Genetics and Our Food SupplyAgenda for 7/17/2014

9:00-9:15 Arrive/check in, hydrate (water bottles), snacksPost to the graffiti boardGet to know you / introductions

9:15-9:35 Goals for the day / Intro activity

9:35-9:45 Cathy Herring introduces the Central Crops Research Station

9:45-9:50 Bathroom break / load cars

10:00 - 11:00 Field Visit #1: CornCorn discussion with Peter Balint-Kurti and Jim HollandPollinate corn plants

11:15- 12:00: Field Visit #2Split into two groups (see nametag)Soybean discussion with Dave EickholtTobacco discussion with Katherine Drake

12:15 -12:50 Return to research station building for a knowledge-sharing lunchDiscuss observations with tableResearcher will join group to continue the discussion / answer questions

1:00-1:30 Teaching through issue-based instruction. GMO discussion.

1:30-1:40 Voucher information

1:40- 2:30 Lab #1 and DiscussionCorn Cob Lab

2:30- 3:00 Lab #2 and DiscussionSoybean group: Albino Corn LabTobacco group: 72-hour Genetics Lab

3:00- 3:15 Closing

3:15 - Review today’s goals, documentation, and evaluation

Suggested Questions for Researchers

-What are you researching?

-How is selective breeding used in your work?

-How are you using modern genetics research/ technology to aid your work?

-What specific traits are you breeding for?

-How will these genetic changes positively impact food supply? (yield, disease resistance,drought, etc.)

*Add your own questions below.

How do you genetically engineer an organism?1. Find a trait in an organism you want.

2. Remove a piece of DNA that causes that trait.

3. Put the DNA into a bacterium.

4. Let the bacteria inject the trait (piece of DNA)into the organism you’re modifying.

5. Grow the new organism.

6. Select the organisms that have the trait you were trying to add.

https://www.ffa.org/documents/learn/MS.PS.5.2.pdf

Each teacher attending today's workshop gets $150 to spend at Carolina Biological

for items that enhance the teaching of plant genetics.

The process:1) Complete Google survey form by August 8th, 2014.

http://tinyurl.com/nwhph9f

2) Order approved by Sonja and Meredith and/or re-submitted by August 25th, 2014.

*Participants will receive a confirmation email.

3) All supplies ordered between 9/8 - 9/19/2014.

4) Orders shipped directly to participants.

5) Send a confirmation email to Christy Flint once supplies are received.

*Christy’s email: christy.flint@naturalsciences.org

*Late orders will not be processed!*

Name____________________________________________ Date _____________________

Image: http://sustainabilityww.com/tag/gmo/

HISTORY OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

Prehistoric times to 1900Gatherers find food from plants they find in nature, and farmers plant seeds saved from domesticated crops. Foods are manipulated through the use of yeast and fermentation. Some naturalists and farmers begin to recognize "hybrids," plants produced through natural breeding between related varieties of plants.

1900European plant scientists begin using Gregor Mendel's genetic theory to manipulate and improve plant species. This is called "classic selection" or “selective breeding.” A plant of one variety is crossed with a related plant to produce desired characteristics.

1953James Watson and Francis Crick publish their discovery of the three-dimensional double helix structure of DNA. This discovery will eventually lead to the ability of scientists to identify and "splice" genes from one kind of organism into the DNA of another.

1973Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen combine their research to create the first successful recombinant DNA organism.

1980The U.S. Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty rules that genetically altered life forms can be patented. The decision allows the Exxon Oil Company to patent an oil-eating microorganism.

1982The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the first genetically engineered drug, Genentech's Humulin, a form of human insulin produced by bacteria. This is the first consumer product developed through modern bioengineering.

1986The first field tests of genetically engineered plants (tobacco) are conducted in Belgium.

1987The first field tests of genetically engineered crops (tobacco and tomato) are conducted in the United States.

1992- The FDA declares that genetically engineered foods are "not inherently dangerous" and do not require special regulation.

1994- The European Union's first genetically engineered crop, tobacco, is approved in France.

- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the Flavr Savr tomato for sale on grocery store shelves. The delayed-ripening tomato has a longer shelf life than conventional tomatoes.1996 Herbicide-tolerant GM soya bean available in US.

1997 The European Union rules in favor of mandatory labeling on all GMO food products, including animal feed.

1998Monsanto introduces Roundup-ready corn and canola.

2000-International Biosafety Protocol is approved by 130 countries at the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montréal, Canada. The protocol agrees upon labeling of genetically engineered crops, but still needs to be ratified by 50 nations before it goes into effect.

-Countries pass laws requiring GM food labels: Australia, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, and Russia

2001Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan follow pass laws requiring special labels for GM foods.

2003 -The Human genome is sequenced.

-A Bt-toxin-resistant caterpillar, Helicoverpa zea, is found feasting on GMO Bt cotton crops in the southern United States.

-GloFish, a GM fluorescent fish first developed in 1999, is introduced to the U.S. market after being made available in Taiwan earlier in 2003. This product is banned in California due to a regulation that bans all GM fish. They are also banned in Canada and within the EU.

2010- First genetically modified animal for human consumption. The AquAdvantage Salmon, created by AquaBounty Technologies, has a gene from the ocean pout and a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon, which allows it to “reach market size twice as fast as a traditional salmon”-

- Amflora potato approved for industrial applications in the European Union. Amflora is a genetically modified potato selected for its special starch properties used in papermaking and adhesives.

2012 Prop 37 “Right to Know” GM Labeling is on the California ballot and does not pass. Vermont, Connecticut, and Washington take up GM identification laws.

2013 Whole Foods announces labeling on GM products. Begins “Right to Know” education campaign. http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/sites/default/files/media/Global/WFM_GMO_Infographic_1.pdf

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/faqs-gmos

2014 – GMO Patent ExpiresMonsanto’s patent on the Roundup Ready line of genetically engineered seeds will end in two years. In 2009, Monsanto introduced Roundup 2 with a new patent set to make the first-generation seed obsolete.

Image: http://sustainabilityww.com/tag/gmo/

GM CROPS: THE ARGUMENTS PRO AND CONBased on what you know, do you think we should raise genetically modified (GM) crops?

Initial opinion: (Yes/No - Why? )

If your initial opinion was YES, read numbers 2 and 4. If your initial opinion was NO, read numbers 1 and 3.

ROUND 1: Is genetic engineering fundamentally new? Are foods from GM crops safe?

1. Genetic modification is nothing new. People have manipulated foods and food crops for millennia, through methods ranging from fermentation to classical selection. Genetic engineering is just the latest form of biotechnology—the most precise method yet.

2. Genetic engineering is fundamentally different from traditional methods of plant and animal breeding because it crosses biological barriers, transferring genes from one species to another.

3. There are no inherent differences between foods produced from genetically modified (GM) plants and those from non-GM crops. All living things contain DNA, and all DNA consists of the same four building blocks, known as nucleotides. By moving a piece of DNA from one organism into another, scientists are not introducing a "foreign" substance. The new gene merely prompts the modified organism to express a desired trait. Companies that wish to release a GM seed or the product of a GM crop are required to test the safety of that product. If the product is made from an organism containing a known allergen, it must be tested for safety. No one has substantiated a single human death, or even illness, as a result of consuming GM foods.

4. There are too few independent (non-industry) studies of the health effects of GM foods to have confidence in their safety. In an experiment in Scotland, rats fed GM potatoes containing a gene for a protein, lectin, fared poorly and suffered internal organ damage. Pro-GM scientists have attacked the study, but at the very least it highlights the need for more research. The mistaken release into the food system of "Starlink" GM corn approved only for animal feed illustrates another danger—that of allergens being introduced into otherwise non-allergenic foods through genetic engineering.

