Miss

Team C
1- Laura Daher (Team Leader)
2- Lara Henderson
3- Deepa Shukla
4- Antonio Ortiz
5- Rakan Fakhouri
Devry University
Tech, Society, and Culture / LAS432
Professor: Kenneth Melichar
Week 7 – Final Project Paper
Genetically Modified Organisms
Date: 04/19/2014

Table of Contents
1. Abstract (By Laura Daher) 4
2. Introduction - Genetically Modified Organisms (By Laura Daher) 5
A. Science Pure (By Laura Daher) 5
I. What is a GMO? (By Laura Daher and Lara Henderson) 5
II. Difference between Biotechnology and Genetic Modification (By Laura Daher) 6
III. What can be Genetically Modified? (By Laura Daher) 6
B. History (By Laura Daher) 7
I. The Genes Story (By Laura Daher and Lara Henderson) 7
II. Genes Social Factors (By Laura Daher and Lara Henderson) 8
III. How Genes Works? (By Laura Daher) 9
3. Body 9
C. Political Causes/Effects (By Lara Henderson) 12
I. Government View 12
II. Political factors of GMO 12
D. Economic Issues (By Lara Henderson) 13
I. Production, Consumption, Costs and Variables 14
II. Business Environment 15
III. Economic Trends 16
E. Psychological Effects (By Rakan Fakhouri) 17
I. Acceptance of GMO 17
II. Attitude toward Change 18
III. Human Mind Impacts 18
F. Sociological Effects (By Rakan Fakhouri) 18
I. Prospered Groups and Organizations 18
II. Roles of GMO 19
III. Effects of some GMO Concerns 19
G. Cultural Considerations (By Antonio Ortiz) 20
I. Culture and Subculture 21
II. New World Technologies 22
H. Artistic Links (By Deepa Shukla) 23
I. Media Coverage of GMO 23
II. Feedback about the Technology 23
I. Environmental Effects (By Antonio Ortiz) 26
I. Dangers to Humans 26
II. Depletion of Resources 27
III. Long-term and Short-term Effects 27
J. Moral and Ethical Considerations (By Deepa Shukla) 29
I. Quality of Life 29
II. Human Rights 29
4. Conclusion (By Deepa Shukla) 29
5. Bibliography / References (By Laura Daher) 31
6. Appendix Table 1 (By Lara Henderson) 33
7. Appendix Table 2 (By Antonio Ortiz) 34

Abstract
For thousands of years people have developed plants and animals with the characteristics they want by selectively breeding the best plants and animals. The need for using genetically modified organisms is simply defined as sheer volume of consumers. In order to feed and provide other non-food products to individuals, current ingredients had to be altered to be able to fit the growing needs of the country. Genetic modification has a variety of uses pure science, research, medicine, food production, agricultural innovation. Genes work by coding instructions for making proteins and proteins are the chemicals that have a strong influence on biological functions.
GMO technology finds itself an enduring part of society, history and people. This is true because of the technology’s ability to integrate itself with wild populations and even contaminate conventional crops, well beyond the decision for farmers to halt the planting of GM crops. There will be a decrease in the products derived from GMOs. Companies who use the GMO products like wheat will offer organic brands. They will also find different suppliers of the grains and vegetables to ensure the products are made and cultivated naturally. More and more companies will be looking for the alternate ways for consumers to buy their products, therefore replacing the GMO ingredients will be a necessity. This could be even further enforced in the labeling legislation ratified. This circumstance is certainly not just limited to the United States consumers who purchase the goods. This also affects international trade and global relations.

Introduction
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)
GMO is the abbreviation for Genetically Modified Organisms, which is an organism whose genetic DNA has been changed using genetic production methods. Methods used are known to result from combinations of genetic material, also known as recombinant DNA technology which uses the DNA particles from different bases. The DNA formed is then relocated into an organism, which gives it new adapted genes. These methods are used to produce a new set of genes creating a genetically modified organism. Simply put, the genomes of all living organisms which include plants, animals or bacteria can be deliberately inserted into various organisms using recombinant DNA technology.
Science Pure
What is a GMO?
A GMO might be a bacteria, plant, animal, or humans, who’s genetic might be changed using modern laboratory techniques. A GMO is a living organism that can develop and duplicate and can expand through its genes and be modified genes to its duplicates. Genetically modified organisms are a very controversial subject in society today as this is commonly used in products consumed by the general public as food sources. This can include fish, oils, vegetables, fruits, and even yeast and grain products.
The need for the modification within food sources is noted by an increase in population and a more cost effective way to feed the vast public. Much of the controversy is driven by food allergies and sensitivities that have risen since consumers that are believed to be caused by no longer eating natural products in their original form.
Difference between Biotechnology and Genetic Modification
Genetic modification is just one kind of biotechnology. Biotechnology is kind of technology that uses the living organisms for their products on medical, commercial or industrial purposes. It provides ancient technologies such as using yeast to brew beer as well as modern technologies such as genetic modification. For example, some biotechnologies that do not generally involve genetic modification are: Tissue culture, bioremediation, cloning, cross-species tissue transplants, or xenotransplantation.
