Very Rough Draft

Margaret MacKay

Professor Sonia Begert

English 102

11 June 2015

Gluten Intolerance and GMOs

It seems to be an unfortunately frequent occurrence that people don’t know 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 pf my mind, after all they were too similar to not be connected. Over time I continued to go on my, 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 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. Their 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 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 maybe that avoiding such 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 breading 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. Because 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 breading to make it stronger or more nutritious. The National Wheat Improvement Committee explains that there are two different types of wheat breading, conventional crossing that combines genes of complementary wheat plants to produce new genetic combinations, but not new genes, and the minimal incorporation of indigenous genes of ancestral 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.

It can be very confusing determining what people are talking about when they complain of gluten intolerance or sensitivity, and if you’re anything like me, you would not have known there was a difference. 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 gliadin 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

It is true that 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 irradiating hunger, outweigh the risks such as increasing allergic reactions to foods? And 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 labeling of modified foods.    

It is easy, when searching for the terms “GMOs” and “food allergies” or “gluten intolerance” on a general web browser 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. 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. 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 hold no ground in the scientific community.

Common Ideas and Misconceptions

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 need 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.

Studies on GMOs

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.

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 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. 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, 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. 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)

Conclusion

Regardless of whether it is better to label GMOs in food products or not, genetic engineering is not the cause in the rise if 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.