• Home
• About
• FAQs
• Students
• Exhibition
• Reflections
• Contact

Julie Campbell is fascinated by how humans interact with, modify, and evolve with their physical environments. As a Human Biology major at Stanford, she studied agriculture, urban planning, and land conservation. She also loves plants: growing them, eating them, and simply admiring them. Perhaps foreshadowing her Senior Reflection project, she was known to spend hours drawing plants from seed catalogs as a kid.

Julie Campbell

Frankenfoods

My project for The Senior Reflection, Frankenfoods, is a series of watercolor portraits of six genetically modified crops that examines the disconnect between representations of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in the media and scientific realities. Though GMOs are a very real part of almost every American grocery store, the average consumer knows little about them. Understandably, this lack of knowledge simultaneously leads to Americans having inflated expectations for and irrationally fearing GMOs. No GM crop will single-handedly solve world hunger nor cause the demise of our species. Nonetheless, new GMOs are as often hailed as saviors as they are vilified. The slightly cartoonish portrayal of each crop in Frankenfoods gently pokes fun at these often wildly exaggerated popular conceptions of GMOs, colorfully reminding viewers that the heated debate over genetic engineering is far from a black-and-white issue.

GMO: Definition and Background

A genetically modified organism, or GMO, is a plant or animal whose genetic material has been changed using genetic engineering. Conventional breeding techniques, such as hybridization, differ from genetic engineering because they are limited to crossing organisms that can successfully reproduce in nature. Specific traits can be selected for in hybridization, but genetic engineering does so with much more precision and can choose from a much larger range of traits. Contrary to popular belief, ‘genetically modified’ and ‘transgene’ are not synonymous. Many GMOs are engineered to change the expression pattern of a gene that already exists in the organism or to delete it entirely. An example of this type of GMO is the Flavr Savr tomato, which is further explained below. Other GMOs have a gene synthesized in the lab that is inserted via a bacterial vector into the target organism. This includes herbicide-resistant organisms like RoundUp Ready corn. Transgene organisms are a third subset of GMOs. These organisms have genes inserted that originated in a different species. Transgene organisms are the type of GMOs that inspired the ‘Frankenfoods’ moniker, as they can be explained as various naturally-occurring traits cobbled together to make a new individual entirely.

To genetically engineer an organism, there must be a vector to transfer the gene in question. The vector can be a microorganism, or the gene can be inserted mechanically via a gene gun or tiny syringe. To make a transgenic organism, the target gene must first be isolated from the original organism, which is done by applying a restriction endonuclease enzyme to cut the DNA at specific places. When using a virus or bacteria as a vector, the desired DNA is inserted into a microorganism that can easily enter cells to infect them. After the microorganism is placed inside a cell of the host organism, the virus or bacteria forces its genetic material, along with the target gene, into the target organism’s genome (Hudson Alpha). If the genetic material ‘sticks,’ which is up to chance, a GMO is born!

Overview of Risks and Benefits of Genetic Modification

Genetic engineering remains incredibly controversial, and is marked by an abundance of extreme opinions on both sides. A sector of scientists, some humanitarians, and agribusiness companies are convinced that genetically modified crops can and will save us from global warming, lift the world out of poverty and hunger, and reduce agriculture’s environmental impact. On the other side, many consumers, some environmentalists, and all Europeans are staunchly anti-GE. They fear that tinkering with real organisms’ DNA is nothing short of ‘playing God,’ point to a lack of thorough testing as evidence that no one knows the real repercussions of long-term use of GMOs, and predict disastrous consequences for the environment, the economy, and crop yields.

