
very clearly anti-GMO, connecting GMOs to the rise of gluten intolerance, and stating
the formation of new, indigestible proteins in wheat. It makes no distinction
between GMOS and organism breeding, such as wheat breading, and it makes broad
statements about what genetically modified foods are doing to our bodies while
little supporting evidence, and no basis for where some information like
statistics and un-named studies come from. Over all, the article does not lend
itself to reliability, but does provide an example of the counter argument. Further
explanation on GMOs is provided by a 2013 article “Should You Worry About
GMOs?” for Tufts University Health
&Nutrition Letter. The article starts
with a description and history of the debate over labeling GMO ingredients in
stores and restaurants and addresses the argument that there has been do
discussion about whether or not such products have any health risks. It explains
where you are most likely to find GM food, most being GM corn and soy beans are
fed to livestock and that much of the engineered genes are eliminated in
processing the foods, so few of those genes reach the grocery store. The
article proceeds to explain that any gene added that actually effects the
kernel or seed specifically is added for nutritional value. 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. This gives a
good view on both sides of an argument that few other articles have considered,
that being the public/ethical debate, not just a health debate.
As with many scientific
developments, the rise in gluten sensitivity could just be a greater number of
people being aware of the allergy, but it may also be a result of human
development and the evolution of human diets. In a July entry in 2008 titled
“Grains and Human Evolution” for the blog Whole
Health Source, Stephen Guyenet follows the evolution of human diet, stating
that the evidence for how long humans have been consuming grains varies widely,
but that it may never have been a major food source. He argues that thas 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. A similar article for National Geographic called “The
Evolution of Diet,” provides the basis for the argument about the Paleo diet,
which follows the diet of our hunter/gatherer ancestors. The article, which was
written by Ann Gibbons, then goes on to explain 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. It goes on to explain what the
“real” Paleo diet would have been comprised of and states there is no one ideal
human diet and explains that the revolution of our diets may not have started
with eating meat, but with the invention of cooking which breaks down food to
make it more digestible but lead to the shift to processed foods like
Twinkies.
Works Cited
Bardella, Maria Teresa, et al. “Gluten
intolerance: Gender- and Age-Related Differences in Symptoms.” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
40.1 (2005): 15-19. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.
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
Hennessy, Maggie.
“Celiac Disease Foundation, Plant Geneticist, Challenge Report Linking GMOs to
Celiac Disease, Gluten Sensitivity.” William
Reed Business Media. William Reed Business Media, 3 Dec. 2013. Web. 5 Apr.
2015.
Kam, Katherine.
“Going Gluten-Free.” WebMD. WebMD, 19
July 2013. 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.
Katiraee, Layla.
“Do Genetically Modified Foods Cause Gluten Allergies?” Genetic Literacy Project. Genetic Literacy Project, 28 March 2014.
Web. 20 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.
Metcalfe, Dean D.
“Introduction: What Are the Issues in Addressing the Allergenic Potential of
Genetically Modified Foods?” Environmental
Health Perspectives 111.8 (2003): 1110-1113. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 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.
Sarich,
Christina. “18 Million Americans Suffer From GMO And Gluten Intolerance.” Natural Society. Natural Society, 8 July
2014. 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.
Webb, Densie. “10
Whole Grain Myths Busted.” Environmental
Nutrition 38.2 (2015): 6-6. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 22 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.