Stop! Reconsider the question: Based on what you now know, do you think we should raise genetically modified (GM) crops? Record your answer below.

Opinion after Round 1: (Yes/No - Why? )

If your opinion after ROUND 1 was YES, read number 6. If your opinion after ROUND 1 was NO, read number 5. ROUND 2: What is the impact of GM crops on the environment?

5. As it's practiced today, agriculture damages the environment more than any other human activity. Genetically engineered crops will ease that negative impact. Insect resistant GM crops, such as those containing the bacterial Bt gene (which makes the plant itself toxic to key pests), allow farmers to dramatically reduce their use of spray insecticides. Next-generation seeds may allow farmers to maintain high yields while using less water and chemical fertilizer. Potential problems with GM crops, such as the creation of “super weeds” and “super pests,” are overblown by opponents, but to the extent those dangers are real they can be managed and prevented. For example, farmers can avoid promoting Bt-resistance in insects by planting non-GM acreage near each GM plot.

6. Bioengineered crops will do wide-reaching damage to the environment. Insect-resistant crops may harm species that are not their target, such as monarch butterflies. On the other hand, the insects that GM crops are designed to kill could develop resistance to those crops, ultimately requiring farmers to use more aggressive control measures, such as increased use of chemical sprays.More research is needed on the potential of GM crops to transfer their genes to other crops or wild relatives. Transfer of pesticide-resistant genes to related weeds may produce "super weeds" —those immune to commonly used control methods. Likewise, viral genes added to a plant to confer resistance may be transferred to other viral pathogens, leading to new, more virulent strains of the viruses. Gene transfer could also cause non-GM crops to be contaminated by GM crops in neighboring fields, threatening the rich crop diversity of many developing countries.

Stop! Reconsider the question: Based on what you now know, do you think we should raise genetically modified (GM) crops? Record your answer below.

Opinion after Round 2: (Yes/No - Why? )

If your opinion after ROUND 2 was YES, read number 8. If your opinion after ROUND 2 was NO, read number 7.

ROUND 3: Could GM crops reduce world hunger?

7. Through GM seeds even the smallest subsistence farmers can produce bigger, more reliable crops. GM seeds will help poor farmers grow more food for themselves and more profitable crops for the marketplace. Nutrition-enhanced GM crops now in development can directly address the effects of malnutrition, both for the farmers who grow those crops for themselves and for poor consumers in developing-world cities.In the long term, GM crops may be the only way to ensure that worldwide food production keeps pace with the growing population—which may double to 12 billion by the year 2050. After decades of dramatic increases in food production, the rate of growth has declined in the past ten years. The last round of increases came from “green revolution” methods such as high-yielding hybrid seeds and intensive use of fertilizers, irrigation and chemical pesticides. Those technologies can’t produce the food production growth that’s needed in the coming decades without doing severe environmental damage. GM crops can.

8. The real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality, and lack of access to food and land. Bioengineering will do nothing to alleviate these problems. Most GM crops available so far do not address the needs of food production in developing countries. They offer conveniences to the farmer—the ability to apply more or less pesticide spray—but do not produce higher yields. Adoption of GM crops by farmers in the developing world will actually increase hunger by making poor farmers reliant on the few multinational corporations that control the market for those seeds. A better way to improve the lives of subsistence farmers is to teach them ecological farming methods by which they can grow better crops without the expense associated with GM seeds.

Stop! Reconsider the question: Based on what you now know, do you think we should raise genetically modified (GM) crops? Record your answer below.

Opinion after Round 3: (Yes/No - Why? )

If your opinion after ROUND 3 was YES, read numbers 10 and 12. If your opinion after ROUND 3 was NO, read numbers 9 and 11.

ROUND 4: Should food products made from GM crops be labeled? Who benefits from GM crops?

9. Labeling would incite fear and needlessly hinder public acceptance of these products. The US Food and Drug Administration requires labeling based on food content and nutrition but not on the process by which the product was created. That policy is appropriate.

10. Consumers have the right to know whether the product they are purchasing is genetically engineered or contains ingredients from GM crops. Consumers may object to consumption of GM foods on the basis of health, religious, or ethical concerns. Lack of evidence proving that such products are not safe should not be taken as proof that they are safe.

11. Farmers benefit from GM crops that deliver enhanced production traits. For example, pesticide resistance reduces the need for the farmer to mix and apply dangerous chemicals. Consumers will soon benefit from GM products offering traits such as enhanced nutritional content, taste, and shelf-life. If it's allowed to flourish, GM technology will eventually provide widespread benefits for virtually all people, including the poor, as well as the global environment.

12. Biotech companies themselves reap the benefits of GM technology. Farmers pay a premium, a “technology fee,” when purchasing GM seeds. Crop yields are not greatly improved. In the future, because of wariness by consumers, farmers may not find a market for their GM crops. Consumers get no benefits and are all but forced to eat foods with uncertain long-term health effects.

Stop! Reconsider the question: Based on what you now know, do you think we should raise genetically modified (GM) crops? Record your answer below.

Opinion after Round 4: (Yes/No - Why? )

If your opinion after ROUND 4 was YES, read number 14 If your opinion after ROUND 4 was NO, read number 13.

ROUND 5: Should patenting of GM crops be permitted?

13. Protection of intellectual property is necessary to foster the research and development of new, beneficial products. Patents also encourage dissemination of new discoveries—of genes and bioengineering processes, for example—by giving inventors an incentive to share their discoveries.

14. Patenting of life forms is unethical and offensive on its face. Furthermore, it encourages bio-piracy, that is, the virtual theft of natural resources from developing countries. A biotech company may take a plant from a public seed bank, for example, a seed variety that's been saved and protected by the stewardship of local farmers for many generations. After introducing a new gene into the plant, a biotech company can gain a patent on its “creation” and profit from it. Developing countries, especially, should ban the patenting of seeds.

Stop! Reconsider the question: Based on what you now know, do you think we should raise genetically modified (GM) crops? Record your answer below.

Opinion after Round 5: (Yes/No - Why? )

Final Thoughts: Thinking about the discussion and readings you have just completed, what were the facts or opinions that helped shaped your opinion? Explain below.

Sources:MIT Tech Review"About Biotech" from Access ExcellenceBiotechnology timeline from North Carolina Biology CenterUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Database of Field TrialsFederal Register, May 29, 1992Regulatory Process for Transgeneic Crops in the US from Colorado State UniversityGMO Inside (http://gmoinside.org/gmo-timeline-a-history-genetically-modified-foods/)iGEM at the University of British Columbia (http://2013.igem.org/Team:British_Columbia/humanpractices/GMOTimeline)

Global Views on GM Crops

Image: http://sustainabilityww.com/tag/gmo/

GLOBAL VIEW : European Union

The first GM grains shipped to Europe in 1997 encountered strong opposition from consumers and environmental groups, who launched boycotts of these goods. In response to strong anti-GM sentiment among the public, European governments have created stiff regulations on the technology. In 2000, European countries growing GM crops constituted less than 1 percent of the total global GM crop area. Those growing the crops included Romania (soybeans and potatoes), Bulgaria (herbicide-tolerant corn), and small areas in

Spain, Germany, and France (Bt corn). In July, 2010, the European Union passed a compromise which allows 48 different GM crops to be grown in the EU, but allows individual countries to ban GM crops from being grown, if there is a significant health concern. So far, Germany and France have enacted local GM crop bans.