Both sides of the debate make excellent points and should be taken seriously. Personally, it’s not that I agree with both—I accept the fact that genetic engineering, as a technique, is here to stay, and want to critically evaluate each GMO as it is introduced. Nonetheless, there are a variety of benefits and risks that discussed in relation to GMOs. The first set of risks is health-related. People worry that GMOs, especially transgenic crops that combine multiple organisms into one, pose an increased risk of allergic reaction than conventional crops. There is a risk that GMOs could confer antibiotic resistance, which is often put in as a ‘marker’ gene in the lab, to the bacteria in human intestines. As adding or subtracting just one gene can have a cascade effect and change unknown amounts of processes in the plant, genetic engineering could lead to unforeseen consequences, including less nutritional benefit or increased toxicity (Sustainable Table, PBS). Even though pesticide and herbicide-resistant crops work well now, scientists worry that resistant microorganisms and insects will emerge after prolonged use of these GMOs. Researchers could create new weapons to fight off predators, but knowingly entering such an escalating arms race is risky and reckless. GMOs can also have negative environmental impact. Crops that are resistant to pesticides or herbicides, as opposed to crops that have bred-in pesticides, actually encourage overapplication of chemicals. Lastly, GM crops are grown outdoors, not in a lab. Especially for wind-pollinated species such as canola, there is a very real problem of cross-pollination with wild and conventionally bred stands of the same crop (PBS). This ‘gene pollution’ cannot be undone and can lead to dangerously increased or decreased fitness in the wild.

That said, GMOs are potentially a boon to the environment, human health, and the economy. One of the main promises GMO proponents make is that they will deliver higher yields than their conventional cousins, and thus need less land to grow the same amount of food. This will be a boon as world population continues to increase while acres of arable land remain static and land degradation increases. There are other environmental benefits to GMOs. Breeding in pesticide eliminates the need for applying toxic chemicals that otherwise seep into watersheds and blow into the air; needing less water or fertilizer further decreases needed inputs. Creating drought-resistant crops and ones that can grow in salty or marginal soils would effectively increase Earth’s amount of arable land. Genetic engineering can also help humans adapt to anthropogenic climate change, as GMOs could help farmers adapt faster than they otherwise could to shifting temperature and precipitation. Engineering crops to last longer would lead to less food waste and therefore less food spending. In addition, needing fewer inputs and being more resilient to shocks of climate or drought would make GMO crops cheaper for farmers to produce in the long run (PBS). Crops can also be engineered to have increased nutrition while tasting the same, as seen in the cases of Golden Rice and calcium-fortified carrots. These products lead to improvements in public health as nutrient deficiencies and malnutrition are avoided and a higher quality of life for the world’s poor, who have no choice but an unbalanced diet. Researchers even endeavor to eventually make “eatable vaccines” from GM produce (PBS).

My goal with my Senior Reflection project was to encourage viewers to form their own opinion of genetic engineering from scientific evidence and factual data, instead of giving into occasional fearmongering in the media or propaganda disseminated by agribusiness. This can be difficult, given the “pervasive lack of biotech knowledge” among Americans. Three-quarters of American adults erroneously believe they have never eaten food made with GMOs. When consumers find out that a whopping 89 percent of soybeans and 61 percent of corn in US supermarkets is GM, their lack of knowledge combines with their surprise to create irrational fears that can lead to rejecting GE before they know anything about it (Recipe for America).

GMOs are not a monolithic issue—there are many different types of engineering crops, and each one comes with a separate set of consequences. We cannot condemn or praise genetic modification as a whole based on the example of the success or failure of one crop in particular. Genetic engineering is now indisputably part of scientists’ technological toolkit, and it can be employed to a variety of ends. I strongly believe that each new GM crop must be rigorously tested, as unforeseen consequences can and will occur, but I agree that, as Henry Miller asserted in 2000, government agencies should not treat GMOs as guilty until proven innocent when conventionally hybridized new crops are not subject to any approval process (Miller).

