Vidic, 2:00
L16
GENETICALLY MODIFYING CROPS FOR PESTICIDE RESISTANCE
Matthew Pizarchik (map239@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION TO THE GENETIC
MODIFICATION CONTROVERSY
As a part of my freshman engineering education, I was
required to research a recent engineering issue and take a
position on whether or not that issue should be a target of
continued research. As my focus I chose genetically
modified crops (abbreviated GM or GE), which have been
easing their way into the human food chain for about two
decades now. I chose this topic because it relates to my
intended major of bioengineering and because farming runs
in my family. Since their inception in the 1990s, genetically
engineered crops have come to offer benefits such as
decreased production cost and higher climate durability.
What has caused debate recently is the practice of
engineering plants to withstand specific pesticides such as
Roundup. In this paper I will explore the ethics of these GE
crops, ethics of all engineers, and evaluate how this paper
has impacted my education.
WEIGHING THE BENEFITS OF GE CROPS
AGAINST THE RISKS
There is a tremendous amount of misinformation
available regarding GM crops. As reported by Jon Entine, a
Forbes contributor, a French study published in September
2012 found that tumors had developed in rats that were fed
GM corn [1]. The media immediately pounced on the new
information. However, shortly after the study was released,
Cambridge professor David Spiegelhalter rebuked the paper,
pointing out the abhorrent quality of the study stressing the
total lack of control data for the rats. Only later was it
revealed that the head of the study, Gilles-Eric Seralini, also
was actively campaigning against all genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) as an advocate for Greenpeace [1]. With
the GM crop debate hotly politicized, it can at times be
difficult to find unbiased information. The following
information is an objective presentation of the facts.
Addressing Ecological Concerns about GMOs
Although plants designed to resist insects are not the
topic of this paper, a new development in the same field
known as DNA barcoding can help ensure environmental
safety regarding pesticide resistant ones. Because an
ecosystem is a delicate balance, extreme care must be taken
when incorporating a new life form into it. When a
beneficial plant or animal is unintentionally harmed by a
new GMO, it is called a Non-Target Organism, or NTO.
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
Oct. 30, 2012
1
NTOs are commonly pollinators or parasites of pests, but
through DNA barcoding, scientists can accurately determine
the impact of the GMO on each individual member of an
ecosystem. In the DNA barcoding process, scientists first
meticulously sample the DNA of all the things that come
into contact with the plant [2]. After collecting many
samples, researchers can compare the genetic relationships
between the intended target and all the other creatures, and
effectively predict if any will be harmed by that new GMO
[2]. Remarkably, the cost of ensuring the stability of an
ecosystem is only ten thousand US dollars and four months
of research [2]. While DNA barcoding quantifies the
relationship between target insects and NTOs, it is a
reasonable assumption that this method could be applied to
pesticide resistant crops by simply finding the first organism
to be vulnerable to that crop, and comparing it to the other
life forms that are related to it through genetics and contact
with the new crop. All in all, DNA barcoding can be an
effective way of testing the ecological safety of crops
engineered with pesticide resistance.
While DNA barcoding provides insight into the local
effects of a GMO, another common concern is the effect of
GMOs on biodiversity. Biodiversity is the abundance of
different species in a location, and the loss of it marks the
degradation of an ecosystem [3]. The fact is that large scale
agriculture of any kind has a negative impact on
biodiversity. A 30 year study in the United Kingdom that
tracked the prevalence of birds and arthropods in rural
Scotland found that there was a direct correlation between
increased agricultural development and a large drop in
population of both those groups [3]. The way I see it, loss of
biodiversity in a GM crop-farming ecosystem is an issue that
must be further investigated while accounting for traditional
farming and breeding techniques.
On a larger scale, biodiversity also can describe the
genetic uniformity of a species as a whole. The same
principle applies; high biodiversity means that the species is
very healthy. Again, critics of GM crops claim that
engineering crops with specific traits such as pesticide
resistance would lead to mass farming of only the most
valuable breeds, effectively ruining the biodiversity of that
species. While this is a legitimate concern, bio-agricultural
companies such as Monsanto already employ many different
strains of a species to implant the trait of herbicide
resistance. By utilizing many different breeds, their effect on
the biodiversity of crops they modify is minimal [3]. In one
case, the incorporation of GM cotton actually caused an
increase in cotton’s genetic diversity by 28 percent [3]. Crop
biodiversity will not become a problem for as long as GMO
Matthew Pizarchik
corporations continue engineering crops in a responsible
way.