Labeling of foods produced with GM crops has strong support in Europe. The European Commission has proposed that mandatory labeling be required if a food contains more than 1 percent of a GM ingredient. In April, 2000, the United Kingdom adopted standards requiring all food to be labeled that contains GM soy or corn. In 2003, the US government filed a formal complaint to the World Trade Organization on grounds that labeling GM products is unfair discrimination against US goods and therefore a restraint of trade. Restrictions on GM products are still a major point of contention in trade talks between the European Union and the United States.

GLOBAL VIEW : Brazil

Before GM crops were officially approved in Brazil in 2002, there were widespread reports of Brazilian farmers smuggling GM soybeans from Argentina and planting them on Brazilian soil. Now Brazil is a leader in hectares of land planted with GM crops, second to only the United States. Brazil is currently the world’s second largest producer of soybeans and soybean oil, a product used in nearly 60 percent of processed food.

Some 85 percent of Brazil’s soy crop is already GM, and the country’s Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira (CTC) is working on genetically engineered varieties of sugar cane, a major crop. In Brazil, all food products that contain 1% or more transgenic material must be labeled.

GLOBAL VIEW : China

In contrast to most of the developing world, China has aggressively embraced genetically modified crops, rapidly stepping up GM crop research over the past ten years. China's population is expected to swell to 1.6 billion by 2030. To keep pace, the nation needs to boost grain production by 60 percent over the next 30 years. The Chinese government sees GM crops as key to reaching that goal. The nation's leaders have also stated their

wish to prevent the West from claiming complete dominance of GM technology. The government has granted commercial licenses for insect-resistant cotton and slow-ripening, virus-resistant tomatoes, among other crops. In 2012 China ranked sixth in land area planted to transgenic crops with less than 1 percent of the global GM crop area. Currently China requires no labeling of foods produced from GM crops. After several food-safety incidents, public unease about GM foods is growing in China.

GLOBAL VIEW: Japan

Japan has something of a split personality in its approach to crop biotechnology. The nation's research institutes are moving full-speed ahead. Through strategic alliances with U.S. biotech industries, they've developed more than 40 transgenic plants, most of which have undergone or are currently being tested for environmental safety. These include virus-resistant rice, petunia, tomato, melon, tobacco and potato, and low protein rice,

low-allergen rice and delayed-ripening tomato plants.

But research is one thing, consumer acceptance is another. The Japanese public has expressed serious concerns about the safety of GM crops and foods. A law passed in 2001 requires the labeling of food products made with GM crops. Many food processors have begun advertising GM-free products; some consumers are paying premiums for non-GM soybeans and corn products. Although Japan allows GM ingredients in their food products, all GM ingredients, mostly soy and corn, are imported. Currently no commercial GM crops are grown in Japan.

GLOBAL VIEW : North AmericaThe United States and Canada rank first and third, respectively, in land area planted to GM crops. Of the four countries that together plant 99 percent of the global land area planted to GM crops, US farmers plant 30 million hectares or 70 percent, while Canadian farmers plant 3 million hectares or 7 percent.

The United States is at the forefront of bioengineering research and the development and release of GM crops. After two decades of research, commercial cultivation of GM crops began in 1995. To date, the government has approved varieties of more than 20 plant species, including corn, soybean, cotton, squash, potato, rapeseed, tomato, and

papaya.

Public protest over GM crops and foods has been mild compared to that in Europe, but Americans are displaying signs of concern. In surveys conducted over each of the past four years by the International Food Information Council, the number of people saying biotechnology would produce personal benefits has dropped. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have moved to tighten monitoring of GM crops and foods. For example, the EPA is considering requiring companies producing GM crops to test for harmful effects on wildlife. FDA policy requires labeling of foods produced from GM crops only if "tangible" characteristics such as nutritional content or allergenic potential are affected, but the agency has implemented a new policy requiring companies planning to release a new GM food product to meet with regulators to discuss the product's safety.

To date, more than 80 bills have been introduced in over 26 states to require GM labeling or prohibiting genetically engineered foods. GM labeling was defeated on the ballots of two states; California(2012) and Washington (2013 - 51% to 49%). GM lableing will be on the Oregon ballot in 2014. In 2013 Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine passed GM labeling laws. Vermont’s Law will go into effect in 2016.

GLOBAL VIEW : AfricaAfrica’s population is growing by 3.1% annually, the fastest growth rate of any region in the world. The continent already ranks last in per capita food production. Of all places, say GM proponents, Africa needs GM crops the most. It's also the region least equipped to develop the technology, because of a scarcity of trained scientists and research facilities. Smallholder farmers — those with less than two hectares — are the backbone of Africa’s agriculture. They face immense difficulties. Fewer than a third of the farmers in sub-Saharan Africa use any type of improved seeds that have been developed

through conventional breeding, let alone more advanced, genetically modified varieties. GM research and development in Africa occurs largely in the public sector, in universities and agricultural research institutions. Only in South Africa is the local private sector making significant investment in GM research and development. GM proponents cite the potential of public-private partnerships—for example, a Kenyan project to produce a virus-resistant cassava (a key staple grown by subsistence farmers in much of sub-Saharan Africa). The project is a collaboration between a Cornell University institute and Monsanto, the US-based biotech corporation.

Between 1990 and 1995, a total of 25 field trials of GM crops were conducted in South Africa, Egypt and Zimbabwe. The more recent introduction of National Biosafety laws and regulations in a number of African will open doors to more field trials in those countries. Commercial production of GM crops is concentrated in South Africa where, in 2000, land area planted to transgenic corn and cotton exceeded 100,000 hectares.

GLOBAL VIEW : ArgentinaWith 21 percent of the global GM crop area (nine million hectares), Argentina ranks second only to the United States in GM crop area. The major crops: herbicide-resistant soybean, and insect-resistant (Bt) corn and cotton. Unlike their counterparts in the US, Argentine farmers openly save seed from their GM crops to plant the next crop. US patent law bans seed-saving and requires farmers to purchase new GM seeds every

year. But in Argentina, Monsanto has not obtained a patent on its herbicide-resistant (Round-Up Ready) soybeans.

Recent articles debate the claims that GM soya will have long term benefits to the small scale farmers of Argentina. Specifically, monoculture planting of GM crops is damaging the soil bacteria and soil health, causing an increased use of herbicides and pesticides, and allowing herbicide resistant weeds to flourish. There is also a possible correlation between increased cancers and birth deformities due to the increased herbicide and pesticide storage, legal and illegal use, and contamination of water.

GLOBAL VIEW : IndiaIndia has emerged as one of the hottest battlegrounds in the worldwide debate over genetically-engineered crops. In summer of 2000, the Indian government permitted the first large-scale field trial of a GM crop—an insect-resistant (Bt) cotton variety developed by the American biotech giant, Monsanto. (An Indian seed company partly owned by Monsanto will market the crop.) In 2004, India began planting GM cotton.

Anecdotal evidence suggests most Indian farmers know little about GM technology and are not active in the debate. Those who are engaged are divided: some farmers’ organizations welcome the new technology, others voice strong opposition. Opponents fear that farmers may become dependent on multinational seed companies. From 2007-2011 articles and a documentary were released highlighting an

increase in suicides of male Indian cotton farmers although exact numbers have been contested. However, proponents state that this is not a direct correlation and claim that Bt cotton has increased yields and financial gain for farmers. Regardless, numerous small-scale farmers are now burdened with debt after transition to Bt cotton and headlines of “suicide seeds” and “failure of Bt cotton” are common. Additionally, opponents say that 99% of indigenous cotton has become contaminated with the transgenic variety. Environmentalists also warn that GM crops could contaminate traditional crop varieties and threaten India's rich biodiversity.

