Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
“Harvest of Fear” Frontline / NOVA Video

You should read and familiarize yourself with this video guide before viewing the video, after the first segment and again at the end of the film. This will help you focus on the important issues and individuals presented in the film. You should also familiarize yourself with some of the discussion points at the end of this study guide before viewing the film. This will help you in taking notes during the film. These points and questions will serve as basis for an in-class discussion, which will follow the end of the film, and may appear as critical discussion questions on an exam.

Players

Monsanto: A large US agribusiness that produces fertilizers, pesticides and now GMOs, and a major private sector participant in research and development of GMOs. They currently hold approximately 40% of patented genes for GMOs.

Hugh Grant: The CEO of Monsanto, he is a strong proponent of GMO, with an obvious potential conflict of interest.

Florence Wambugu: A Kenyan scientist that developed a GM sweet potato to be used by Kenyan farmers to increase their yields. She makes many important points in regard to the importance and application of GMOs in the developing world. She makes a very important point with regard to the “hooligans” (pseudo-science) who are intent on beating down the house that took science decades of research to develop. What do you think about that statement and the analogy that she makes? To what extent do you believe their opposition to GMOs reflects a more general opposition to modern technology?

Rockefeller Foundation: A Non-Government Organization (NGO) that has been involved in working for solutions for world hunger since the early part of the 20th century. A major player, as a non-profit funding source in the developing world, particularly in the “Green Revolution”.

European Union: A union of European member states that was created after World War II to assure political and economic freedom and justice. In terms of food and agriculture, it is largely a trade organization that seeks to preserve a single European market. Their ban of GMOs was largely protectionist, since nearly all GM agricultural and trade products originated in the United States. This ban has little to do with the safety of GMOs. Recently the EU removed their ban on GMOs, but stated that they would continue to monitor them in the market place.

Cornell University: A private university in New York state. A major scientific institution engaged in GMOs research and development.

John Losey: An entomologist who conducted laboratory experiments on the effects of Bt corn pollen on Monarch caterpillars. To some extent, this was a self-fulfilling hypothesis, given the fact that a known pesticide that was specific to butterfly larvae was dusted on a leaf and then the caterpillars were placed directly on the toxic pollen. Pay attention to the scientific criticism that follows. Note also that there is no evidence that Bt corn plays an important role in Monarch butterfly mortality in the field, but this has not made its way into the knowledge of the general public. What are the responsibilities of the news media to correct or update the sensational reporting that they disseminate; particularly when it is later shown not to be the case? Also pay attention to the use of Bt by organic farmers. Do you think there is a difference? If you do, in what way is this different?

Geenpeace: An NGO that advocates their own specific idea of environmentalism; an advocacy group that is radical in nature, but not militant in their approach. Frequently stage large theatrical media driven demonstrations; often lack strong factual or scientific evidence as rationale for their position. Look for the science behind their statements and beliefs.

Charles Margules: Director of Greenpeace USA – he has a very poor understanding of the science behind GMOs. His statement about there being enough food in the world to feed all of the 6 billion inhabitants is correct, but indicates a very naÔve understanding of the problems involved in world hunger, agricultural practices and food distribution to the poor in developing nations. His statement that “given a choice of foods grown with pesticides, food produced with GMOs or pure organically grown food” reflects the same level of poor understanding of the science of food and agriculture that the general population has.

Doug Park: Director of Greenpeace UK – His statement that companies selling GMOs are trying to say that they are quite similar to non-GMO (substantial equivalence) and at the same time very different (by virtue of their genetic modification), appears at first blush appears to be a reasonably strong criticism. However, as pointed out under substantial equivalence below this is entirely possible, and many examples of this are present in the natural world. Is each kernel on the same ear of corn genetically identical? How is corn pollinated? Is it not the same corn? What does your understanding of genetics tell you about variation within the same species?

Aventis: An agribusiness in direct competition with Monsanto in many areas. Embroiled in the dispute with release of GM corn (Starlink corn) that was approved only for animal use.
Starlink‘ corn: A variety of GM corn produced by Aventis that contains a bacterial gene that produces a protein called “cyr9C”. Cry9C has been shown to break down slowly in in vitro (in a test tube) test designed to imitate the conditions within the human gastro-intestinal tract. As a result of this is, it is believed cry9C may be a potential allergen. However, no direct evidence of this has ever been demonstrated. Widely publicized as “not fit for human consumption”, this designation is a media designation and one never applied to this corn by FDA, USDA or EPA. The fact that it was not approved for human consumption was an administrative decision and not one made because it was ever shown to be “unfit for human consumption”. To date, there is no evidence that it presented any harm to humans. In what ways does the judicious selection or terms influence your opinions?