One problem surrounding pesticide resistant crops that
has yet to be resolved is the development of pesticide
resistant weeds. So-called super weeds are bred through
consistent pesticide use according to Carey Gillam from
Reuters. Gillam references a publication by Charles
Benbrook in Environmental Sciences Europe, a peer
reviewed journal. As Monsanto engineers crops to be
resistant to its pesticide Roundup, farmers are using
Roundup far more frequently and weeds are now building up
a high tolerance to glyphosate [4]. Pesticide use is once
again seeing an upward trend due to weeds getting tougher
with each generation [4]. The super weed paradox must be
overcome in order for pesticide resistant crops to remain
efficient and profitable.
genes from one life form to another is not a simple process
by any means, but both the African Biosafety Network of
Expertise and Rebecca Boyle, a Popular Science contributor,
divide the process into about 5 steps [6], [7].
Step 1: Finding Desired Genes
In the process of genetic engineering, the first step is the
simplest to describe yet the most difficult in practice; finding
a gene or several genes that offer the desired trait for the
modified organism [6]. This is often a long and frustrating
process due to the fact that geneticists do not understand
how to create new genes, only how to observe what existing
ones do by comparing them in different species. Ingeniously,
when bio-agriculture corporation Monsanto began
engineering crops to resist to its own product Roundup, they
took notice to a natural bacterium living close to a Roundup
factory. After discovering which gene was responsible for its
high resistance to glyphosate, they began incorporating it
into their crops [7].
How Genetically Modified Crops Changed the World
(For the Better)
Because GM crops are so often the topic of controversy,
it is sometimes easy to forget that GM crops have expanded
the agricultural industry in some remarkable ways. Matt
Ridley from the Wall Street Journal reported on a study
conducted by British firm PG economics. The report
concluded that the 2010 corn and soy harvests were 31 and
14 million tons larger respectively than they would have
been without the employment of modified crops [5]. Janet
Carpenter is a writer for The Guardian and also draws
attention to the impact of GM crops overseas. She references
the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications when she states, “14 million farmers in 25
countries grew GM crops commercially, over 90% of them
small farmers in developing countries” [8]. The ISAAA also
reports that nearly 90% of India’s cotton is genetically
engineered, which has cut insecticide use in half [5].
Aside from the global shift in agriculture toward
modified crops, it is important to remember the original
purpose of GE crops and why they have been so successful.
They increase profit margins, allow the plants to become
adaptable to more environments, and decrease the necessity
of pesticides and insecticides [8]. However, there is another
surprising way in which GM crops are positively changing
the world which relates to carbon emissions. Farming
organic crops leads to carbon dioxide discharge on two
levels, plowing the soil, which requires burning fossil fuels,
and, causes microbial release of CO2. Since most GE crops
require almost no plowing at all, the total reduction in
emissions is comparable to eliminating over eight and half
million cars [5]. For me, it is easy to see that the benefits
of GE crops greatly outweigh the disadvantages.
Step 2: Gene Insertion
After picking out which gene to transfer, there are
multiple ways to combine it with the host nucleus. The less
delicate method is literally shooting small particles coated in
the genetic material into the nucleus and hoping they stick
[6]. The more popular approach, however, involves the
organism agrobacterium tumefaciens, a life form that
naturally tricks cells into modifying their DNA in order to
feed it [7]. Scientists manipulate the a. tumefaciens to
instead insert the gene they have carefully selected, so what
results is the first cell of a new breed. Monsanto took the
latter approach in its engineering of Roundup resistant soy,
alfalfa, and other plants.
Step 3: Weeding Out the Right Cells
The third step in engineering a new crop is by far the
simplest. In order to find out which cells have properly
received the desired gene(s), scientists test the cells based on
what trait they should have acquired. Monsanto did so by
exposing the modified cells to glyphosate, the main
component of Roundup. Of those that survive, often the
single best cell is chosen to continue on [7].
Step 4: Building a Whole Plant
The beauty of DNA is that every cell of an organism
contains all the necessary information to create the whole.