Protests and activism continues increasing. Recently an expert committee appointed by Indian Supreme Court has been calling on Indian government to put a 10 years ban on all Monsanto’s GMO crops.

While the public debate has centered on proposed imports of commercial biotech crops, government-backed researchers are working on a variety of crops aimed at improving food production and nutrition. Public-sector GM research is focused on disease- and pest-resistance, quality, and yield, in food crops such as brassicas(cabbage family), mung bean, pigeon pea, rice, cotton, tomatoes and potatoes

GLOBAL VIEW : Australia and New ZealandAustralia and New Zealand have initiated biotech research and development programs. At the same time both governments have chosen to require labeling of foods with GM ingredients. 93 percent of Australians backed comprehensive labeling. In foods labeled "GM free," ingredients produced from genetically modified crops must make up less than 1 percent of the total. The labeling law exempts many additives and food processing aids (enzymes), as well as restaurant food. These regulations are expected to take

effect in mid-2001. Unlike European Union countries, Australia and New Zealand have not banned any food ingredients.

In January 2011, a formal review panel recommended that the existing labelling provisions for GM foods should remain. In December 2011, ministers agreed that the existing labelling provisions were appropriate.

What do you feel are the three most significant facts from your Global View reading?

1.

2.

3.

What are genetically modified organisms?Text adapted from Should We Grow GM Crops? by Peter Tyson

From cucumbers and carrots to white rice and wheat, we humans have altered the genes of almost every food we eat. For almost 10,000 years we’ve been engineering plants by keeping the seeds from the best crops and planting those the next season. Following this practice year after year has resulting in a slow but steady change and substantial cumulative effect. We’ve been altering the genetic makeup of crops by cross-pollinating too. About 8,000 years ago, for example, farmers in Central America crossed two mutant strains of a weedy-looking plant called Balsas teosinte and produced the first corn on the cob.

We’ve had success with the methods mentioned above (especially cross-pollinating), but because they rely on the random mixing of all of a plant’s tens of thousands of genes, the odds of producing a crop with a desired trait is akin to winning the lottery. Today, scientists can track a change quickly in a plant’s genome by sequencing the the DNA of offspring and looking for specific genetic markers. Scientists can also produce a change quickly by selecting a single gene that may result in a desired trait and inserting that gene directly into the chromosome of an organism. Amazingly, genes from organisms as dissimilar as bacteria and plants can be successfully inserted into each other.

Industry, government, and many academic scientists tout the benefits of genetically modified (GM) foods for agriculture, ecosystems, and human health and well-being, including feeding a world population bursting at the seams. With equal passion, consumer groups, environmental activists, religious organizations, and some scientists warn of unforeseen health, environmental, and socioeconomic consequences.

The debate concerns something very personal to each of us: what we and our children are eating. And whether you realize it or not, you've been consuming GM foods for some time. GM ingredients, in the form of modified enzymes, are found in virtually all breads, cheeses, sodas, and beers, and farmers have been raising GM food crops such as corn, soybeans, and potatoes since the mid-1990s. While you'll find few GM whole fruits or vegetables in your supermarket today, highly processed foods like breakfast cereals and vegetable oils very likely contain varying amounts of GM ingredients, because food companies pool raw materials like soy and corn from many sources into a single processing stream.

GM crop farming is expanding rapidly around the world. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), in 2010 approximately 15 million farmers grew biotech crops in 29 countries. According to a review published in 2012 and based on data from the late 1990s and early 2000s, much of the GM crop grown each year is used for livestock feed, and increased demand for meat will lead to increased demand for GM crops with which to feed them.

On the following pages, you will be asked the same question seven times: "Based on what you now know, do you think we should raise genetically modified (GM) crops?" Each time, you must answer Yes or No to that question, and each time, depending on how you responded, you will be presented with a new counter argument meant to challenge your stance. Thus, this feature presents six arguments for growing GM crops and six against, but whenever you answer yes or no, you will only see one side of the argument -- the one meant to challenge your position. However, before answering the question for the seventh and final time, you will be shown all 12 arguments for and against. At that point, you may choose Yes, No, or Undecided.

Based on what you now know, do you think we should raise genetically modified (GM) crops?State your opinion below after each reading: (Yes or No)

Introduction: Reading 4:Reading 1: Reading 5:Reading 2: Reading 6:Reading 3: Final thoughts:

If you answered Yes the first time:What if you knew that detractors fear that GM foods might pose health risks for certain people?

Some people, including children, are highly allergic to peanuts and other foods. Some critics of GM foods feel the possibility exists that those genetically modifying food crops may unintentionally introduce a new allergen. Given that genes can be introduced from unrelated species -- for example, a fish gene can be put into a plant -- some critics argue that the possibilities of allergies might be greater than with traditionally bred crops.

Another potential hazard to human health is the possibility that bacteria in our guts could pick up antibiotic-resistance genes found in many GM foodstuffs. (Food geneticists often add such genes to GM plants as 'markers' to tell them which plants have taken up exotic genes.) If this transfer happens, in principle it could exacerbate the already worrisome spread of disease-causing bacteria that have proven able to withstand our antibiotics.

"Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history."--Dr. Martha R. Herbert, pediatric neurologist [1]

"With genetic engineering, familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic. Even if the transgene itself is not dangerous or toxic, it could upset complex biochemical networks and create new bioactive compounds or change the concentrations of those normally present. In addition, the properties in proteins may change in a new chemical environment because they may fold in new ways. Further, the potential toxic or carcinogenic effects could have substantial latency periods."--from The Need for Greater Regulation and Control of Genetic Engineering: A Statement by Scientists Concerned About Trends in the New Biotechnology [2]

"Lots and lots of people -- virtually the entire population -- could be exposed to genetically engineered foods, and yet we have only a handful of studies in the peer-reviewed literature addressing their safety. The question is, do we assume the technology is safe based on an argument that it's just a minor extension of traditional breeding, or do we prove it? The scientist in me wants to prove it's safe."--Dr. Margaret Mellon, director of the agricultural and biotechnology program, Union of Concerned Scientists [3]

If you answered No the first time:What if you knew that proponents assert that GM foods will promise many health benefits?

Advocates hold that GM foods will leave traditional crops in the dust. They will have longer shelf life. They will be better for us, with some products already in the works benefiting our waistlines (low-calorie sugar beets and oils with lower saturated fat content, for example) and others bearing higher nutritional content (high-fiber corn and high-starch potatoes). And they will be safer to eat. GM corn has lower fungal toxin content than non-GM corn, and farmers typically produce GM crops using fewer pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.

GM foods will have even greater benefits for the world's poor, supporters state. In developing countries, malnutrition is a grave problem, because people often have to rely on a single staple, such as rice, that on its own doesn't supply sufficient nutrients. Food scientists hope to genetically modify crops to add vitamins and minerals. One of the most promising is "golden rice," which can stimulate our bodies to generate vitamin A. In the developing world, vitamin-A deficiency kills two million children each year, and another 500,000 become permanently blind.

Eventually GM plants will serve as environmentally friendly 'factories' that mass-produce useful substances such as pharmaceuticals. Scientists are hard at work, for instance, trying to genetically add vaccines to tomatoes or bananas. Traditional vaccines are costly to manufacture and require specialized storage not always available in developing countries. "Eatable vaccines," developers say, will be easier to ship, store, and administer.