What can be Genetically Modified?
Bacteria
Genetically modified bacteria are widely used in research and to produce substances for food and pharmaceutical drugs. When the modified bacteria have produced a desired substance, for example, insulin or enzymes used in food production. That product is separated from the bacteria, purified and processed into its final form. Other micro-organisms such as yeast are also commonly genetically modified for similar purposes.
Plants
Plants have been modified for a number of purposes, mostly to make them resistant to pests and diseases, to extend their growing season, or to increase crop yields. Other plants are being modified to increase their nutritional value, to grow in difficult environments or to carry vaccines against diseases. Ornamental plants have been genetically modified to produce new colors or to extend vase life.
Animals
Animals have been used mainly for medical research. For example, mice have been genetically modified to help with cancer research. Genetic modification could also potentially be used to improve breeding techniques or to induce cows to produce medical compounds in their milk. Some animals, such as salmon, have been genetically modified to enhance their utility as a farmable food source.
Humans
Genetic modification of human cells has the potential for treating diseases. One approach, gene therapy, delivers corrected genes into selected cells in the body to treat diseases caused by an absence of an important gene, such as in cystic fibrosis. In these cases the genetic changes are not passed down to future generations. Research is under way to investigate the potential to modify the DNA in sperm, eggs or embryos to eliminate serious inherited diseases.
History
The Genes Story
GMO plants are often able to tolerate droughts, increase volume produced, and enhance or supplement nutrition as well. Products are often created from genetically modified organisms through isolating a gene or DNA using biotechnology to ensure the largest harvest possible is produced and can supply the public while ensuring a profit is made off the product.
A plant that does not thrive in yields cannot be made to provide the largest quantity of goods for the consumers. The mass of harvested produce is meant to fit the supply and demand needs of society. In fact, with seven billion people on the planet, agricultural organizations state that not only are GMOs safe for human consumption but are necessary to feed everyone (Hattem 2013). The margin of plants not being able to produce enough yields on their own is a very real concern of experts. Using genetically modified organisms, such as seeds to grow food, provide a way to ensure the pains of hunger are satisfied.
Just exactly how much the United States products are considered GMO products or made from GMO seeds? Surprisingly enough, “a huge proportion of commodity crops are genetically engineered: 97% of the nation's sugar beets, 93% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 90% of the feed corn, according to 2013 data from the Department of Agriculture” (Wiese 2013). This indicates that the majority of products being produced on American soil are able to be supplied using biotechnology. Let’s put this into perspective by taking this one step further.
According to Dr. Michael Wald, a certified dietician nutritionist and advocate for non-GMO products, states that the United States was the top country that grew ninety-seven percent of the global crops from transgenic genes (Wald 2013). Ninety seven percent is more than a vast majority; it is almost the nation’s crops in its entirety. With a calculation that high, it is clear that government regulation would be necessary.
Genes Social Factors
Genetically modified organisms as food sources also provide a lot of revenue and business. The United States government is currently in support of biologically engineered food sources. The national Food and Drug Administration has regulation on this currently. However, much of the controversy that surrounds this revolve around the loop holes that do not provide companies to disclose information surrounding the ingredients used. Due to this, purchasing organic quality food has become much more popular and specific companies are stopping the use the genetically modified organisms as ingredients since consumers are purchasing other items that state on the packaging the product is “GMO Free”. This has caused major upheaval of the products that are being purchased. Analyzing what drives the need for genetically modified organisms as ingredients can help to illustrate business policies and government regulations as the policies are developed into legislation. Such technology would require government regulation and support. Of course, however, there are opposing viewpoints as well.
How Genes works
Genes control the characteristics of living organisms. Genetic modification allows scientists to change genes in a more specific or controlled way. Genes can be switched on or off or their sequences can be altered. By using genetic modification it is possible to introduce new characteristics more quickly. Because all organisms use the same chemical building blocks, copies of genes can be moved between totally unrelated species, making it possible to introduce characteristics that would not be possible through conventional breeding. For example, corn has been genetically modified to produce an insecticide that is made naturally by soil bacteria.
For example, new genes might have been added or the function of genes already present might have been altered. New genes may contain sequences found in the same or different species or they may be synthetic. A living genetically modified corn seed or potato is a genetically modified organism as well as a food. But not all the products we get from genetic modification are living organisms. For example, the flour ground from genetically modified corn seeds is not a living thing, nor is the oil extracted from genetically modified soybeans.
Body
Political Causes/Effects
Genetically Modified organisms when used as food sources or as a source of revenue must be maintained and regulated by and appropriate wing of the government, specific to agencies. When it comes to producing the genetically modified seeds for the crops, the Food and Drug administration has authority over the regulation of these. According to the process, the FDA, as a national certifying body of food and drugs, must approve the genetically modified foods that are produced for consumption. The thought process behind this indicates that the Food and Drug Administration is meant to ensure safety of these products. Ensuring that the crops are safe for ingesting is an important portion of the demand aspect of supply and demand laws.
Consumers will be more inclined to be purchase a particular item if they are believed to be properly tested and have passed the strenuous scrutiny of the FDA. In addition, in companies where biotechnology is utilized to cross breed genes where that would otherwise not occur naturally, these experiments are completed by experienced scientists. For consumers, this appears to be a double comforting factor.