This is the principle behind the next step in which scientists
use methods of tissue growth to go from a single cell back to
some that can reproduce via seeds [6]. In this stage, the
African Biosafety Network of Expertise describes the
regeneration process as, “…placing the explants (plant
parts/cells) onto media containing nutrients that induce
GENETICALLY ENGINEERING CROPS
If there is one thing that is not controversial about GM
crops, it is the process by which they are made. Splicing in
2
Matthew Pizarchik
development of the cells into various plant parts to form
whole plantlets” [6].
misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact” [10].
Engineers that are responsible for feeding a nation must have
the highest level of transparency. I believe it to be unlikely
for a genetic engineer to, for example, cover up a product
known to be dangerous and risk the total loss of all
consumer confidence in the field. On a similar note, I would
like to point out Rule of Practice 1, Directive A, stating, “If
engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that
endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or
client and such other authority as may be appropriate” [10].
Once again, this directive is in place to maintain the
relationship between engineers and the people they serve.
Because the health of the nation depends on these people, it
is easy to see the implications of this code on geneticists.
Finally, I would like to mention the Queensland
Biotechnology Code of Ethics, which offers specific genetic
modification directives that the NSPE and Biomedical
Engineering Society codes of ethics lack. While obviously
not valid in the United States, it could be reasonably
adapted. Directive 6 describes, “To the fullest extent
possible, we will address long-term as well as short-term
impacts, including consequences that may not be
immediately apparent. Risk assessments will be conducted
in accordance with accepted scientific principles” [11]. What
sets the QB Code of Ethics apart is that it is not comprised of
interdisciplinary overgeneralizations, but expresses clear
ethical guidelines in a concise manner. If this code was
adopted in the US, I would feel even more confident in the
GM crops of today.
Step 5: Breaking In the New Genes
Now that a genetically modified plant has been
produced, the effectiveness of the gene is tested. Engineers
pay close attention for any unwanted traits carried along
with the gene, and ensure that the desired one is passed
down normally from generation to generation [6]. During
this period, Monsanto specialists expose the plant to
Roundup to ensure that it still produces tryptophan,
phenylalanine, and tyrosine, the amino acids glyphosate is
designed to block production of [7]. Should the new plant
pass this step, it moves on to more large scale testing and
eventually commercialization.
ETHICS SURROUNDING GENETICALLY
MODIFYING CROPS
Regardless of the many benefits offered by GM crops,
ethics still play a big role in the genetic modification debate.
Many people opposed to GM foods find them unnatural or
consider them in conflict with their religious beliefs that all
life is sacred and should not be tampered with [9]. However,
I do not see how any amount of ethical analysis on the
dignity of life would change any one person’s deeply held
beliefs on the issue. While others see it differently, I believe
that the concept of the sanctity of life is actually unimportant
in the context of the GE crop debate. Objectively, genetic
engineering is simply a different means of achieving the
same goal as traditional breeding, a process that has existed
since humans first domesticated plants and animals [9]. This
opinion of mine is a great factor in why I find these
organisms ethically sound. I believe that the benefits of
higher yields and decreased maintenance costs of all GE
crops outweigh the ethical concerns. Genetically engineered
crops give farmers an edge on nature, and such crops are
already incorporated into the American diet. Avoiding GM
crops every day for moral reasons is as unwarranted as it is
futile.
Engineering Education and Ethics
The main objective of this writing assignment was to
relate my opinion on GE crops to professional engineering
ethics and to finally tie it all in with the importance of this
paper in my engineering education. I admit that the prompt
makes more sense at this point in the paper than it did at first
glance. It has become evident that based on the ethical
intricacies of each engineer’s field of study, it is unavoidable
that I will encounter conflicts of interest in my professional
career. By thinking about potential conflicts in our future
workspace, I will not only be more prepared to meet them in
the future, but also by doing this project I am forced to
consider what it is I want to do after graduation [12]. There
is not a freshman engineering program in the nation that
would not benefit from completing this project. I say this
because I learned some other very interesting things about
engineering while researching my topic. Primarily, I learned
that genetic modification hardly has anything to do with a
bioengineering major at all, and that should I want to pursue
a career in genetics, I should consult the Dietrich School of
Arts and Sciences. Most importantly, though, I learned that I
want nothing to do with either of those majors. Nevertheless
this paper offered me a very valuable educational
experience, and I recommend including it in the freshman
curriculum for many years to come.