"The benefits of biotechnology are many and include providing resistance to crop pests to improve production and reduce chemical pesticide usage, thereby making major improvements in both food quality and nutrition."--World Health Organization Expert Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety [4]

"Biotechnology will be a crucial part of expanding agricultural productivity in the 21st century. If safely deployed, it could be a tremendous help in meeting the challenge of feeding an additional three billion human beings, 95 percent of them in the poor developing countries, on the same amount of land and water currently available."--Ismail Serageldin, The World Bank [5]

"It is possible to kill someone with kindness, literally. That could be the result of the well-meaning but extremely misguided attempts by European and North American groups that are advising Africans to be wary of agricultural biotechnology....If we take their alarmist warnings to heart, millions of Africans will suffer and possibly die. Agricultural biotechnology...holds great promise for Africa and other areas of the world where circumstances such as poverty and poor growing conditions make farming difficult."--Hassan Adamu, Nigeria's minister of agriculture and rural development [6]

If you answered Yes the second time:What if you knew that many feel GM crop technology will hurt small farmers?

Critics of GM agriculture insist that patenting genetically altered crops, as agribusiness is rushing to do, will make small farmers indentured to big firms. Monsanto, one of the biggest players in the field, is currently suing dozens of North American farmers whom it claims have raised its patented GM crops without paying for the privilege. (Farmers have responded that pollen from Monsanto crops blew in from neighboring fields.)

Some fear that GM crops might prove too expensive for poor farmers in developing countries, thus further widening the gap between rich and poor, or that they could repeat an often unspoken side effect of the Green Revolution. In countries like India, higher yields were achieved at such a cost in inputs that smaller farmers were often no better off, and many were forced into debt or off their land.

Even if farmers in developing countries don't grow GM crops, they could still be hurt by them. If GM technology enables the industrial North to raise crops it traditionally imported from the developing South, it could take a heavy toll on Southern farmers. In 1996, the Canada-based non-governmental organization Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) called attention to a newly issued patent for quinoa, a high-protein grain traditionally grown in the Andes. The patent was awarded to researchers at Colorado State University, who were trying to improve yields of the crop. As RAFI pointed out, if U.S. farmers started growing quinoa, Bolivian farmers who supply the quinoa for that country's $1 million export market would take a severe blow. (The patent was later withdrawn after protests.)

GM crops will also further our reliance on vast monocultures, objectors state. (Just 15 food crops today supply 90 percent of the world's food and energy intake.) Many small farmers in the developing world maintain a rich diversity of flora; in India alone, farmers raise some 50,000 plant varieties. These plants thrive under different climatic and environmental conditions, providing insurance against drought or disease or locust swarms.

Lacking such insurance, farmers of monocultures are vulnerable to lethal attacks by disease and pests. In the 1970s, for example, corn blight devastated the U.S. corn crop; in 1975 Indonesian farmers lost half a million acres of rice to the rice hopper insect. GM monocultures will possess similar susceptibilities. If pests evolve tolerance to a crop's built-in insecticide, say, or if weeds develop immunity to weed killers sprayed over fields of herbicide-resistant GM plants, that crop -- and the people who count on it -- could suffer.

"The Green Revolution was immensely successful in increasing crop yields because of the development of high-yielding crop varieties and the use of chemical inputs, but this resulted in the disruption of many sustainable agricultural practices. Farmers using transgenic varieties risk being caught on a similar chemical treadmill, with crops requiring high chemical inputs to achieve their promised yields, particularly high fertilizer applications."--Dr. Stephen Nottingham, a biologist who specializes in crop protection and author of Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food is Entering Our Diet [8]

If you answered No the second time:

What if you knew that GM patrons insist that farmers will reap great benefits from biotechnology?Insect pests cause stupendous crop losses every year, resulting in harsh financial setbacks for

farmers. With crops genetically engineered to resist pests, GM proponents say, growers can avoid such losses and bring their produce to market at less cost. By the same token, weeds rob crops of vital nutrients. To do away with them, farmers often have to spray large amounts of weed killers, a time-consuming and expensive process. With, say, GM soybeans that are resistant to a single broad-spectrum herbicide, farmers only need to use a single weed killer rather than multiple kinds, and they may have to make only a single application rather than several.

Using a single broad-spectrum herbicide can also help reduce land degradation, advocates say, by enabling farmers to optimize their use of "no-till" agriculture. Leaving dead plants where they lie rather than plowing them into the ground can reduce soil erosion by 70 percent, industry officials claim. Soil erosion is a serious global problem, with farmers losing an estimated 25 billion tons of topsoil through runoff and wind every year.

Scientists are developing GM technologies to help farmers battle other scourges as well. To reduce losses from sudden frosts, which can kill young plants, geneticists have experimented with putting an antifreeze gene into tomato plants. To help crops cope with disease, researchers are trying to genetically confer disease resistance to food plants. And to help farmers in an increasingly land-hungry world sow crops on marginal land, agricultural scientists are working to craft plants that are drought- and salt-tolerant.

Perhaps most important, GM crops will improve harvests, backers profess. Monsanto reports that yields from GM crops of corn, cotton, and soybeans in the U.S. have increased by between 5 and 8 percent. This compares to increases of 1 to 2 percent expected from new conventional varieties. Ultimately, some proponents warrant, biotech could triple crop yields without requiring any additional farmland.

"We'll soon be able to produce more crops with less pesticide, less fuel, less fertilizer, fewer trips over the field. We'll produce much more with much less....A couple of years ago I wouldn't have predicted this. But I now think that within a decade it will be possible to have crops that can withstand the stresses of early spring and late fall to such an extent that farmers could plant two crops of corn, soybeans, or wheat each year."--Dr. Ray Bressan, professor of horticulture and director of the Center for Plant Environmental Stress Physiology, Purdue University [10]

"I am particularly alarmed by those who seek to deny small-scale farmers of the Third World -- and especially those in sub-Saharan Africa -- access to the improved seeds, fertilizers and crop protection chemicals that have allowed the affluent nations the luxury of plentiful and inexpensive foodstuffs....While the affluent nations can certainly afford to pay more for food produced by the so-called organic methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low-income, food-deficit nations cannot."--Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel-Prize-winning agriculturalist and father of the Green Revolution [12]

If you answered Yes the third time:What if you knew that opponents fear that GM crops could harm the environment?

Many critics believe we're opening a Pandora's lunchbox with GM technology, that raising GM crops is an uncontrolled experiment with unknown consequences for surrounding ecosystems. Remember, they admonish, the ravages of the now-banned pesticide DDT. Or PCBs. Or dioxin. Or leaded gas.

One of their greatest worries is that GM crops could harm other wildlife. A 2010 study in Insect Conservation and Diversity found that “a loss of agricultural milkweeds is a major contributor to the decline in the monarch population.” GMOs come into the picture because the article cites a 2010 paper which found that milkweed populations on farms declined dramatically between 1999 and 2009, at the same time that Roundup Ready crops were becoming widespread in the Midwest. Roundup Ready crops are engineered to be herbicide-resistant so that farmers can apply weed killers without damaging their crops. The 2010 paper reasons that the widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant crops likely led to increased use of weed killer, and that milkweed populations may have suffered as a result. About half of monarchs in the U.S. spend their summers dining on milkweed in corn-growing regions, so to environmental activists this proved dire news.

The monarch study should serve as a cautionary tale for those who dread unwittingly harming species. Citing the case of mosquitoes that became tolerant of DDT, critics also shudder at the thought that insects will become 'superbugs' resistant to pesticides engineered into GM crops. By the same token, they also predict the evolution of 'superweeds' that become immune to a broad-spectrum weed killer after crossing with and assuming the herbicide-resistant gene from a closely related GM plant. GM crops themselves can become weeds, they note. Canadian farmers have reported that herbicide-resistant canola plants have invaded nearby wheat fields with the impunity of a feared superweed.

