Schaub 4:00
LO7
THE GENETIC MODIFCATION OF THE WORLD FOOD SUPPLY AND ITS
ETHICAL ISSUES
Chad Pongratz (cap121@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION: A BRIEF DIAGNOSIS OF
THE GENETIC MODIFCATION OF
ORGANISMS
Genetically modified organisms were initially thought to
be the solution to the world hunger problem. The idea was
that genetically modifying organisms to make them larger or
grow faster would produce greater yields of food, and thus,
the world would have a larger food supply and be able to feed
the poor and starving citizens of impoverished countries
around the globe. However, genetically modified organisms
have been proven to cause more harm than good. This leads
to the question of why GMOs are allowed to be created in the
first place. There are always moral ethics that can be invoked
in this situation. The most popular of questions that arises
surrounding this topic asks if we should be playing God by
altering His creations on a genetic level. Although this is an
important issue to some, it is of a more pressing matter to
question the negative health effects caused by the
consumption of genetically modified organisms. Numerous
studies have been conducted exposing the downsides of
genetic modification of our food supply, and yet, products
containing GMOs are still present on the shelves of markets
across the country. If they have been proven to be so bad for
the health of the populace, an important question needs to be
asked. Should genetically modifying organisms for human
consumption be made illegal? I ask this question as a
concerned human being but also as a future engineer. As
such, I believe it is my duty to make a positive difference in
the world, and in direct conjunction with the National Society
of Professional Engineers’ code of ethics, am “…dedicated to
the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare” [1].
This rule being the primary rule broken by the genetic
modification of organisms as it is in direct violation of both
the NSPE and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers’
codes of ethics [2]. An improvement in the way organisms
are genetically modified or the outlawing of genetic
modification of the food supply would do more than simply
uphold this principle statement in the code of ethics; it would
provide a basic human right critical to our advancement and
survival as a species: healthy food.
Studying this
controversial issue and establishing a position on the subject
has helped me in my advancement as a freshmen engineer and
has proven to be an enlightening academic experience. So
how are GMOs created? What proof is there that they are
dangerous to people? Above all else, is it ethically correct to
provide people with food knowing that it causes very serious
negative health effects?
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013-10-29
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS –
HOW THEY ARE MADE
A majority of the negative health effects of GMOs stem
from how they are created. Often times, a gene from one
species that would be beneficial in bringing out selected traits
of another species is inserted into the latter. This is done by
first cutting out the selected gene from the original organism
using restriction enzymes. These enzymes work similar to a
pair of scissors but on a molecular scale. They recognize
certain sequences in the genes of the DNA and then cut in
those specific places. The genes that have been cut away are
then placed into a virus’s host cell, however all the parts of
the virus that are harmful have been removed. The parts of
the virus that are responsible for spreading its genetic data into
its host’s genome are kept, and this is how the new genes are
inserted into an organism to genetically alter it [3].
Plants that are genetically engineered in this fashion
produce dangerously high levels of toxins due to the
damaging of other genes when the selected gene is inserted
into the organism. Although plants normally produce toxins,
they are in such low quantities that they would not be harmful
for consumption [4]. However after genetic modification, the
plants become very serious health hazards, but they are still
used in the production of various products in the food supply.
Is it ethical to genetically modify organisms in this fashion
when it has been shown to create toxic organisms that are
eventually consumed? I believe not, and according to the
National Society of Professional Engineers’ code of ethics it
does not prove to be ethically correct for it endangers the
public health [1].
THE WORLD FOOD SUPPLY HAS BEEN
TAKEN OVER
When referring to the public, I am referring to almost
everyone on earth because the world food supply has been
taken over. This problem is not isolated to just one country
or region because companies that use GMOs have spread their
use globally. According to my research, Monsanto, the
largest agricultural biotechnology corporation in the industry,
consistently holds a market share in the 90 to 95 percent range
and a market value of over 44 billion dollars. In addition,
Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds are used to produce
“ninety percent of the U.S. soybean crop and 80% of the corn
and cotton crops” [4]. However, it’s not just in the United
States that Monsanto’s seeds are so popular; other large
countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and India use GMO seed
to produce millions of acres of cotton, corn, soybeans, and
Chad Pongratz
other crops. Moreover, Monsanto does not just engineer corn
and cotton seed, they produce seed for tomatoes, zucchini,
beets, and basically any other crop you can imagine. The
virtual monopoly that Monsanto has over the world food
supply adds to the danger of GMOs. With such economic
power, Monsanto ensures that its products end up in your
stomach through various means. This is why everyone should
be concerned with this issue. The world is being fed produce
that can and will harm us in the long run.
For beginners, they have genetically modified their seeds
so that the crops they produce are resistant to pests and
tolerate drought [3]. However, this leads to one of the dangers
of GMOs. Because these crops are resistant to pesticides such
as Roundup, a product conveniently made by Monsanto,
farmers spray their crops with more pesticides than ever to
ensure their product is safe from insects and other pests.