The Environmental Protection Agency also plays a role in the regulation and legislation of genetically modified organisms. Farms that do not use the GMO seeds have to be certified and often have spot checks where the EPA determines that the fields are not contaminated by GMO aspects (Smith, 2012). It is very much important to note that farms that use GMO must illustrate some form of separation from non-GMO farms. Although the EPA plays no role in the testing of the foods produced, it does ensure that the farms maintain their organic or natural status. The agencies other main responsibility is to ensure there is no pollution to the soil and water regarding the pesticides used. I the case of GMO’s, chemical pesticides are not supposed to be required, however, it does need to ensure that the biotechnology produced seeds are not having a negative impact on the environment. The United States Department of Agriculture or the USDA, has also has responsibilities regarding the regulation of GMO through farms. It ensures that the production and handling of products is considered safe and healthy. Since there is a lot of debate and controversy surrounding the use of genetically modified organisms as food sources, a lot of people believe that the federal regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Department of Agriculture should require further testing and more regulation to predict the safety of the goods.
The most recent change in legislation regarding genetically modified organisms, specifically consumables and crops, is in the change in labeling GMO versus non-GMO products. Each state has legislation over this aspect, and it seems that more and more states are jumping on the bandwagon to enforce proper labeling of the genetically modified crops used to make the commodities. In 2013, twenty-six states have initiated the legislation of making labeling required (Weise 2013). As this is just more than half of the amount of states, it is apparent how many more states are recognizing the importance of labeling between GMO and non-GMO.
As noted above, the majority of crops in the US are made from some form of unnatural cross-breeding. However as this movement progresses, more consumers are choosing to purchase more non-genetically modified crops. Making labeling mandatory on GMO products would help to inform the consumer of what they are purchasing which after all is a right to know what is in the food they are consuming. On the other hand, some consumers believe that by enforcing labeling, they are indicating that by purchasing GMO foods, the consumer is then purchasing a product with less than par ingredients.
Opposing viewpoints argue over the labeling of the products. Even individuals who are not against the use of GMO produce believe that by not labeling products it appears that the product has something to hide. Weise goes on further to state that it is required to note the difference between from concentrate or previously frozen products as this can affect the perception of the consumer (Weise 2013). A manufacturer is not allowed to claim that a juice product made form concentrate may be labeled as though it is not. This does change the nutrient make-up. GMO versus non-GMO products should be viewed the same providing the consumer the appropriate information to make an informed decision about what they are purchasing.

Political Causes/Effects
Government View
As long as the current government agencies continue to provide the safety and benfits of genetically modified organisms, they will continue to be used in place of natural ingredients. The FDA has noted that genetically modified foods are considered “functionally equivalent to the conventionally grown-crops” (Weise 2013). This statement implies that although the ingredients are not identical in genetic make-up to non-GMO foods, they have the same purpose and therefore do not need to read different on their labels regarding nutrition and ingredients. The same applies to USDA and EPA.
Nationally labeling GMO foods is not required due to the National Food and Drug Administration’s stance on this topic. Some states are unsure of whether to pass the legislative bill regarding labeling, in fear that not enough states will pass the same bill. In demographic regions it is apparent that states are waiting for other states to pass the same bill. This is creating clusters of states that have already passed legislation and other demographic regions waiting for states in their region to step up.
According to Rebecca Spector of the Center for food safety, "Basically, they don't want to go it alone. They want other states in their region to pass it, so if there is a legal challenge, they can pool resources to support each other." (Weise 2013). Security in numbers is the mentality here. Interestingly enough, the United States is the only nation where there is not national legislations regarding accurate labeling of where these products are originating.
Political factors of GMO Political factors regarding GMO simply come from the prospected belief of the necessity of them. There are the political beliefs of the doctors and scientists who have found scientific evidence regarding the negative effects of the use of biotechnology used in food. The other side is driven by the sheer need of the product and the repercussions of the food sources not being available. For example, the FDA’s own scientists actually warned that these unnatural foods could create new toxins and new allergens (Smith, 2012). Although not yet proven, it is possible that new trends in healthcare can be a negative outcome of the use of GMOs. It is also possible that without factual evidence that the proposed disapproving medical beliefs are not a result of the use of biotechnology in the process of harvesting foods. Either way the government, through the FDA and such regulatory bodies, have looked more at the aspect of business regarding revenue and the economical bottom line as a major driving force of political factors. Regardless of political party, Republicans and Democrats can agree that labeling would help to prevent the deception of consumers.
Economic Issues
With government regulation of genetically modified organisms in food sources and consumable products the questions remains: How does this affect the state of affairs regarding the economy? Essentially the driving force of the economic slide of GMO foods to non-GMO foods is based on new research and information that is being shared among the skeptics. It has already been clarified that GMOs help to keep foods at a reasonable cost without experiencing a great deficit in specific items.