Holding Genetic Engineers to Ethical Standards
I have a large amount of respect for professional
engineers within all disciplines. My respect comes from the
fact that the public trusts engineers to solve problems
efficiently and responsibility. My personal opinion regarding
GM crops is largely based on the fact I am confident that
geneticists engineer a safe foods because they are held to
Nation Society of Profession Engineers’ Code of Ethics. I
also understand that a large part of the public distrusts nonorganic food products, which is why Professional Obligation
3, Directive A is so important. It states, “Engineers shall
avoid the use of statements containing a material
3
Matthew Pizarchik
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444004704
578030340322277954.html
[6] “Process of Developing Genetically Modified (GM)
Crops.” African Biosafety Network of Expertise. (2012).
(Online
Article).
http://www.nepadbiosafety.net/forregulators/resources/subjects/biotechnology/process-ofdeveloping-genetically-modified-gm-crops
[7] R. Boyle. (2011). “How To Genetically Modify a Seed,
Step By Step.” Popular Science. (Online Article).
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/life-cyclegenetically-modified-seed
[8] J. Carpenter. (2010). “GM Crops Can Benefit Farmers.”
The
Guardian.
(Online
Article).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifgreen/2010/apr/21/gm-crops-benefitfarmers?commentpage=2#start-of-comments
[9] D. Koepsell. (2007). “The Ethics of Genetic
Engineering.” Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy.
(Online
Article).
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/genetic
-engineering-ethics_2.pdf
[10] “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” (Online Article).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[11] “Queensland Biotechnology Code of Ethics.” (Online
Article).
http://www.industry.qld.gov.au/documents/Biotechnology/C
ode-of-Ethics-02_07.pdf
[12] C. Harris, M. Davis, M. Pritchard, et al. (1995).
“Engineering Ethics: What? Why? How? And When?”
Journal of Engineering Education. (Online Article).
http://jee.org/1996/april/101.pdf
CONCLUDING WHY PESTICIDE
RESISTANT CROPS SHOULD STAY
Agriculture was the way of life for my family only one
generation ago. My father and his siblings were raised on a
farm by parents who had immigrated to the United States in
the prior decades. Today, my Uncle Anthony still runs the
farm on which he grows mostly GE corn and soy, and was
the reason I chose the topic to investigate. Through
researching crops genetically modified for pesticide
resistance, and ethics and education in engineering, I have a
much more comprehensive understanding of what it means
to be in the engineering program at the University of
Pittsburgh. Before this paper, I was really waiting to stumble
upon a major that fit me, maintaining the status quo. I
believe I have reached a milestone after completely this
paper, now I am certain of the major I do not wish to earn. I
also can firmly say that engineering crops for pesticide
resistance is a safe and ethical practice, and offers many
benefits to the agricultural industry.
For me, it was very important to assure myself of the
safety of these crops and to discover if I truly want to pursue
the field. I am satisfied with my research and I believe my
uncle would be as well, especially because no one in the
family wants to give up that tasty engineered corn.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Entine. (2012). “Scientists Savage Study Purportedly
Showing Health Dangers of Monsanto's Genetically
Modified
Corn.”
Forbes.
(Online
Article).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/20/scientistssavage-study-purportedly-showing-health-dangers-ofmonsantos-genetically-modified-corn/2/
[2] C. V. Nzeduru1, S. Ronca, and M. J. Wilkinson. (2012).
“DNA Barcoding Simplifies Environmental Risk
Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops in Biodiverse
Regions.”
PloS
ONE.
(Online
Article).
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=14eafe61-134d441d-9a2446033e67e360%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=18&bdata=Jn
NpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=794597
68
[3] K. Ammann. (2005). “Effects of Biotechnology on
Biodiversity: herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GM
crops.” Trends in Biotechnology. (Online Article).
http://journals2005.pasteur.ac.ir/TB/23(8).pdf#page=11
[4] C. Gillam. (2012). “Pesticide Use Ramping Up as GMO
Crop Technology Backfires- Study.” Reuters. (Online
Article).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/usastudy-pesticides-idUSL1E8L202I20121002
[5] M. Ridley. (2012). “The Perils of Always Ignoring the
Bright Side.” The Wall Street Journal. (Online Article).
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
“Overview of the Process of Plant Genetic Engineering.”
University of Nebraska- Lincoln. (2010). (Online Article).
http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/education/summary.htm
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my Uncle Anthony “Speedy” Pizarchik
for inspiring my topic, and my roommate Tyler for
minimizing distractions in our shared workspace and Nick
for maximizing them.
4
Matthew Pizarchik
5