Nguyen 1

Hoa Nguyen

Professor Campbell

University Writing 1104

4 November 2018

Retroactive Evolution, Proactive Modification

The question on food is understated. The understanding that genetically modified foods

are notoriously bad is misleading. As defined by Robert Blair, genetic modification (GM) is

altering the genetic make of an organism to reap desired features. This process has brought up

many controversies defining the morality of playing God. But many have denoted this and

relieve the idea for its scientific integrity and advancement to mankind. Genetic modification is

important in the grand scheme by producing mass numbers of produce for the growing world

population. According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the

world population is expected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050. Unless there’s going to be an increase

in farmers, there will need to be an advancement in agriculture or genetic modification. Genetic

modification is important for many reasons, but there are many lingering controversies

surrounding it. Genetic modified crops’ nutritional values are still in question and genetic

alteration techniques have harmful elements.

While many people believe that genetic modification include alien genetics from external

plants and animals. Genetic modification is different mutagenesis, which is where an external

genetic information is inserted into a plant or animal. Countries have created regulations

regarding mutagenesis. Some countries have created regulations on new foods produce to not

include mutagenesis, but include genetic modification (Blair, 2015). Research found by Hang
 Nguyen 2

Lu, from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences from Cornell University shows that the

public’s attitude and understanding of genetic modification comes from prior knowledge and

preexisting beliefs. This means that the public’s opinion and reactive attitude to scientific

subjects, such as genetic modification are based on what they know, or what they believe in.

Additionally, it does not matter the amount of positive effects that GM foods may have, the

opinion of the public are set in stone. While public opinion is stagnant, this does not mean the

advancements of GM crops are foiled. Climate change is a vital factor of GM crops.

Climate change yields mixed results in the eye of the public, with differing opinions on

whether the impact is great enough for a cause. While skepticism has soon passed, the belief of

reducing its’ impacts are null. This is where GM crops come into play. GM crops can be

modified to survive in the most intense environmental condition. This means that the context of

climate change will have less of an impact on food security in several areas. The food security

can help with the potential world population of 9 billion in 2050, and the increase of needed

food. The growing world population brings much more dramatic problems to the scene,

including scarcity of water, and additionally needing water to hydrate crops. This brings into

play genetically modified crops that can survive and grow with little water, this can help fight the

growing scarcity of water with the growing population. Studies done by Hang Lu shows that

public opinion on GM are positive to being used for resistance and increase food supply. The

positive reactions are just in a positive solution to the problem of food supply. This means that

the reaction to this isn’t because the GMOs are good, but rather the GMOs are solving a severe

problem.

Climate change derives an unrelenting battle between oppositions in the United States,

while conservative sides demonstrate lesser value of importance to climate change. In contrast
 Nguyen 3

with liberal opposition, who show stronger support to reduce the effects of climate change. These

political ideologies from studies show conflicting viewpoints in the American public. The topic

of climate change is essential to the discussion of climate change. Studies and hypotheses done

by Hang Lu, describes that conservatives are more willing to have a positive reaction to GMOs

when climate change is not mentioned. While liberals are more willing to have a positive

reaction when climate change is mentioned in the topic. Withdrawing from political ideology in

climate change, the messaging behind GMOs are defined by its’ dialogue upon the conversation.

If worded correctly to the correct audience, the reaction can extract as positive response.

Historically, the perception of food by the public was of utmost importance. Dating back

to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which was created to manufacture misbranded or

poisonous foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors. While food was not the most important detail on

public plates, the factor of survival and economic stability trumped the values of the people

during that era. This period was known as the Progressive era and was defined by President

Theodore Roosevelt. These regulations would penalize questionable actions and distribution of

products. An example of this is how Coca-Cola got its name. Coca-Cola was originally created

by Atlanta pharmacist John Pemberton, who was inspired by a popular French wine called coca

wine, which contained coca-leaf. Coca-Cola would eventually become cocaine-free product by

1929. Public opinion turned against the narcotic ingredient, forcing Coca-Cola to change their

recipe (Palermo, 2013).

When as the comparing cocaine and GMOs are two rationally different ideas, the notion

of public opinion is important in both aspects. Public opinion and their understanding are

important to the existence of GMOs, and any further development to GMOs. An example of

which can be seen with a newly developed technique of genetic modification called Clustered
 Nguyen 4

Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR). Even in infancy, CRISPR has

already raised controversies under its current development. CRISPR can genetically edit a

genome by removing it (Husted, 2017). This means scientists can create an animal model with

desired features, while editing out diseases such as cancer and mental illness. This technique can

help increase productivity and help with treatment for animals and livestock. The idea of editing

the genome of livestock and animals may still lie on the controversial line, but the potential of

success is still huge.

CRISPR has found a niche argument with the development and integration into medicine.

Scientists from CRISPR Therapeutics have dedicated mass amounts of research into CRISPR

and Cas9 into developing a medicine for genetically removing fatal diseases. This direction of

genetic modification can give hope and direction to a family that might be looking for a miracle.

While the belief that this is going against God’s Will. The chance to save a child’s life, or even

your own child’s life, the costs are valueless. The intention behind CRISPR has its place and the

importance of future development is vital. CRISPR and genetic modification can help redirect

the view on genetic modification. This can help with prospects in livestock and vegetation,

helping with crops that can sustain growth in harsh environments. For example, developing a

crop that can survive and mass produce growth in countries like Africa. This progression can

help with world hunger and world food security. While these possibilities are just the potential of

genetic modification, critics and concerns are still present in the process.