The Foundation on Economic Trends: A NGO founded by Jeremy Rifkin. The organization has been very critical toward the developments of modern technology in many areas, and particularly so with GMOs.

Jeremy Rifkin: an economist (not a scientist) who is a well-spoken and articulate critic of GMOs. However, most of his information is unsubstantiated and based on anecdotal information and opinion, or just intuitive reasoning. In this film he makes many statements that are factually incorrect, emotional in nature and based solely on his opinion (i.e. there is no substantiating evidence presented or available). The fact that he is so articulate leads many people to believe that he is speaking from a factual and scientific bases; -- but don’t be fooled. Look for the support in what he is saying, it is conspicuously lacking.

Union for Concerned Scientist: A NGO organization that was spawned out of the Vietnam war and concern of the scientific community with regard specifically to war and the development, deployment and use of nuclear weapons. It has now grown to be a more general advocacy group that focused mostly, but not entirely on scientific issues. It is not a union of scientist, and has lost much of its support from the scientific community as it has become more of an advocacy group less and less based on scientific arguments and reasoning.

Jane Rissler: The spokesperson for the Union for Concerned Scientist. Although a former scientist she is clearly now an advocate. Look toward the arguments she makes; are they based on scientific principles and concerns or are they anecdotal and rely on pure reasoning, and the tactic of raising doubt. Doubt is an interesting entity; like faith, it cannot be tested, proven or disproven. Remember, pure reasoning (Aristotelian logic) is not what convinces scientist. It is the preponderance of evidence; the results of controlled experiments. Does she present a factual argument supported with evidence or simply raise concern and doubts based lack of evidence. She states “the absence evidence is not absence of harm” but remember, the absence of evidence does not imply that there is harm, which is exactly what she is doing. Safety carries a negative definition; it is defined as the absence of harm. Can safety ever be demonstrated scientifically?

Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Oversees GMO when they are in the market place sold as foods or drugs.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Oversees GMOs when they are in the field where they are grown as a crop.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Oversees the environmental aspects of GMOs. In other words, their interest is in the effects that the crop has on the environment (escaped or released), not necessarily on the crop as a food item.

Definitions

Baccillus turingensis (Bt): A soil bacterium that has a natural toxin specifically for moth and butterfly larvae. The gene for this toxin has been genetically incorporated into Bt corn and Bt soy beans

Organic Farming: Organic farming is an agricultural production system that minimizes the use of synthetically produced fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and livestock feed additives. To maintain soil productivity and fertility and to control weeds and pests, organic farming relies primarily on crop rotations, crop residues, animal manure, legumes green manure (crops that are planted specifically to be returned to the soil), and biological pest control. Several different terms are used for organic farming, such as biological farming, regenerative farming, and sustainable farming. However, these terms are not synonymous. In the United States, only the term organic farming indicates practices that are specifically concerned with production standards, that is, the methods by which organic food is produced. (Encarta Online Concise Encyclopedia, 1999)

Genetic Code: The genetic code is made up of nucleic acids (complementary base pairs adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine), which are identical among all living species on Earth. These nucleic acids are arranged along strands of DNA. DNA is organized into genes and genes that are essential in conveying information on the proteins that are synthesized within cells of specific species. It is estimated that there is about 97% homology (identical in its make-up) of human genetic code with chimpanzees and other non-human primates and about 50% homology with plants.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA): A sequence of nucleotides contained in the nucleus of cells that determines individual hereditary characteristics. DNA carries the genetic information within cells capable of self-replication and the synthesis of RNA, which codes for specific proteins made by the cell.

Genes: the DNA sequence that codes for a specific protein such as insulin or cytochrome C, which is mentioned in the film. Cytochrome C is a protein in the energy pathway in all living organisms that allows energy production within the cell.