Naysayers also worry that viruses will snatch resistance traits from GM crops bearing genes from crop viruses. These gene-thieving viruses might then evolve into entirely new strains that could infect a whole range of plants previously unaffected.

"Unrelated multiple side-effects of introduced genes cannot be predicted in advance and are not always visible or easily detected."--Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, Women's Environmental Network, London, U.K. [13]

"Ecologists are unsure of the impacts of bypassing natural species boundaries. Consider, for example, the ambitious plans to engineer transgenic plants to serve as pharmaceutical factories for the production of chemicals and drugs. Foraging animals, seed-eating birds, and soil insects will be exposed to a range of genetically engineered drugs, vaccines, industrial enzymes, plastics, and hundreds of other foreign substances for the first time, with untold consequences."--Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World [15]

If you answered No the third time:What if you knew that advocates maintain that GM technology will help the environment?

In the U.S. alone, farmers spray, spread, and otherwise administer more than 970 million tons of insect- and plant-killers every year. These pose threats to the environment. Pesticide residues linger on crops and in soil, find their way into the guts of wildlife that eat contaminated foliage, and leach into groundwater and wash into streams.

If a crop boasts its own ability to resist invertebrate predators, then farmers can use far fewer chemicals. In 1999, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, cotton farmers in states raising significant amounts of cotton genetically modified to withstand pests sprayed 21 percent less insecticide -- that is, they sprayed one to two times rather than eight to ten.

Similarly, endorsers profess that farmers raising crops bearing herbicide resistance -- such as those using the Monsanto-crafted soybean that is resistant to the company's broad-spectrum weed killer Roundup -- will use fewer chemicals in a season than they would while growing conventional soybeans.

Industry spokespersons acknowledge the possibility that cross-pollination could occur between some types of GM crops and weeds. But they claim there are ways around that, such as creating GM crops that are male-sterile -- that is, produce no pollen -- or modifying a GM plant so its pollen doesn't have the introduced gene. As for the danger of pests growing tolerant of plant-borne insecticide, farmers can create buffer zones of conventional crops around GM fields to give harmful insects something to feed on, reducing the selection pressure to adapt to the anti-pest plant. Buffer zones would also deter cross-pollination and provide a refuge for harmless and beneficial insects.

"The benefits of biotechnology are many and include providing resistance to crop pests to improve production and reduce chemical pesticide usage, thereby making major improvements in both food quality and nutrition."--World Health Organization Expert Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety, October 1996 [16]

"[T]here is no scientific justification for assuming this [the possibility of cross-pollination between GM plants and wild relatives] to be either undesirable or harmful in principle - each case needs consideration on its own merits."--Dr. Phil Dale, GM plant scientist at the John Innes Centre, a U.K. agricultural research institute [17]

"The risks of modern genetic engineering have been studied by technical experts at the National Academy of Sciences and World Bank. They concluded that we can predict the environmental effects by reviewing past experiences with those plants and animals produced through selective breeding. None of these products of selective breeding have harmed either the environment or biodiversity."--Jimmy Carter, 39th president of the United States [18]

If you answered Yes the fourth time:What if you knew that many people feel genetically modifying organisms goes against Nature?

Many opponents of the genetic revolution -- whether it involves sequencing the human genome,

owning genetic material, or devising GM crops -- pronounce that fiddling with the genetic makeup of plants and animals is unnatural. Nature takes millions of years to effect genetic change. What right do we have to make changes overnight, as it were?

Nature also does not mix apples and oranges, much less flounder and strawberries. (Scientists placed an antifreeze gene from the fish into the fruit in a failed attempt to help strawberries withstand frost.) In short, do we have the wisdom to substitute human for natural selection? To play God?

Many argue we do not, and that such acts are immoral. For some, GM technology flies in the face of cherished principles about the relationship between humanity and nature. If you are vegetarian, how would you feel if you learned that a vegetable you just ate bore an animal gene? For others, such pursuits offend deeply held religious beliefs. If you are observing kosher dietary laws, how would you feel knowing the tomato you just enjoyed in your salad carried a pig gene? For some people, genetic manipulation is nothing short of sacrilegious.

Such detractors are horrified by the thought that the dozens of GM crops so far approved for use in the U.S. and elsewhere are just the vanguard of an army of GM flora about to appear. In coming years, they say, we will see such oxymoronic man-made natural creations as GM trees and GM ornamental plants. Even now, Monsanto is developing new varieties of GM grass that will give homeowners the chance to choose the color of their front lawns.

"If Nature has spent millions of years building a structure with natural boundaries, it must be there for a purpose. It is there to guide the evolution of life and to maintain its integrity. Using genetic engineering in agriculture is like trying to fix something that has nothing wrong with it in the first place."--Dr. Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, GKT Medical School, Guy's Hospital, London, U.K. [19]

"For centuries we have purchased food from people we trusted. The reliable qualities and properties of food have allowed it to play a role in rituals and religious practices. Altering food may deprive believers of the assurance that food is pure or kosher. Fear of food's content can alter one's sense of well-being."--Dr. Paul R. Billings, a director of the Council for Responsible Genetics [20]

"While human beings may rightfully improve the world through many types of technologies, the enterprise to restructure the genetic blueprints of Earth's plants and animals is so unprecedented, so invasive of the realm of the Creator, and potentially so irreversible that it warrants the most careful consideration and reverential restraint. Human intelligence should not undertake such a venture without sincere acknowledgment of its own limitations and full appreciation of the complexity and majesty of God's design."--Alliance for Bio-Integrity [21]

If you answered No the fourth time:What if you knew that scientists submit that genetically modifying plants is completely natural?

Genetic modification couldn't be more natural, geneticists say. Plants (and animals) genetically modify themselves all the time. That's the basis of evolution. We've been genetically modifying plants (and

animals) for millennia. That's the basis of agriculture.Our manipulation of a single mustard species has generated such diverse vegetables as broccoli,

Brussels sprouts, and cabbage. Altogether, the wild ancestors of grapes, potatoes, and all other fruits and vegetables you find today on grocery-store shelves are but pale shadows of their modern, highly modified descendants. All have gone through countless generations of careful hybridization and genetic breeding to improve yields, taste, size, texture, and other attributes.

Modern GM methods are simply more precise, scientists stress. Whereas traditional plant breeding involves thousands of shared genes every time two plants are crossed, GM technology allows, if desired, for the exchange of a single gene between plants. GM procedures are also much faster. In months or years, molecular scientists can accomplish the same degree of alteration that might have taken Nature millions of years to achieve.

"Biotechnology's been around almost since the beginning of time. It's cavemen saving seeds of a high-yielding plant. It's Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, cross-pollinating his garden peas. It's a diabetic's insulin, and the enzymes in your yogurt...."--Dan Glickman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 13, 1997 [22]

"All plants, and all animals including humans, are genetically modified. That is what evolution means. They are genetically modified by natural selection of random mutations and recombinations. Some, such as maize, wheat, cabbages, and roses, are additionally modified by domestic breeding. And some are modified by engineered mutation or recombination. Any of these three kinds of genetic modification can have desirable or undesirable consequences."--Prof. Richard Dawkins, author and expert on evolutionary genetics [23]

"We've been breeding hybrids of plants for decades. Biotechnology is really not that much different."--Dr. Werner Arber, Nobel Prize winner and head of the International Council of Scientific Unions [24]

If you answered Yes the fifth time:What if you knew that many critics inveigh against biotech companies for being profit-driven, with little concern for potential risks to people or nature?