CRISPR concerns began with the introduction of CRISPR in China. Chinese scientists

began their research with a controversial modification of human embryo. This is tragically

immoral from the public’s viewpoint. Genetically modifying the human genome is described as

playing “God” by many. This can be said unknowingly, but the potential of being able to remove
 Nguyen 5

genetic diseases could be game changing. This changes the playground of life expectancy and

longevity. The concerns of immorality will fall under the shear presence of survival, while there

may be an audience of people who will deny the treatment. For example, there are some religions

that deny the treatment of blood transfusion. In addition, the amount of money and cost for the

medicine will cost an “arm and a leg.” This aspect of cost is evident in most newly developed

technology. Even though the cost is quite expensive, many people are willing to cough up the

price. This is also dependent on the meaning of life to them. Many people are expected to want

to live and are willing to pay the fortune of the medicine.

As stated before, the public’s opinion on genetic modification is not primarily based off

the risks or benefits of genetically modified foods. This is shown in a study by Lucy Mallinson,

which states that the response is influenced by health, food security, environment and general

safety. This research surveys the reaction and interpretation of the public’s eye on genetically

modified foods. This survey was detailed in areas such as the United Kingdom and Australian,

including several socioeconomic standings, gender, education, and age. The study shows that

science-literacy upon the public is important on acceptance for genetically modified foods. This

means that people who are more inclined for scientific advancement and beneficial development

for the world are willing to accept genetically modified foods. The study intervenes in by

speaking about different issues and factors that might impact the response to genetically

modified foods. The study concludes enveloping the responses as based on sociocultural and

ideological roots. Additionally, consumers acceptance is on the belief in the sanctity of foods,

which means that consumers like the sexiness of “pure” and “natural” foods. These descriptions

are valuable and easily persuasive to the public audience.

 Nguyen 6

The reaction of genetic modification in foods and humans is widespread a negative

reaction. This was based on studies by Lucy Mallinson and Hang Lu, which describes different

attributes that impact the ideological response to genetically modified foods. The public are

based on people’s ideologies: what is their political ideology? What is their belief upon benefit-

and-risk? What is their response to life expectancy and longevity? These questions provide a

viable reason to the reaction of genetically modified foods. Rather, the most important question

behind genetically modified food acceptance is scientific-literacy. The fear of genetically

modified foods is upon many unidentified studies, while the benefits define for a better future,

the health impacts of genetic modified foods are still unclear. Further research will define the

landscape of genetic modification.

The understanding and hatred of genetically modified foods stems from fear of the

unknown. This can be seen in history, when people would be killed and slaughtered for having

diseases or character traits that were unknown. While the comparison of ancient reactions toward

the unknown are not parallel to modern day fear, the systemic fear attribute is ingrained in

human instincts. This is supported by studies from Lucy Mallinson, which concluded that the

negative acceptance rating for genetically modified foods sprouts from misunderstandings or

lack of understanding. Even though some are educated upon the subject, this might not change

their interpretation of health concerns that linger upon genetically modified organisms. These

concerns are evident with many issues, but it must be acceptance to face the future of additional

issues. Hang Lu states that when GMOs are revealed as a solution, the acceptance of the public

change. GMOs have a defined role in society, but currently if its not acceptance anytime soon,

the consequences for the future will be dire.

 Nguyen 7

Blair, Robert, and Regenstein, J. M. . Genetic Modification and Food Quality : a down to Earth

Analysis . Wiley, 2015. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.librarylink.uncc.edu/lib/uncc-

ebooks/reader.action?docID=4038954&query. Accessed 3 Nov. 2018.

CRISPR Therapeutics. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Casebia Therapeutics, ViaCyte Inc., CureVac,

MaxCyte, MIT, StrideBio, Neon Therapeutics, MGHCC, MaSTherCell SA, UF, FARA,

2017, http://www.crisprtx.com/about-us/overview.php. Accessed 23 Oct 2018.

Husted, Kristofor. “Amid GMO Strife, Food Industry Vies For Public Trust In CRISPR

Technology.” Morning Edition. National Public Radio, 25 Oct 2017.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/25/559867742/amid-gmo-strife-food-

industry-vies-for-public-trust-in-crispr-technology. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.

Lu, Hang, et al. “Messages Promoting Genetic Modification of Crops in the Context of Climate

Change: Evidence for Psychological Reactance.” Appetite, vol. 108, no. C, Elsevier Ltd,

Jan. 2017, pp. 104–16, doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.09.026. https://www-sciencedirect-

com.librarylink.uncc.edu/science/article/pii/S0195666316304779. Accessed 4 Nov. 2018.

Mallinson, Lucy, et al. “Why Rational Argument Fails the Genetic Modification (GM)

Debate.” Food Security, vol. 10, no. 5, Springer Netherlands, Oct. 2018, pp. 1145–61,

doi:10.1007/s12571-018-0832-1. https://link-springer-

com.librarylink.uncc.edu/article/10.1007/s12571-018-0832-1. Accessed 4 Nov. 2018.

Office of the Commissioner. “FDA's Evolving Regulatory Powers - Part I: The 1906 Food and

Drugs Act and Its Enforcement.” U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page, Office

of the Commissioner,
 Nguyen 8

www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/History/FOrgsHistory/EvolvingPowers/ucm054819.htm.

Accessed 4 Nov. 2018.

Palermo, Elizabeth. “Does Coca-Cola Contain Cocaine?” LiveScience, Purch, 16 Dec. 2013,

www.livescience.com/41975-does-coca-cola-contain-cocaine.html. Accessed 4 Nov.

2018

“World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, and 11.2 Billion in 2100 | UN DESA

Department of Economic and Social Affairs.” United Nations, United Nations,

www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-

2017.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2018.