According to the Institute for Responsible Technology,
“Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383
million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup
results in ‘super weeds,’ resistant to the herbicide. This is
causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year”
[5]. As a result, farmers now have to wear gas masks and
special protective suits while tending to their fields because
the crops have all been contaminated with pesticides. The
crops are not only covered with poisonous substances but
absorb the pesticides as well. Despite the apparent health
risks that come along with these farming methods, the food
supply continues to be contaminated with toxins and
pesticides. This is a major issue that needs to be addressed as
well as the genetic modification of the crops themselves.
Again, this is against the NSPE and AIChE’s codes of ethics
because the overuse of pesticides puts the public health at risk
[1]. By consulting these codes, one is able to answer for
themselves if it is ethical to overuse pesticides if it puts
people’s safety at risk in order to protect crops from insects
and pests. It is absurd to think that the people who use these
methods believe that protecting their crops is more important
than protect peoples’ well-being.
Moreover, Monsanto has used its immense economic
power to attain even greater political power in the United
States. Other countries, such as Spain, Italy, Germany, and
the United Kingdom, have recognized the harmful effects of
GMOs and have since banned the use of genetically modified
seed and the growth of GMOs within their respective
countries [6]. Along with these countries, a number of
independent groups such as the Center for Food Safety have
deemed GMOs harmful. This specific group publishes an
online shopper’s guide to help those who do not want to
consume GMOs [3]. However, in the United States,
Monsanto has many lobbyists within the government, making
it number one on the lobbying list in the industry. In addition
to its high amount of lobbying, Monsanto has also
“infiltrated” the government with their own employees. For
example, the director of Monsanto, Roger Beachy, is also the
director of the USDA, and Monsanto’s vice president and
director of public policy, Michael Taylor, is also the deputy
commissioner of the FDA [7]. The list goes on, but there is a
high level of hypocrisy in this. The FDA and USDA are two
federal organizations meant to protect the American
consumer from harmful products, while Monsanto employees
aim to sell the most product they can, even though it is in fact
harmful to consumers. Although Monsanto and organizations
such as the FDA and USDA seemingly have different ideals,
the fact that their leaders are one in the same defeats these
organizations’ purposes. This also defeats the purpose of the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers’ code of ethics
rule’s purpose which states that engineers should “conduct
themselves in a fair, honorable, and respectable manner” [2].
Infiltrating a country’s government to gain political leverage
for your company in not conducting yourself in a fair and
honorable manner. In fact, it is doing the complete opposite
in that it is unfair and disgraceful ultimately bringing shame
to the engineering profession.
Monsanto makes sure the average American consumer
remains blind to what they are eating by using its political
power to ensure that products using GMOs do not have to be
labeled as genetically modified. They are in everything we
eat right down to common cereals such as Frosted Flakes, but
as long as they are not labeled, people don’t know what they
are consuming. GMOs should at least be labeled properly to
allow consumers to consciously make a choice. However,
Monsanto does not want this, so the only way to make sure
you are not eating GMOs is to buy organic or to grow the food
yourself using non-genetically modified seed. According to
the United States Department of Agriculture, if farmers wish
to grow organic food they must get an Organic Certification
[8]. This requires money and a rigorous progress involving a
lot of paper work. This discourages farmers from growing
organic and instead resorting to genetically modified seed
instead. Again, there is hypocrisy involved here due to
Monsanto’s involvement in the government. Farmers have to
do much just to label their food as organic, but they don’t have
to label their product if it has been genetically modified and
thus harmful for consumers. The monopoly Monsanto has on
the food supply is staggering, and the lengths they go to
ensure their product is bought and used extends the negative
consequences to everyone that consumes the genetically
modified organisms.
If other countries have recognized the dangers of GMOs
and have since banned them, why, besides Monsanto’s
political influence, are they still allowed to be created and
consumed in America? Many Americans are against GMOs
and Monsanto’s monopoly. Yet, the engineers working for
these companies continue to produce these products despite it
being against the codes of ethics which state that engineers
are held legally and ethically to “strive to serve the public
interest” [1]. In the near future, engineers producing GMOs
will begin to feel pressured to stop doing so as a growing
number of Americans become more aware of the dangers of
GMOs and rise up to oppose them.
2
Chad Pongratz
Additional studies continue to be conducted and more
people are beginning to learn of the dangers of GMOs. All of
these studies and many more like them have proven GMOs to
be a step in the wrong direction in solving world hunger as
they have very serious negative health effects for those that
consume them, animals and humans alike. So what does this
say about the ethics of producing them in the first place?
Should they be allowed to be created? This question
addresses all genetically modified organisms meant for
consumption because numerous studies have proven that it is
not just one specific crop causing negative health effects.