The order of operations when applied to genetically modified organisms, in specific vegetation, filters down to who the suppliers of the seeds actually are. These seed companies that the farmers use have been bought by chemical corporations that provided herbicides and pesticides for the farmers in the past. Monsanto is the most well-known and popular example of this, as it is a pioneer in the movement of GMO. Monsanto is a chemical company that has branched out into an agricultural biotechnology corporation that purchased seed companies. It is currently the leader in seed sales. (Wald 2013). Although other chemical/seed hybrid companies exist, Monsanto is the most common household name in the market.
Originally the thinking was that the genetically modified seeds would need less pesticides or herbicides sprayed on since they were engineered to create their own. However this has caused more herbicides and pesticides to necessary since of the adaptation of “super weeds” in the environment (Smith 2012). Using more chemicals to ensure the plants are more resistant creates a cycle of monetary interest in which the chemical and seed merged companies. Those companies bottom line benefit from this cyclic motion. The companies that are similar to Monsanto have a monopoly over the food and agriculture production market. This threatens local farmers or small business farmers.
Production, Consumption, Costs and Variables
Although a lot of consumers are aware that genetically modified foods have been linked to poor health outcomes, they still continue to purchase the products. Through marketing, certain points play on consumers more than others. Often times, malnutrition and starvation are characteristics that are zeroed in on. Tapping into the emotional side of the consumer is a popular strategy to get consumers to purchase a product. GMO products advertised as having enhanced nutritional qualities and therefore have the ability to solve world hunger. This is strictly a marketing or advertising point to encourage people to buy the products and promotes its usefulness. On the other hand, until labeling is enacted properly consumers may purchase products and are unaware of the genetically modified organisms it took to create or grow the product.
There is a price point difference between GMO and non-GMO foods when shopping at local stores. Choosing to buy certified organic or products that are not made from genetically modified organisms can be a little more expensive. Purchasing an all-natural product can have a bigger effect on the purchaser’s wallet. However the price difference, individuals are choosing not buy the products that are originate from genetically modified organisms for several reasons. Whether it be health concerns or the strong urge to support local businesses owners over the monopoly seed-chemical companies, one thing is certain more and more consumers are willing to pay more for the organic or natural products.
Other countries that practice trade with the US have shown reluctance in purchasing genetically modified organisms as food sources. For example, members of a small town in Italy would get food that was fresh and tasty, in the United States people would eat mechanically harvested vegetables that have little to no flavor. People in Europe would not eat that (Hansen, 2014). This means that the crops generated in the United States have the potential to no longer be globally accepted. As a nation that produces little exports to begin with, having global consumers lose interest in the crops due to questionable ingredients is not going to bode well for the economy.
Business Environment
With the production of Genetically Modified Organisms, the success of manufactures relies on the supply and demand laws. Consumers demanding the GMO or the non-GMO products will enforce what manufactures use to make the consumables. This sways the rate of consumption of each conventional versus non-conventional crops. This can be done by five % of the population consciously avoiding genetically modified foods, thus creating a tipping a point when the manufactures must re-evaluate ingredients (Smith 2012). With the advancement of technology the five percent of consumers is not a far off percentage to change the monopoly of GMO products. The use of GMO products affects not only the consumers, but it also affects the farmers and the producers in the market as well. There are individuals who boost buying local organic crops that do not use the GMO seeds or vegetation while others strongly suggest purchasing GMO products. As such a hot topic, this information is spread very quickly on social media sites and through the internet. The above factors and the incredible wealth of knowledge and the speed at which it travels all contribute to the business environment and sales trends.

Economic Trends
Genetically Modified Organisms in particular food sources have created a lot of upheaval in the past several years as negative research and press has been made available to the consumers. This has caused changes in legislation as well as shifts in the economy, specifically, food industry. Although this will continue to be a topic of interest for both citizens and government officials alike, the disadvantages and advantages of GMOs will continue to be used to persuade purchasers.
Losing trade options as well as in-house sales will decrease the expected revenue of the harvest. Michael P Hanson, a Senior Staff Scientist with the Consumers Union reports “the United States opinion on GMO’s is causing it to be squeezed into an international trade corner” (Hanson 2014). With reluctant consumers, both on shore and overseas, the US limiting their market by producing supplies that are made through biotechnology is not an option for the American economy. As more consumers search for non-GMO alternatives, the natural and organic food market is growing rapidly. Specifically, “a cereal company has pledged that beginning in 2015, all of the new foods that it introduces will be non-GMO project verified and will contain at least seventy percent USDA organic certified ingredients” (Smith, 2012). With signs pointing to a growing amount of disgruntled consumers, this is a trend that will continue to have an impact on the future of food production. This is evident in the table listed below that defines the sales trends of organic beverages (Table 1). With statistics provided by Stephanie Cernivec in the article “Taking Beverages Back to Basics” the table displays the percent change from the year prior while also displaying the dollar amount of sales. Perhaps the most important sales trend to notice is that the overall purchases or organic beverages has been on the rise since 2012. With changes from the cereal companies and informed consumers it is very likely that this upswing seen in the purchase of non-GMO can be described as a movement of the future of the food industry as well as the seed companies
Psychological Effects
Acceptance of GMO
Some people believe that tampering with nature is intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals, or vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. Respect for consumer choice and assumed risk is as important as having safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-genetically modified foods. In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, there must be a definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be labeled.
GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis.
Attitude toward Change
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in Europe and Asia are mixed depending on the country and current mood at the time of the survey (Hoban, 2004). Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified products differ depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean. Support varies for different types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are mentioned.
These issues are increasingly important to consider as the number of GMOs continues to increase due to improved laboratory techniques and tools for sequencing whole genomes, better processes for cloning and transferring genes, and improved understanding of gene expression systems. Thus, legislative practices that regulate this research have to keep pace. Prior to permitting commercial use of GMOs, governments perform risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use, but difficulties in estimating the impact of commercial GMO use makes regulation of these organisms a challenge.
Human Mind Impacts
Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene expression. After all, such alterations can change the organism's metabolism, growth rate, and/or response to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora.
The use of GMOs in medicine and research has produced a debate that is more philosophical in nature. For example, while genetic researchers believe they are working to cure disease and ameliorate suffering, many people worry that current gene therapy approaches may one day be applied to produce “designer” children or to lengthen the natural human life span. Similar to many other technologies, gene therapy and the production and application of GMOs can be used to address and resolve complicated scientific, medical, and environmental issues, but they must be used wisely.
Sociological Effects
Prospered Groups and Organizations
Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.
In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism. I wonder if the scientists at these biotech corporations have already identified this method. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspecting for years.
When it comes to genetically modified crops and foods, we really have no idea of what the long term effects will be on the public. The very first commercial sale of genetically modified foods was only twenty years ago in the year 1994. There is no possible way that our health authorities can test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with certainty that they are harmless. Geneticist David Suzuki recently expressed his concern, saying that human beings are part of a “massive genetic experiment” over many years, as thousands of people continue to consume GMO’s, and it makes sense.
Roles of GMO
Advances in genome science over the past few years have revealed that organisms can share their genes. Prior to this, it had been thought that genes were shared only between individual members of a species through reproduction. Geneticists usually followed the inheritance of genes in what they would call a ‘vertical’ fashion, such as breeding a male and female you follow their offspring and continue down the road from there. Today, scientists recognize that genes are shared not only among the individual members of a species, but also among members of different species.
How can our governing health authorities approve these as safe? It’s almost as if they told us they were safe, and we just believed them without questioning it. We seem to be a very gullible race, but things are changing and more are starting to question the world around them.
Effects of some GMO Concerns
All genetically modified foods that have been approved are considered by the government to be as safe as their traditional counterparts and are generally unregulated (FDA website). However, there are several types of potential health effects that could result from the insertion of a novel gene into an organism. Health effects of primary concern to safety assessors are production of new allergens, increased toxicity, decreased nutrition, and antibiotic resistance (Bernstein et al., 2003).
Food Allergy
Food Allergy affects approximately 5% of children and 2% of adults in the U.S. and is a significant public health threat (Bakshi, 2003). Allergic reactions in humans occur when a normally harmless protein enters the body and stimulates an immune response (Bernstein et al., 2003). If the novel protein in a GM food comes from a source that is know to cause allergies in humans or a source that has never been consumed as human food, the concern that the protein could elicit an immune response in humans increases. Although no allergic reactions to GM food by consumers have been confirmed, in vitro evidence suggesting that some GM products could cause an allergic reaction has motivated biotechnology companies to discontinue their development (Bakshi, 2003).
Increased Toxicity
Most plants produce substances that are toxic to humans. Most of the plants that humans consume produce toxins at levels low enough that they do not produce any adverse health effects. There is concern that inserting an exotic gene into a plant could cause it to produce toxins at higher levels that could be dangerous to humans. This could happen through the process of inserting the gene into the plant. If other genes in the plant become damaged during the insertion process it could cause the plant to alter its production of toxins. Alternatively, the new gene could interfere with a metabolic pathway causing a stressed plant to produce more toxins in response. Although these effects have not been observed in GM plants, they have been observed through conventional breeding methods creating a safety concern for GM plants. For example, potatoes conventionally bred for increased diseased resistance have produced higher levels of glycoalkaloids (GEO-PIE website).
Decreased Nutritional Value
A genetically modified plant could theoretically have lower nutritional quality than its traditional counterpart by making nutrients unavailable or indigestible to humans. For example, phytate is a compound common in seeds and grains that binds with minerals and makes them unavailable to humans. An inserted gene could cause a plant to produce higher levels of phytate decreasing the mineral nutritional value of the plant (GEO-PIE). Another example comes from a study showing that a strain of genetically modified soybean produced lower levels of phytoestrogen compounds, believed to protect against heart disease and cancer, than traditional soybeans (Bakshi, 2003).
Antibiotic resistance
In recent years health professionals have become alarmed by the increasing number of bacterial strains that are showing resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics by creating antibiotic resistance genes through natural mutation. Biotechnologists use antibiotic resistance genes as selectable markers when inserting new genes into plants. In the early stages of the process scientists do not know if the target plant will incorporate the new gene into its genome. By attaching the desired gene to an antibiotic resistance gene the new GM plant can be tested by growing it in a solution containing the corresponding antibiotic. If the plant survives scientists know that it has taken up the antibiotic resistance gene along with the desired gene. There is concern that bacteria living in the guts of humans and animals could pick up an antibiotic resistance gene from a GM plant before the DNA becomes completely digested (GEO-PIE website).