GM seed firms invest heavily in research and development, and naturally, they want to recoup their investment. But in their rush to secure patents and reap profits, critics contend, big biotech firms are deliberately over-promoting the benefits of GM technology and underestimating possible health, socioeconomic, and environmental hazards.

Detractors say these companies are also concentrating their efforts in high-volume crops, such as soybeans, corn, and cotton, and not in crops that might help feed the billions of people who live in poor countries. This "greed-not-need" ethic, GM opponents assert, may soon operate in an Orwellian agricultural climate, in which the power to produce and distribute food is concentrated in the hands of a few gigantic biotech firms. In 2007, the top ten seed companies controlled an estimated 67 percent of worldwide seed sales, which reach $45 billion a year.

"The dramatic increase in the development, marketing, and sale of genetically modified seed and crops has far more to do with inflating corporate profits than with the sustainability of America's family farmers or the health of its consumers."--Howard Vail, president of Farm For Profit Research & Development, a sustainable agriculture organization based in Embarrass, MN [25]

"Genetically engineered (GE) rice -- such as the now-famous vitamin A rice or 'golden rice' -- is being heavily promoted as a solution to hunger and malnutrition. Yet these promotional campaigns are clouding the real issues of poverty and control over resources, and serving to fast-track acceptance of genetically engineered crops in developing countries."--Joint statement to the press on 6/2/00 by three farmer organizations in Southeast Asia: BIOTHAI (Thai Network on Biodiversity and Community Rights), KMP (Peasant Movement of the Philippines), and MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Philippines) [26]

"The feeding-the-world argument is a very carefully engineered P.R. exercise to create some moral legitimacy for this technology."--Brian Halweil, analyst at the Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. [27]

If you answered No the fifth time:What if you knew that companies that fashion GM seeds maintain that GM crops hold the greatest hope for adequately feeding our rapidly expanding world population?

Biotech spokespersons have argued that, while the industry is indeed concerned about the bottom line, it is primarily driven by research and innovation. Their argument is straightforward: Innovation is the only way to meet the world's burgeoning needs for food and medicines in a rapidly shrinking and increasingly scarred natural environment. Innovation requires costly and time-consuming research and testing, which will only happen if it's paid for. The best way to ensure it's paid for is through intellectual property protection. Patents should operate worldwide, they maintain, because markets are increasingly global in nature.

The result of this innovation will be GM crops that will offer our best chance to adequately address the challenge of feeding the estimated five billion people who, in as few as 50 years by some estimates, will join the seven billion of us already here. GM crop farming holds out greater promise than conventional farming of boosting production on the same amount of ground, adherents say, and of raising crops where none could grow before, such as on salt-laden land. In increasing yields and making marginal lands productive, GM promoters insist, lie our only means of staving off widespread famine in developing countries in the coming decades.

"The possibility that (biotech) crops could make a substantial contribution to providing sufficient food for an expanding world is, on its own, a solid reason for engaging in the research that underlies their development."--The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999 Report [28]

"Since there is no option in population-rich and land-hungry countries but to produce more per units of land, water, and labor, there is need for technologies which can promote and sustain an ever-green revolution rooted in the principles of ecology, economics, and social and gender equity. It is obvious that the challenge can be met only by integrating recent advances in molecular genetics and genetic engineering, information and space technologies, renewable energy technologies, and management science with traditional technologies and ecological wisdom, resulting in appropriate ecotechnologies. There should be no relaxation of yield-enhancing research, since there is no other way of meeting global food needs."--Professor M.S. Swaminathan, agronomist and father of India's Green Revolution [29]

If you answered Yes the sixth time:What if you knew that many critics assert that GM foods suffer from dangerously poor oversight and regulation?

Anti-GM food activists have leveled much of their ire at the United States, which produces the bulk

of the world's GM foods. Currently, the US raises over 50% of the world’s total GM crops. Biotech firms, detractors maintain, have been developing and deploying GM crops too quickly and too broadly, without adequate testing or public debate. And the three government bodies that oversee the industry -- the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency -- are too lax in their scrutiny and regulation, they say.

The FDA, for one, has long maintained that most GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to unmodified foods and are thus not subject to FDA regulations. Biotech companies are not required to consult with the FDA on new GM foods, and even those that voluntarily do so do not have to follow the FDA's recommendations. Even a new FDA plan announced in early 2001 to review new GM foods for safety falls far short of the current surveillance of food additives, critics say.

Labeling is another issue that raises the hackles of anti-GM food activists. In the U.S., producers do not have to label GM foods. The result, those who denounce the policy say, is that you as a consumer don't know what you're eating, you don't have the option of choosing not to buy foods with GM ingredients, and if you get sick from a GM food, no one will be able to trace your illness back to its source.

"[B]iotechnologies...cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of immediate economic interests. They must be submitted beforehand to rigorous scientific and ethical examination, to prevent them from becoming disastrous for human health and the future of the Earth."--Pope John Paul II [31]

"Now is the time, while agricultural biotechnology is still young, for Congress and regulatory agencies to create the framework that will maximize the safe use of these products, bolster public confidence in them, and allow all of humankind to benefit from their enormous potential."--Dr. Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest [32]

"Industry has decided to silently invade food market shelves by denying any visible identifiers of genetic engineering....The net effect is to subvert the normal process of consumer choice by suppressing the knowledge needed to freely choose. The cornerstore of such a privilege is labeling."--Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey, authors of Against the Grain: The Genetic Transformation of Global Agriculture [33]

If you answered No the sixth time:What if you knew that GM seed companies maintain that GM crops are the most thoroughly tested and highly regulated food plants out there?

Biotech firms hold that every GM food crop is thoroughly tested for possible health effects. They

conduct these in-depth analyses, they say, because they are legally required to ensure foods they sell meet federal safety standards.

Industry scientists start by comparing a GM plant with conventionally bred plants of the same variety. Their goal is to see whether an introduced gene alters the GM plant's chemical makeup and nutritional value. If the protein made from the new gene is the only discernible difference between the two plants, scientists test that protein for toxicity by feeding it to animals in amounts thousands of times higher than a person would ever eat. Scientists also test for allergy-inducing potential by checking the chemistry of each new protein against those of about 500 known allergens.

Industry spokespersons argue the testing system has worked well. When scientists realized a gene from Brazil nuts they were planning to splice into soybeans might sicken people harboring allergies to nuts, they discontinued the experiment. Similarly, when other researchers discovered that a protein in one type of GM corn might be allergenic, regulators approved that corn only for animal feed.

Biotech firms point out that not one but three U.S. government agencies have their say about each GM crop. The Department of Agriculture judges whether it is safe to grow. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assesses whether it's safe for the environment. And the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deems whether it's safe to eat. Under pressure from activists, these agencies have stepped up their vigilance. In 2000, the EPA began requiring farmers to plant 20 percent unmodified corn whenever they planted Bt corn (a GM corn modified to contain a natural pesticide). And in early 2001, the FDA began reviewing all new GM foods for safety.