STUDIES EXPOSING THE NEGATIVE
HEALTH EFFECTS OF GMOs
The monopoly Monsanto has serves to extend the reach of
the negative effects of GMOs, but the monopoly in itself is
not the real problem, the very serious negative health effects
are. According to my research, “ever since GMOs were first
introduced to the food supply in 1996, Americans with three
or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7 to 13% and food
allergies, reproductive disorders, and digestive disorders have
all risen substantially” [5]. This just proves correlation, not
causation. Studies are what prove causation, and numerous
studies have been conducted that show the negative effects of
GMOs in action.
According to the Huffington Post, a study was recently
released by the International Journal of Biological Science
that analyzed the link between consumption of GMO corn and
mammalian health, in this case the health of rats. The study
found that the consumption of three different strains of
genetically engineered corn caused the rats to experience
organ failure. The two major organs effected are those
responsible for the removal of toxins from digested food, the
kidneys and the liver. In addition, it was found that the rats’
hearts, spleens, and blood cells were also damaged [9]. The
problem is that the genetically modified food being consumed
is not normally part of a mammalian diet; it is unnatural.
In another study conducted by Sustainable Agriculture, it
was again proven that consumption of genetically engineered
food is harmful to mammalian health. In this case, pigs were
studied to investigate if and how GMOs affect larger animals.
In addition to their size, pigs were chosen to be test subjects
because of their digestive systems which are similar to that of
humans. Two groups were created; one group was fed GE
food and the other was fed normal food serving as a control
group. The health and behavior of the pigs were then
monitored over the course of five months. Although the pigs
on a normal diet acted as they always did, the group of pigs
being fed GE food became aggressive and developed
reproductive and digestive problems. At the end of the five
months the pigs were slaughtered, as that was the normal
lifespan for the pigs before being killed for their meat. After,
the pigs were autopsied by qualified veterinarians who were
not told which pigs were GE fed and which were normally
fed. The autopsies revealed that the pigs fed GMOs
experienced high levels of stomach irritation and
inflammation along with the failure of key organs in the
digestive tract including the liver and kidneys [10].
Thanks to studies like these, groups such as the American
Academy of Environmental Medicine have started to
recommend that doctors prescribe non-genetically modified
organism diets to their patients [5]. Further studies have
shown that GMO diets cause damage to the immune and
digestive systems, rapid aging, and infertility in animals such
as rats. In a recent study, after the third generation of
reproduction, rats were shown to become sterile [5].
ETHICS: WHAT WOULD A CURRENT
ENGINEER HAVE TO SAY?
All of these studies prove that the engineers creating these
organisms are not following the codes that they are legally
bound to abide by. The three most important rules in the
AIChE’s code of ethics are that engineers must be honest to
the public, use their knowledge and skill for the advancement
of human welfare, and strive to increase the prestige of the
engineering profession [2]. These studies expose the negative
health risks of GMOs, but by even using the word expose I
am asserting that those who produce GMOs have tried to
cover up the negative health effects to protect their
businesses. Secondly, GMOs do not advance human welfare
but actually take away from and damage it. Lastly, the fact
that engineers are creating things that are harmful to people
instead of useful to them is embarrassing, not prestigious. I
am striving to become an engineer myself, but learning that
such harmful things such as GMOs are being produced by
people of the same profession I want to pursue brings shame
to the engineering profession in my eyes.
To further reinforce my position that GMOs should be
made illegal, I have made numerous references to the
National Society of Professional Engineers’ code of ethics.
Both codes were very useful when addressing ethically
charged questions relating to GMOs and helped me prove that
GMOs are bad both medically and ethically. These codes of
ethics describe rules of practice, professional obligations, and
fundamental canons that all engineers are legally required to
uphold. As stated earlier, one of the fundamental aspects of
these codes is the protection of public health, safety, and
welfare. With this rule in mind, no engineer following the
code of ethics would knowingly create harmful organisms for
consumption. However, this is where the grey area comes in.
The engineers that are currently developing these GMOs may
think that they are doing a public service by creating them
thinking that they do in fact solve the world hunger problem.
Either that, or these engineers are simply not abiding by the
codes of ethics that they are required to follow and are thus
putting people’s health at risk for profit.
EDUCATION
3
Chad Pongratz
An education in the field of engineering is extremely
different than that of other similar fields. According to the
National Academy of Engineers, engineering can best be
described as design under constraint, where design is a
creative process akin to music and art [11]. Exactly how one
has to practice a musical instrument to get better at playing it,
one has to continually practice and gain experience to become
a better-rounded engineer. Through research, this project has
forced me to delve into an ethically charged scenario and learn
a great deal about it. Because of this, I have gained essential
experience by exploring how a current engineer would have
to make a decision on a controversial subject in their field.
