Along with environmental activism, food awareness has recently come to prominence. Books such as The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan and movies such as Food, Inc. call upon the public to take greater ownership over what we consume. One of the major issues in food awareness that sometimes slips under the radar is that of genetically modified foods. The main argument for creating and growing genetically modified crops is the great potential they have as solutions for such problems such as world hunger, nutrient deficiency, resource managment, and pesticide avoidance. Despite this high potential, it is important to be wary of progress and stress safety in any creation of a new entity. Among the opponents of genetic modification of crops, many of the arguments revolve around wariness of the risks of gmo's. Below, we've outlined some of the major arguments made against the safety of gmo's, and the rebuttals made by the GE community.

Genetic modification is a common topic for popular media and journalists alike. A public dialogue about the promises and drawbacks of genetic modification is both neccessary and good for our society, and so the misrepresentation of genetic modification science is a troubling pattern in the world today. Media, both entertainment and journalistic, frequently implicitly encourages the perception of genetic modification as likely to go wrong or produce an abomination. The Dr.Frankenstein archetype runs deep in media coverage of genetic modification, with fictional genetic engineers often portrayed as remorseful creators of ungodly monsters, much like the protagonist of Mary Shelby's famous novel.

Portrayal of genetic engineering often implicitly endorses the view that modification of genes is unnatural and unholy, and that any product of such work will inevitably lead to despicable, disastrous creatures. Furthermore, a common misconception that genetically modified organisms will be a sort of 'blend' of the organisms from which the modified DNA was derived, rather than the highly specific and predictable set of traits that are in reality added or removed in genetic engineering.

The popular TV series Fringe provides an excellent example of this. This fictional series centers around bizzare and often horrific incidences involving cutting edge science or technology such as flesh-eating bacteria or viruses that grow to more than a foot long (and inexplicably resemble slugs) in response to a signal. Dr. Walter Bishop, an eccentric scientist known for performing questionable experiments in the past features prominently in the team of investigators and frequently delights in the technology wreaking havoc on the world around him(technology which is often based on work he himself did years ago). Often he reacts with boyish excitement to having more dead bodies to examine. Reacting blithly to most horrors encountered by the team, the emotional shell of this morally dubious character is cracked only once by remorse over the consequences of his previous work. He feels remorse only when a genetically modified animal (which resembles an Egyption hieroglyphic, possesing a medly of whole body parts from snakes, a lion, and an octopus) a var of his creation escapes a lab. It is telling that the writers of Fringe found genetically modified animals to be the only thing likely to stir remorse in a character who happily describes gruesome violence caused by his work as fascinating.

We hope to combat the idea that genetic modification is unnatural and unholy, and that any work in this field will inevitably lead to disaster and remorse. Most people in our society don't have any (knowing) interaction with genetic modification except through watching shows like Fringe, and the attitudes presented there will, without alternatives, strongly impact people's view of this science. By growing their own genetically modified plants, in a safe and personalized setting, we hope to demonstrate the basic safety and great positive power of genetic modification, and thereby encourage a re-examining of the beliefs presented in popular media at a person-to-person and ground-up level.

Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgroSciences and many others have made the business of agricultural biotech famous the world over. Often controversial, the prominent role of large corporations in this field has led many anti-GMO activists to equate genetic engineering with corporate profits. While crop biotech is a multi-billion dollar industry, it is important to keep in mind that the science behind it is no more intrinsically corporate than unmodified seed and plant companies. Our iGarden project strives to demonstrate by example how open-source, non-corporate plant modification can be fun, useful, and safe for everyday people and farmers alike. Whether the criticism of plant biotechnology corporations is founded or unfair, the science which underlies their business holds the power to save or improve lives from the developing world to suburbia, and should not be blithely thrown out along with criticized corporate practices. By allowing individuals to grow their own modified garden, our project aims to break the connection between coorporations and genetic crop technology to ensure new developments are judged on their merits and not merely by association.

Monsanto

Monsanto is the world's leading producer in genetically engineered seed. The company was founded in 1901 in St. Louis, Missouri, and became the first to genetically alter a plant cell in 1982. The majority of the genetic engineering done to its seeds today involves adding resistance to its pesticide Roundup. Monsanto continues to face strong opposition due to its production of GM seed.

DuPont

Pioneer, DuPont's plant genetics branch, is Monsanto's chief rival for producing genetically engineered seed. Its most circulated GM seeds are maize and soybean. Like Monsanto, Dupont continues to deal with public and political opposition.

Dow AgroSciences

A branch of The Dow Chemical Company, Dow AgroSciences is the third significant player in producing GM seeds in the US. Dow AgroSciences has teamed with Monsanto in developing products such as insect and weed repellent corn. The company continues to research genetically modified maize, soybean, canola, and cotton.

Mad Cow Disease

Genetic Use Restriction Technology

Governmental regulation of genetic crop technology is a hot topic, and, typically for a field of such controversy, shapely divided in opinion. Frequently debates of how (if at all) the government should intervene in this field boil down to anti-GMO activists calling for a total ban of genetic modification in any circumstances, and a second group calling for no government intervention at all, with relatively little middle ground.

Finding the right balance for state and federal policy is exceptionally difficult due to the scope of genetic modification technology (encompassing everything from agriculture to industrial manufacturing to medicine). While our project focuses specifically on food and small-scale gardening, the iGarden would undoubtedly fall under the roof of any policy on synthetic biology or genetic technology. As such we take an interest not only in policy regarding genetically modified crop plants, but also in the US government's early stirrings towards examining synthetic biology as a whole.

The Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA - 1975

In February 1975, an association of scientists met in Asilomar, California to discuss the implications and regulation of recombinant DNA technology. Out of this meeting came a series of self-regulatory rules which are an important pillar in biology lab safety to this day, perhaps most famously the designation of biology labs according to the riskiness of the experiments conducted there (BL1-BL4). This conference was significant not only in the actual rules it set for biology researchers, but also for the precedent of self-regulation by researchers. This early step taken by scientists preemptied governmental intervention more than 30 years ago, and because the rules were set by individuals highly knowledgable in the field, they may have been more effective and appropriate than those set by individual's in the government without such knowledge. On the other hand, critics of scientific self-regulation would argue that scientists have incentive to not regulate themselves enough. Good or bad, this form of internal regulation has heavily influenced the field since the 1970s.

Presidential Council on Bioethics - 2010

This summer the Presidential Council on Bioethics started a series of ongoing hearings on synthetic biology. This is an early sign of governmental actions which could possibly have massive effects on the field of synthetic biology in the United States. We highly recommend to those interested in the direction of plant biotechnology and synthetic biology as a whole.