History of Genetic Manipulation of Food Development

Despite the stigma surrounding GMOs, the general population is generally ignorant to the science and history behind GMOs. This is however not without merit, as how many times have we heard the stories of failure associated with human intervention in nature? But regardless of the contemporary discovery of genetics and modification of biological functions in the molecular level; GMOs are ancient. Human-directed genetic manipulation of food began with domestic cultivation of crops and animals around 10,000 B.C.. Selective breeding was instrumental for the best profitable outcome during the harvest. Selectively choosing desirable traits in an entity was a direct precursor to the modern concept of GMO. With the discovery of DNA in the year 1956 and the ability to manually modify genetics throughout the 1970s, it became possible to manipulate the genes and DNA of all foods. The first approved genetically modified food available for human consumption was the “Flavr Savr” tomato, which had an anti-aging gene inserted in it to increase shelf life was released in 1994. This was a major turning point in science, and has since sparked up the debate whether humans should directly influence nature.

Our ancestors, despite their limited scientific knowledge, had their own process of choosing and cultivating crops called “artificial selection”. This term was first conceived by Charles Darwin, an evolutionary biologist. He described the process as one which people would choose the most healthy stock with the most plentiful harvest to be planted, while discarding the the less desirable stock. The earliest evidence of the artificial selection of a plant dates back to 7800 B.C, where archaeological evidence suggests that the peoples of south Asia used a process of selection for different kinds of wheat. Selection was not just used for plants but also for animals, the dog was the first of its kind to be mutated for a desirable outcome. About 32,000 years ago, when humans were still hunters and gatherers, animals were an imperative aspect of hunting, as they could detect smells and attack other game for humans to eat. Research suggests that, the dogs that were domesticated back then, were found to be closely related to what are currently known as Chinese native dogs.

The best result that historians can agree up that we achieved from artificial selection was corn, also known as maze in some parts of the world. When corn was first being harvested, its kernels were small and few, but with selective process the kernels gradually became bigger and more plentiful. Similar results have occurred with foods such as papaya and broccoli. Now, nobody has had a problem with these methods over the centuries, what's the difference between the primitive ways of modifying foods back then and the modern ways we use today? Well, as oppose to just selecting what plants and animals are being procreated, scientists are digging deep into the molecular level to influence what goes on. In 1973, Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, invent genetic engineering (G.E), they were the first to add foreign D.N.A in another organism. This method is applied in the laboratory where plants that possess the desired gene, has that gene physically moved or added to a new plant to augment the trait in that plant. Plants made with this technology are called transgenic plants. Generally, this process is performed on crops to make herbicide or pesticide resistant plants, these are referred to as Genetically Modified Crops.

All of these products of genetic engineering were created using the same steps: locating a trait of interest, targeting that genetic trait, placing that trait into the genome of a specific organism, and then growing that said organism. The way that scientists insert a specific gene into another organism is by using a gene gun. A gene gun or sometimes referred to a particle delivery system, is a device used to administer cells with certain genetic information. The ammunition is a particle of a metal coated with plasmid DNA. The method is often referred to as biolistics. The gene gun is capable of transforming almost any type of cell, including that of plants, and is not only subjected to the genetic substance of the nucleus, it can also mutate organelles, including plastids. The final step is placing these new plants in carefully monitored enclosures where they grow and replicate. The best growth conditions are prominent during this stage.

See graph below for further analysis.A significant portion of the populus believes that GMOs are bad for your health, this however is not the case. There are several pros to cultivating modified food, for example, Farmers choose seeds that are best for their farms and businesses. They select seeds which are best for their land, growing conditions. Farmers pick seeds based on what is best for the market and local growing environments as well . GMOs reduce yield loss or crop damage from weeds, diseases, and insects, as well as from extreme weather conditions, such as drought. Farmers have also used GMOs to save certain crops such as the papaya that was being affected by disease.

GMOs have been proven to reduce c02 emissions, the equivalent of removing 12 million gas powered cars off the road. Other positive effects have been that GMOs require less water and less soil to flourish.

GMOs have literally saved lives. Many parts of the world, especially third world countries, have food that lacks nutrition and as a result many health crises has arisen. Golden rice was a rice modified to hold vitamin A, it came around the early 2000s. The major con however is the people that are actually doing the modifying. Monsanto is an agricultural company, and a prominent power in the GMO field. They have in the past be subjugated to scandals with putting GMOs that had allergic effects to the masses. One can perceive the fact that for some personal profit is all that matters. However that was only one instance and since then GMOs have came a long way. The future hold bright for GMOs as technology advances so does our potential to maximise what can be done. The overwhelming evidence states that despite the debatable ethics of manipulating nature.