Cultural Considerations
When reflecting on the cultural and socio-economic considerations of genetically modified organisms, (GMOs) it seems to be a realization that these considerations are not receiving the same amount of attention as the scientific and technology facets of the science. The GMO movement gives the impression that the argument about acceptability of genetically modified organisms and its uses is focused primarily on the scientific and technical aspects that are only available to the professionals in those areas, scientists and technologists. There are reasons why it is difficult to find a variety of information regarding the cultural and economic impact regarding GMOs.
The most prominent of these reasons is the novelty of the science of genetically modified organisms. The amount of time necessary for new technology of any sort to become apparent takes years and then there is only hope that the amount of time that has passed is enough to record relevant data to monitor the effects the technology impacted on the socio-economic arena. By the time this has happened the technology has already reached a level of institutionalization that may be difficult to retract. In the case of genetically modified organisms, although a newer technology, we are able to focus on a particular area of the technology in regards to agbiotech which is the use of GMOs in agricultural products. It should be understood that GMOs can source both ecological and social alterations that could be considered irreversible.
Though this could be said for many new technologies, GMOs are distinctly different because of the unique features that make the ecological and social influences more serious and comprehensive. Foundational understandings that the manipulation of genetics of life and its processes creates the ethical and social debates of the ability of GMOs to impact both the socio-economics and ecological contamination, which shows the unique characteristics of this technology. It should be understood that even if GMO’s are isolated and the technology removed or prohibited, because of its ability to dispense a permanent stamp in not only society but also in nature.
An example of this was “the 2000 Starlink contamination scandal, in which a GM corn variety solely approved for animal feed was detected in taco shells, opened up a policy window for regulatory reform and started a debate over biosafety, crop segregation and coexistence (Stephan 2012). What is significant is that there were 2 other events in 1999 and 2001 that showed contamination in BT corn (GM) to caterpillars of Monarch butterflies that did not capture the public’s interest for long. This resulted primarily because in America the confidence that the public has in its regulatory agencies is high. Frankly, this reality shows an underlining and critical importance on why gauging the effects of this technology on socio-economics should be considered during and even before its introduction to society.
Culture and Subculture
It should be understood that separating technology from the social circumstances where it is originally implemented would be difficult to separate if not impossible. As early as when man was able to reproduce fire and able to control and train plants and animals through phases like the Industrial Revolution and even today’s Information Revolution, a void of society has never existed. In return when we look at the various aspects of society like cultural, economic, social and ethical, it can be said that each aspect is affected by technology in different ways. This is very much the case when it comes to GMOs. Culture, religion and ethics are probably the most dominant powers when the adaptation of technology or its demise is considered. Let us consider how the ethical and religious properties show their dominance in regions where religion has a very influential part of the society. According to Hannes Stephan, “the fusion and national identity has attained such a degree in Italy that unwanted innovations (such as GM food) are regarded as alien and “un-italian”, besides posing a threat to artisanal production methods and the reputation of Italian products.” Stephan suggests that it is quite obvious that the cultural contexts do not directly cause specific outcomes but can be seen as a prominent reason for the influence and modeling of public support for genetically modified organisms, this is done by allowing altered cultural-political openings and not considering their alternatives (Stephan 2012). Another example of this is whether or not GMOs are considered to be halal or haram in Muslim societies, meaning if the foods are allowed to be eaten or not by the Islamic traditions.
New World Technologies
With the controversies about genetically modified organisms the production of GM crops continues to grow rather quickly, especially in countries that are still developing. Because of the new technologies and being able to alter the genetic makeup of plants and the genomic resources that seem to be so very plentiful, there is bound to be a substantial amount of growth in the production of GMOs. Most interestingly enough is that fact that this type of growth has and will continue to be regulated. Being able to detect GMOs is an important part of the concerns of society, primarily the consumer because GMOs can have a very high impact on the safety and quality of their food. It is because of this that countries have decided to implement GMO labeling regulations seen the attached table 2 in appendix.
Another form of GMO use is in that of livestock. Transgenic livestock is a combination of cloning and genetic modification of cultured cells by adding or removing genes. This technique is becoming common practice for both livestock and poultry production. This is also a concern for regulation. So here we see a couple of different technologies being used by the GMO technicians that show great potential. The need to regulate this type of technology is understood because there has been a lack of ability to concretely asses the risk of potential harms that the GMO technology may cause.
Artistic Links
Media Coverage of GMO
The media and the protester, the consumers forced the European companies to stop the use of GMOS out of all European products. If the media had never released the testimony of Dr. Pusztai the European consumers would never have known. The US media on the other hand did not cover the story of Dr. Pusztai and the results of his study on the use of GM foods. The US media chose not to cover the story of the results of the study done on the GM foods which left the government, and the people uninformed of the effects that GMO can cause. If the media is not reporting the news the good and the bad people are left in the dark with what is going on in the world. It is become a necessity for media to exist in the world because it has become a life line to the main stream society. Had the media covered this story maybe many companies that use GMO’s in the US today would not be able to. Maybe the government would have put harsher regulations in place for such companies.