"All of our products, including those based on biotechnology, undergo thorough human, animal, and environmental safety evaluations. In order to be released commercially, they have to obtain the respective regulatory authorization. This involves rigorous governmental safety reviews and approval processes."--from the Web site of Aventis CropScience, a world leader in plant biotechnology [34]

"I think the company is making an effort to address people's concerns about GM foods more openly. We've recognized that some genetic modifications are particularly bothersome. Among vegetarians, for instance, the idea of eating a vegetable that has an animal gene in it might raise questions. For certain cultures or religious groups, there could be similar concerns. So we decided it was better to avoid using animal genes in food crops."--Dr. Robert B. Horsch, vice president of product and technology cooperation at Monsanto Company, and winner of the 1998 National Medal of Technology for his pioneering experiments in the genetic modification of plant cells [35]

Albino Corn Lab

Albinism is a recessive trait in corn. Complete the punnett square below of two heterozygous plants to determine the ratio of albino and green plants in the F2 generation. Remember, a capital letter indicates the dominant trait and the lowercase the recessive trait.

A a

A

a

What percentage of the F2 plant population are predicted to be albino? _______

What is the predicted ratio of green to albino plants? _____:_____

The punnett square above predicts the distribution of individual alleles.What fraction of the alleles are dominant? _______What fraction of the alleles are recessive? _______

F2 Generation Total Number of Seedlings

Number of Green

Seedlings

Number of Albino

Seedlings

Observations

Group Data

Class Data

Using the class data, what percentage of plants were albino (not able to produce green pigment)? _____

Using the class data, what is the ratio of green plants to albino plants? ______ : ______

Does the ratio predicted by the punnett square differ from the actual ratio? Why?

What do you think will happen to the albino plants in the next few weeks? Why?

Now you will observe the F6 generation of albino plants, or the great-great grandchildren of the F2 generation.

F6 Generation Total Number of Seedlings

Number of Green

Seedlings

Number of Albino

Seedlings

Observations

Group Data

Class Data

Using the class data, what percentage of plants were albino (not able to produce green pigment)? _____

Using the class data, what is the ratio of green plants to albino plants? ______ : ______

How does the ratio of green to albino plants differ in the F6 generation from the F2 generation?

Make a prediction as to why the ratio of green to albino plants is different in the F6 generation.

Analysis:

Will all of the alleles from the F2 generation be passed on? Why or why not?

Is the inability to produce pigment (albinism) a fatal trait? Explain.

At the beginning of the lab, you completed a punnett square and determined that ½ of the alleles in F2 were dominant and ½ were recessive. This prediction was based on all 8 alleles being passed on. Because albinism is a fatal trait, only 6 alleles will be passed on to future generations.

Reconsider your fraction of dominant and recessive alleles. What fraction of the passed on alleles are dominant? ______What fraction of the passed on alleles are recessive? ______

Compare the fractions you just calculated to those from the initial punnett square. Predict: What will happen to the frequency of albino plants over many generations? Explain.

Additional ResourcesPeter and Jim’s NCMNS Science Cafe Talk- Corn Deconstructed: Kernels of Truthhttp://www.livestream.com/naturalsciences/video?clipId=pla_32c9bccf-646d-463f-a23f-f67db0127aed

“Harvest of Fear” a PBS NOVA/Frontline Special Report (2001)In "Harvest of Fear," FRONTLINE and NOVA explore the intensifying debate over genetically-modified (gm) food crops. Interviewing scientists, farmers, biotech and food industry representatives, government regulators, and critics of biotechnology, this two-hour report presents both sides of the debate, exploring the risks and benefits, the hopes and fears, of this new technology.Engineer A Crop http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/engineer/ *Should We Grow GM Crops? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/ *Viewpoints http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/viewpoints/Video: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD3F3B8BA78D5F1E1 (Found in 12 parts)

Central Crop Research Station Brochure and Fact Sheethttp://www.ncagr.gov/research/ccrs.htm

Ronald, Pamela and R.W. Adamchak. Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

An organic farming husband alternates writing chapters with his plant geneticist wife.

Wisconsin Fast Plants Program. Spiraling Through Life with Fast Plants: An inquiry-rich manual. Wisconsin: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 2003.

Rice, Elizabeth. Garden Genetics: Teaching with Edible Plants. Massachusetts: NSTA Press, 2006.

PBS America Revealed episode “Food Machine” (2012)http://www.pbs.org/america-revealed/episode/1/Over the past century, an American industrial revolution has given rise to the biggest, most productive food machine the world has ever known. In this episode, host Yul Kwon explores how this machine feeds nearly 300 million Americans every day. He discovers engineering marvels we’ve created by putting nature to work and takes a look at the costs of our insatiable appetite on our health and environment... Resources for teachers:Old MacDonald Had an iPad http://www.pbs.org/america-revealed/teachers/lesson-plan/4/The Edible Backyard http://www.pbs.org/america-revealed/teachers/lesson-plan/5/

Learn Genetics Websitehttp://learn.genetics.utah.edu/

Evolution of Corn http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/corn/

Food Supply Lesson Planshttps://www.ffa.org/FFAResources/ffalearn/midschoolfoodandagr/foodscience/Pages/default.aspxhttps://www.ffa.org/FFAResources/ffalearn/midschoolfoodandagr/plantscience/Pages/default.aspxhttps://www.ffa.org/FFAResources/ffalearn/midschoolfoodandagr/agriscienceandtech/Pages/default.aspx

Teaching Through Issues Resources

Teaching Issues Overview: Oxfam

http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/Oxfam.pdf

How to Have a Seminar Lesson Planning Tips http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4994

Agree / Disagree Language Tipshttp://freeenglishlessonplans.com/2013/01/31/language-of-agreement-and-disagreement/

Verbal Boxing Lesson Planhttp://www.onestopenglish.com/community/lesson-share/pdf-content/speaking/speaking-verbal-boxing-lesson-plan/550231.article

Four Corners Lesson Planning Tipshttp://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/03/lp304-04.shtml

GM/GE Foods: Pros and Cons

Multiple Perspectives:GMO? - Infographichttp://visual.ly/gmo-genetically-modified-organism What do you Know about GMOs? - Infographichttp://visualism.org/2012/11/25/what-do-you-know-about-gmos-infographic/What are the Pros and Cons of Transgenic Crops? - Arizona State http://www.maizecdna.org/outreach/tpe.html

Pro-GMOs:Rice to Feed a Hungry World - Infographichttp://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1105/rice/flat.html Genetic Literacy Project - Infographichttp://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/07/29/infographic-10-reasons-we-need-crop-biotechnology/

No-GMOs:What Are GMOs? - Infographichttps://www.prana.com/life/2011/10/29/what-are-gmos-genetically-modified-organisms-infographic/

GM Labeling Updates:United States - Center for Food Safety http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/state-labeling-initiatives#http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/fact-sheets/3067/ge-food-labeling-states-take-actionOther Countries - Center for Food Safety http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/international-labeling-lawshttp://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/

Current Events

Brazil Says 'Yes' to Genetically Modified Foods. Mexico Says 'No'http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-30/brazil-says-yes-to-genetically-modified-foods-dot-mexico-says-no

Information Not on the Labelhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/information-not-on-the-label/

Strong Support for Labeling Modified Foodshttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?_r=1&

ISAAA: Executive SummaryGlobal Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/executivesummary/default.asp

USDA: GM Crop Adoption Increased Steadily Over Past 15 Yearshttp://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-march/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-by-us-farmers-has-increased-steadily-for-over-15-years.aspx#.U76dPY1dXt0

Organic is Betterhttp://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/m2m/research-areas/nutritional-quality/bjn-2014/

US Approves Label for Meathttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/business/us-approves-a-label-for-meat-from-animals-fed-a-diet-free-of-gene-modified-products.html?_r=0

Attitudes on Crops are Modifyinghttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/business/energy-environment/11iht-green11.html?_r=1&