Proteins: are the structural and/or functional molecules in cells that carry out all of the work. They are the enzymes, transporters, receptors, etc. They may be specific to each cell, tissue or organism, or they may be common to a species, kingdom or universal to all living cells. Proteins that are not found within the organism can cause allergenic reactions. Thus it is the proteins that are produced in GMOs that are potential allergens not the DNA, or genes themselves. How much protein needs to be present to generate an allergenic response is critically important, and something that has not been addressed in this debate. Remember, the underlying principle of food toxicology is one of dose. The presence of an allergen in a food does not meaan that an allergenic reaction will occur. The allergen needs to be is sufficient concentrations for this to occur. The uncertainty of this is what guides the banning of foods that have even a potential of allergenicity (and rightly so).

Allergen: is a substance, usually a protein, which can cause an allergic response in an organism. How much allergen (or protein) needs to be present to generate an allergic reaction is critically important and something that really hasn’t been addressed in this debate. The presence of an allergen in a food does not mean that an allergic reaction will occur. The allergen needs to be in sufficient concentration for this to occur, and the severity of the reaction is generally dependent on the amount present.

Substantial Equivalence: Is a designation that indicates that two substances or foods have identical molecular profiles. In other words, they are indistinguishable chemically from one another. This is possible because the introduction of a single gene does not alter the overall organism in any real way. It just allows the organism to produce a small amount of a specific protein, one of hundreds of thousands of proteins the organism may produce. If you take a term paper written by someone else, and go through and change a single word to an equivalent word (i.e. “lie” to “prevarication”) or add a single adjective or adverb as a descriptor (i.e. “bad” to “extremely bad”) do you substantially change the essence or structure of the term paper? Is it still essentially identical to the original term paper? Are they different in a very specific way? Another analogy would be two identical twins, which are absolutely identical in their genetic information, but develop physically, mentally and psychologically quite differently as individuals even in the same environment.

Specific Discussion Points

Science vs Pseudo-Science:

 What are some of the differences in how information is presented in the film between the individuals doing the research (scientist) and those commenting on the research?

 What are some examples of the use of pseudo-science presented in the film?

 Is the purpose of Greenpeace to educated people about the nature of GMOs or is it to persuade people to their point of view with street theater, dramatic stagings, and fear of the unknown?

 What do you think of the statement “we need more testing”? Does it have a legitimate scientific basis, if so, in what way? Were specific examples presented as to where research needs to go? If so, who presented these examples; was it the scientist themselves or the non-scientist? (see more discussion questions on this point below)

 Was there any indication on the part of those opposing GMOs as to what level of research would be necessary to resolve their concern? In other words, was there any indication that their opinions could be changed by advancement of scientific knowledge?


The Monarch Butterfly issue:

 In what way was John Losey’s experiment a self-fulfilling prophecy?

 Is there any evidence presented that suggest that Bt corn has produced harm to Monarch butterflies in actual environmental conditions?

 What are the major criticisms to his research?


Statement made by Jeremy Rifkin:

 Does Jeremy Rifkin provide any evidence other than the fact that he has talked to farmers for any of the statements that he made?

 “They are reducing pesticide use but, introducing more toxins than they ever introduced with pesticides”.

What evidence does he offer to substantiate this statement?

 “—corn plant that is now a factory producing toxins”.

Is the Bt toxin harmful or toxic to humans, to other animals, or the environment in general?

 “—we are introducing genes that code for proteins we have never put in the human body”.

Is this statement true? To what extent is it true? To what extent is it false and misleading?

 Does he provide evidence or give examples of these genes or proteins, or is this, again, just his opinion?

 If you take a gene from an arctic flounder and but it in a strawberry, do you introduce a gene that codes for a protein that we have never put into our bodies?
What if you have artic flounder for dinner and strawberry shortcake for desert?

 Are there any organisms you can think of that humans do not consume? We eat molds, fungi, yeast, bacteria, insects, and an incredible array of plants and animals.

Organic Farming

 Is organic farming more sustainable than the present practice of agriculture? Are farms being taken out of production because of our present agricultural practices? Are they sustainable?

 Is organic farming really free from fertilizer of pesticide use? Are organic pesticides less toxic? Is there a difference in the Bt use by organic farmers and that present in Bt corn?

 Can organic farming in the California sense really provide enough food to feed the worlds hungry? Or is this notion “ridiculous” as Norman Borglaug suggested?