Feedback about the Technology
Technology has been a great advancement in the world, cell phones, to the web to TV, movies. Just about everything we use today has some type of technology attached to it. Technology has helped make much advancement but with these advancements there have been some side effects that are causing many side effects. With the use of technology we are able to get information about anything without going to the library, we are able to send a letter via the web in a matter of seconds, and doctors are able to save lives with the help of technology. This whole process of GMO is a moral and ethical question mark for each person and for each county. Ethically as a person I would say why alter what was not intended? Why defy the laws of nature? Each person has a standard on how they should eat and what they eat, or how they live without having to worry about any side effects. Our governments should have the same standards as we do to keep us safe and let us know when something is not safe or could harm us later. Ethics is a very thin line when organizations or governments see profits over safety. Why do we need to do this GMO? Ethics says that we should let things happen naturally and not interfere with what nature has intended.
Environmental Effects
Dangers to Humans
When considering regulation of GMOs there are ways to detect GMO in crops and animals. In Europe there the regulatory agency in charge of surveying the biology and safety of GMOs introduced into the environment is the EMEA (European Medicines Agency), who grants the licensing for the use of GMO-containing or GMO-derived medical products animals and humans. In the United States the Federal Drug Administration delegates this responsibility to CBER (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research) who is in charge of or ensuring the safety, purity, efficacy and potency of vaccine products for human and veterinary use.
These agencies use different methods of technology to help them regulate GMO products. A more generic explanation of these methods is to follow. The basis for the explanation is so there is a general understanding of the different types of technologies used to regulate GMOs. Sampling, DNA based methods, Protein based methods and Multiplexing will be briefly explained.
In Sampling, the detection of GMO is done just as it is assumed. A crop that is assumed to have been created with GMO and others that are not are evaluated with an ELISA or enzyme-linked assay, which uses antibodies and color change to identify a substance, in this case a GMO. Samples are gathered from each group of crop and analyzed to see if there is any indication of GMO.
Depletion of Resources
DNA based methods like the PCR technology, Label-free biosensors and electrochemical biosensors are used to identify GMO in crops by identifying the existence of introduced DNA. These methods are versatile, sensitive, specific and precise but also have major drawbacks because of the time required for analysis and the expensive specialized equipment needed to conduct the testing. PCR or polymerase chain reaction is a biochemical technology used to amplify DNA across numerous commands of scale which in turn create up to millions of copies of a particular DNA sequence. By analyzing DNA using this technology technologists are able to compare separate strands of DNA for the newly introduced DNA of GMOs. Label-free biosensors is a technology that uses biological and or chemical indicators to discover molecules in a sample.
They give detailed information on the selective, kinship, and also the necessary groupings of an interaction. With Electrochemical biosensors the same result is identified but a different technology. The DNA is introduced to a transducer which allows an electronic signal to be created that can be processed as an output to provide the information required. (Frew, Hill. 1987)
Long-term and Short-term Effects
The effects shown toward health include newly created allergens, a decrease in nutritional value, unwanted antibiotic resistance and also increased toxicity. The idea that a newly created allergen by GMO can exist, there has yet to be any confirmed data to justify this effect, is not implausible. Since GM foods are created by adding protein to benefit the potential of the crop, a protein that is not usually consumed by humans may become eminent and cause an allergic reaction that no one has ever witnessed. A decrease in nutritional value is suggested due to the natural ability of a plant to incorporate mineral and nutritional value. When the insertion of a gene to a plant occurs, the plants ability to culminate with the natural minerals could be negated, thus not allowing the regular nutritional value of the plant to develop. An increase in antibiotic resistance in bacteria strains has alarmed health professionals. When incorporating a new gene into bacteria it no longer naturally mutates the antibiotic resistance so scientists have been unable to identify if the targeted plant will incorporate the new gene into its genome. When the GM plant has the respected gene attached to an antibiotic resistant gene a test formulate whether or not the gene was contained by the livelihood or death of the bacteria. The concern of health professionals is that the bacteria once consumed by humans may not be completely digested because of the antibiotic resistant trait. An increase in toxicity is also a relevant concern. It is understood that most plants create low levels of toxins that do not harm humans by consumption. With the insertion of an exotic gene in plants the possibilities of elevated toxins that could potentially be harmful to humans is the basis for this apprehension. Also with the implementation of the new gene, toxins may be developed that are not known because of the different dynamics of the plant that is created by the new gene. Interestingly enough debating the safety of GM foods can be traced back to the year of 1998. Beforehand GM crops in the United States and United Kingdom were being produced without the hesitation of safety concerns. As with any new technology, once negativity is establish fear ensues. Soon after the relationship between food and disease was highlighted and safety concerns of GMOs was placed in the forefront of GM foods and its production and commercialization. With GMOs now highlighted in the public’s eye, media began to report myths and various facts of GM foods which ruined the perception of safety in GM foods.