This same article mentions that the half-life of engineering
knowledge is between 2.5 and 7.5 years [11]. This means
that there is a chance I will forget certain programming
commands, chemical formulas, etc. However, this project has
taught me an important lesson in decision making that I won’t
soon forget. Specific to the application of different codes of
ethics in this project, I feel like this project has a large
practical worth as a first exposure of engineering as a
discipline and not just a study. This paper has given me a
glimpse of what it will be like four years down the road when
I will have to make decisions like these myself.
if GMO products were accurately labeled, the rule of being
honest to the public in the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers’ code of ethics would be being followed [2].
However, it is simply not ethically right to put such dangerous
products on the market in the first place which is why I
ultimately hold the belief that the genetic modification of
organisms for consumption should be made illegal.
REFERENCES
[1] “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” NSPE. (Online
article).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[2] “Code of Ethics.” AIChE. (Online Article).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[3] A. Beckrich. (2013). “Genetically Modified Crops.” The
Green
Room.
(Online
article).
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA327237698
&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=50ed
852b7e69581e7c7509f0aea3ff3a
[4] R. Langreth, M. Herper. (2010). “The Planet Versus
Monsanto.”
Forbes.
(Online
article).
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-bestcompany-10-gmos-dupont-planet-versus-monsanto.html
[5] A. Bogusky. (2013). “10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs.” The
Institute for Responsible Technology. (Online article).
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-toAvoid-GMOs
[6] H. Meyer. (2013). “Countries and Regions with GE
Food/Crop Bans.” Organic Consumers Association.
(Website).
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/countrieswithbans
.cfm
[7] Angell. (2013). “Monsanto’s Government Ties.” Millions
Against
Monsanto.
(Website).
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/news.cfm
[8] USDA. (2011). “National Organic Program.” Organic
Certification.
(Website).
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=OR
GANIC_CERTIFICATIO
[9] K. Goldstein, G. Emami. (2011). “Monsanto’s GMO Corn
Linked to Organ Failure, Study Reveals.” The Huffington
Post.
(Online
article).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantosgmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html
[10] C. Robinson. (2013). “World Exclusive: Evidence of
GMO Harm in Pig Study.” Sustainable Pulse. (Online
Article). http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/06/11/evidenceof-gmo-harm-in-pig-study/#.UkoH9T9IE3h
[11] W. Wulf. (2012). “The Urgency of Engineering
Education Reform.” National Academy of Engineers. (Online
article).
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringCrossro
ads/TheUrgencyOfEngineeringEducationReform.aspx
CONCLUSION: THE DIRECTION WE
NEED TO GO
In summation, this assignment has allowed me to reaffirm
my desire to become an engineer by giving me a look into
what current engineers due on a daily basis. As described
throughout my paper, I am firmly against the genetic
modification of organisms for human consumption. There are
studies exposing the negative health risks of GMOs, but they
are still being created and used in our food supply despite the
evident dangers they pose. From my comprehensive look into
the code of ethics governing all professional engineers as well
as the one that governs chemical engineers, I have found that
both codes are against the genetic modification of organisms
as they are harmful to the people that consume them. While
GMOs were initially thought to be a step in the right direction
in solving world hunger, they have been proven to actually be
a step in the wrong direction. I believe that people are entitled
to food free of genetic modification and health risks, and the
engineers creating GMOs are not abiding by their codes of
ethics when they create such dangerous organisms for
consumption. The production of GMOs needs to stop for the
benefit of humanity. Ways this could occur could be through
legislation making GMOs illegal as they are in many
European countries, labeling the products that contain GMOs
giving people the ability to make a conscious decision of
choosing between organic and genetically modified, or
engineers could simply follow their ethical principles and stop
producing them in the first place. Even if there are negative
health risks involved with GMOs if people consciously chose
to eat them despite the risks that is their own choice. At least
4
Chad Pongratz
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper would not have turned out as well as it did
without the help from some notable people of whom I would
like to extend thanks to. First, I would like to thank my parents
for helping me edit my papers while I was younger which
helped me to improve as a writer. I would like to thank fellow
students Lauren Judge and Abby Loneker for helping me
format the paper and bounce ideas off of them when trying to
decide what to write about. In addition, they helped to edit
my paper so as it would be free of errors. I would also like to
thank the Twitter account, Trutherbot. Despite only being a
Twitter account and not having direct contact with me, he
would constantly post articles relating to the negative effects
of GMOs which initially sparked my interest on the topic. I
would like to thank my engineering class’s writing instructor
for providing essential feedback on my last paper that I took
in consideration to improve my writing as well as presenting
what was required for this writing assignment in great detail.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge sophomore Taylor Finn
for helping me edit my second assignment to better address
the ethical correctness of GMOs according to the different
codes of ethics. Having completed this assignment last year,
he was of great assistance.
5