Kenya and Sweet Potatoes

Unlike organic farming in the US, poor subsistence farming in Africa is real organic farming as Florence Wambugu suggest. The reality is that most farmers barely grow enough food to feed themselves and their families. The GM sweet potato developed by Dr Wambugu to be resistant to sweet potato weevil and feather mottle virus resulted in a disease resistant variety with greater production in a very impoverished rural environment.

 What are some of the advantages that she identifies for GMO in this situation?


GMO corn in Mexico

The example given of the GM corn in Mexico, which was genetically modified to produce a common substance know as citrate or citric acid. This is present in citrus fruits and indeed almost every living cell that produces energy aerobically. It is part of the basic energy cycle (Krebs cycle or citric acid cycle). In the poor soils of Mexico where aluminum is found in relatively high concentrations it causes stunting of root development and extremely poor corn yields. Citrate binds aluminum to form an insoluble salt, and allows much greater root development and potentially greater yields. The application of this technology was blocked by Geenpeace, but it could have potentially increased the amount of productive farm land by allowing lands that are too acidic or high in specific minerals to become agriculturally productive.

 Why did Greenpeace take this action? What was the outcome in really terms of alleviating hunger in that region of Mexico?

 In what ways could GMOs be developed to support poor rural farmers in developing areas of the world where poor soils, lack of rainfall, or unpredictable water supplies are the rule?


Ways that GMOs can be used

They do not require an enormous educational effort on the part of the poor farmers, does not require the application of costly fertilizers and pesticides, and represents a situation similar to the genetic improvements made to seed of cereal crops that spawned the “Green Revolution”.

They can allow for more specificity or selectivity in pesticide use. This was discussed several times, but in the case of Bt corn and the Monarch butterflies, there is relatively uniform agreement that the use of Bt corn would result in substantial reduction of external pesticide use and, therefore, environmental damage. This is also true with cotton and soy beans.

Disease resistance can be genetically inserted into plants and animals as was evidenced with the cases of sweet potatoes in Kenya and the papaya in Hawaii.

Increasing growth rate of plants and animals so they reach maturity in shorter period of time. In the film this was discussed with the salmon in aquaculture

Increase water regulation in plants so they are more efficient in their needs.

Potential Harm of GMOs

Allergens: this was brought out several times in the film, and is probably the most real serious threat of GMOs. It is not clear, however, to what extent this will be a problem. There are no cases of allergenic reactions to date. One reason may be that GMOs have been screened for potential allergens and not approved for human use if they contain any potential allergens. The example of the Brazil nut and soy bean is the best case. The potential allergenicity was picked up in a laboratory test while it was still in the developmental stage. Another example is with Starlink corn and the potential allergen cry9C, which was suggested to be allergen on in vitro studies. It is important to mention, however, that even though this corn made its way into the market place, no allergenic reactions or incidence were reported. The amounts of GM proteins that are being produced in these products would need to be at a level that would produce an allergenic response in humans; in many cases this has not been determined even for know natural occurring food allergens.

There was a suggested problem that might occur if GMOs entered the wild populations and effected the population dynamics of select organisms. However, this is still very much theoretical and based at this point only on a computer model that has not yet been validated.

There is the suggestion of the development of super-weeds and super-pest with resistance to the genetic modification. To date, there is no evidence that this has or will occur. Nevertheless, it is an important theoretical possibility that can’t be ignored. The film discussed the concept of a “non-resistant pest refuge” for pest in non-GMO fields which would allow a continual supply of susceptible pest to breed with any resistant pest which might develop. How would this Although Jeremy Rifkin suggested that farmers would not set aside these refuges, his comments were solely anecdotal and current USDA and EPA require these refuges and documentation from the agribusiness that produce them.

GMOs represent the “New Green Revolution”. In what ways is this statement correct? In what ways is it not correct?

“We need more testing”: Is this a reasonable statement? Do you think that there has been too little testing of GMO to date? What do the individuals who make this remark mean by “more testing”? Do you think the individuals who are making this statement know how and what kind of testing has been done? What kinds of testing do they want to see done? What percent of individuals are parroting this statement without knowing or understanding the basis for such a remark, or what it really means? Do you?

GMO’s and Mad Cow Disease: In the film, there is a visual presentation of the devastation of mad cow disease to cattle in Europe (Great Britain). Why is it there? What is the implication being made? Is there any relationship between mad cow disease and genetically modified organisms? Does seeing that image affect your confidence in science and the safety of GMOs?