Moral and Ethical Considerations
Quality of Life
With governments allowing companies and scientist to genetically modify organisms in their own mind they are helping change and speed up the agricultural cycle. With this help they are feeding people around the world who wouldn’t have the fresh food others have. It is also helping in the supply of food that is being grown to help with the growth of the population around the world. When a natural disaster occurs somewhere the first thing they need is food and water. When the earthquake happened in Haiti, all those people were without food and water. People were able to be fed because of the GMO foods and the abundance of it.
Human Rights
Each person must decide what is important to them and decide what is ethically right for them. But it is the governments duty to make sure the citizens of the country are aware of what they are eating drinking, or taking from the manufacturer. Let the companies that they have to disclose everything they use to make their products and let the consumers decide if they want to continue to use the products.
Conclusion
GMO are any organism, genes or genetic material of which have been modified in a way that does not occur naturally through mating or natural recombination or both. Plants can be modified to increase their resistance to insects, diseases and other pests that are capable of destroying or seriously damaging crops. This not only results in an increase in the yield of these crops, but also reduces the need for using pesticides. Reduced pesticide use implies decreased pollution and increased safety for farm-workers and those living nearby, as well as less harm to animal life. Food quality is improved because there is less fungal infection, insect damage and residual pesticide.
In conclusion to the topic of Genetically Modified Organisms, there is still much to learn, more to research and more to understand. There will be two sides to what is happening how it is affecting and who it is affecting. Scientist will need to do more research to learn the positives and negatives of this process and why do we need to do this. Who will benefit from doing this? How will this affect the world and the people? These are all questions the people are asking of their manufacturing companies, their government and the scientist who have created this process. They have to answer to the public to show why and how they did this and what can be benefited from it. Ultimately in the end it will be up to the people if they want this process or if they will discontinue the use of anything that has been GMO.

Bibliography / References
Ben Kolle. GMO : Risk, Benefits and Moral Obligations. Retrieved from: http://www.fresnostate.edu/artshum/philosophy/documents/Koole-CUPR1-1.pdf
Cernivec, Stephanie. (2014). Taking beverages back to basics. Beverage Industry, 105(2), 20-24.
Farid, Ahmed (2002). Detection of genetically modified organisms in foods. Trends in Biotechnology. Department of Radiation Oncology. Leo W. Jenkins Cancer Center. USA: The Brody School of Medicine.
Fish Bucket. The Voice of Art. I am Other. Retrieved from http://iamother.com/post/35098229230/voice-of-art-graffiti-artists-vs-gm
Frew, Jane E., Hill, H Allen O. (1987). Electrochemical biosensors, Analytical chemistry, 59 (15), 933A-944A. Retrieved from. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ ac00142a001? journalCode=ancham
Gerald, Nelson (2001). Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics. By Academic Press.
GoodBaudy, Trent (2012). The Rebirth of Mankind: Homo Evolutis. Published in Portland, Oregon, USA.
Hansen, M. (2014). The GMO Tipping Point. Natural Foods Merchandiser, 14-15
Hattem, J. (2013, July 16). Bill for GMO labels wins big endorsement. Hill. p. 9
James Gerken. ‘March Against Monsanto’ Protesters Rally Against U.S. Giant and GMO products. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/25/march-against-monsanto-gmo-protest_n_3336627.html
Jane, Setlow (2002). Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods, Volume 24. Published by: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.
Linda MacDonald Glenn. November 2013. Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics. ActionBioscience. Retrieved from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/glenn.html
Sarah Diamond. December 12, 2013. Artist Mear One Tells the Story Behind His Anti-GMO Mural in Culver City Retrieved: http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2013/12/12/artist-mear-one-tells-the-story-behind-his-anti-gmo-mural-in-culver-city
SMITH, M. (2012). GMO Reality Check. Better Nutrition, 74(8), 36-39.
Tomme, Young (2004). Genetically Modified Organisms and Biosafety: A Background Paper for Decision-makers and Others to Assist in Consideration of GMO Issues. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Wald, M. (2013). GMO-Genetically Modified Organisms Dangerous or Necessary?. Original Internist, 20(3), 129-130 Weise, Elizabeth. (2013). GMO battle hits Washington State. USA Today

Appendix
Table 1
Top organic beverages (By category)
% CHANGE DOLLAR SALES
Soy milk
-4.5
$ 1,273,000,000.00
Canned & bottled juice & drinks
11.9
$ 742,000,000.00
Tea
16.4 $ 390,000,000.00
Fresh juice
26.3
$ 386,000,000.00
Coffee
28.2 $ 325,000,000.00
Wine
4.1 $ 182,000,000.00
Coffee (substitutes/cocoa)
-1.6
$ 177,000,000.00
Non-soy dairy (alternatives)
12.4
$ 130,000,000.00
Soft drinks & sports drinks
2.9
$ 106,000,000.00
Beer
24.5 $ 66,000,000.00
Frozen juice
-8.3
$ 12,000,000.00
Distilled spirits
26
$ 11,000,000.00
Category total
7.4
$ 3,801,000,000.00
Source: Organic Trade Association, Brattlesboro, Vt.Total U.S. beverages market in 2012.

Table 2