Specific Background for Each Piece in Frankenfoods

Golden Rice is enriched with Vitamin A, which is intended to help prevent blindness caused by Vitamin A deficiency, but also gives the rice its golden color. Since up to 500,000 people each year go blind and have their immune systems compromised due to Vitamin A deficiency, Golden Rice endeavors to treat a real public health problem. Normal rice contains beta-carotene in the husk of the grain, but not in the edible endosperm portion. Thus, once it is processed and suitable for long-term storage, its beta-carotene levels are negligible. Golden Rice is safe and as tasty as regular rice, but the amount of Vitamin A it delivers per serving is nowhere near enough to avert all cases of preventable blindness. Nonetheless, there is a large humanitarian campaign to bring Golden Rice to impoverished nations suffering from Vitamin A deficiency. The addition of Golden Rice can help provide Vitamin A when relying on a balanced diet is not an option (GoldenRice.Org).

Papayas sold in the US occasionally have the pesticide Bt bred into their genes. Bt, or Bacillus thurigiensis, is a naturally occurring soil bacterium that kills insects by essentially eating through the linings of their stomachs, which have a pH near to neutral. Since mammal stomach acid has an extremely low pH, the bacteria have no effect on humans. Despite Bt’s safety for human health and preexistence in soil, some people see the inclusion of a pesticide in a plant’s genetic material as making nature both creepy and clinical. The other type of GM papaya is made to prevent the papaya ringspot virus, a destructive disease endemic to Hawaii, where most papayas are grown. These plants are created by inserting a gene for a coat protein that encodes the virus into the papaya, thus making it resistant (USDA ERS, GM Crop Database).

Flavr Savr tomatoes, the first GM crop introduced to the US, were FDA approved in 1994. In the 1980s, researchers at UC Davis discovered that polygalacturonase, an enzyme naturally found in tomatoes, was the mechanism behind fruit softening. Researchers inserted an antisense copy of that same PG gene into tomatoes. This insertion worked to repress expression of the gene and thus slow degradation of pectin in the cell walls of tomatoes. Hence, Flavr Savr tomatoes were genetically modified, but not transgene. Flavr Savr tomatoes ripened slower than conventional tomatoes, in an effort to make mechanical harvesting easier. This also allowed on-the-vine ripening, which creates a tastier tomato, without bruising in transport or relying upon ethylene ‘de-greening.’ Lab tests proved them indistinguishable from normal tomatoes, and no allergic reactions were ever found. This success story didn’t last long, as the tomatoes simply too expensive to succeed and could never turn a profit (Bruening and Lyons).

Corn is America’s most popular GM crop: 86% of all corn planted in the US is genetically modified. There are 53 different types of GM corn, and almost all have bred-in herbicide resistance or pesticide. Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready corn, which features resistance to the herbicide glycoside, which Monsanto sells as RoundUp, is one of the most popular varieties. Planting crops with herbicide resistance allows farmers to indiscriminately spray herbicide to kill weeds without worrying about harming their crop. The other popular version of GM corn has Bt bred into it, similar to the papaya. The majority of corn, in fact, is ‘stacked’ to have both GM traits in each ear. Most GM corn, along with almost all hybridized corn varieties currently planted, also happens to be sterile. Seeing the seeds’ hybrid sterility as a strategy designed to breed dependence on seed companies, anti-GMO activists have termed GM corn ‘Terminator Corn’ and likened it to a time bomb in the field (USDA ERS, GM Crop Database).

Oranges engineered to include a gene that codes for an antifreeze protein originally in the blood of a deep-sea fish are being researched. The protein would allow oranges to be successfully harvested even after a freeze, which would obviously be to the economic benefit of farmers. Unsure what to think about transgenic crops like this orange, people wonder, Is it still vegetarian? Is it even an orange anymore? Research like this is tricky and expensive, and the FDA is hesitant to approve transgene crops that insert animal genes into plants. Hence, it will be a long time before such a product hits the market, even though they can be created in the lab.

Salmon genetically engineered to grow twice as fast as its conventional cousin was approved by the FDA in the winter of 2011, making them the first GM animal. The fish is branded as AquAdvantage Salmon, and can grow to market size in half the time of a Chinook salmon, the most popular type found in the Pacific Northwest. Though they are intended to live in aquaculture ponds in the Pacific, the fish is actually an Atlantic salmon with a Chinook salmon gene. Its rapid growth comes from the insertion of a gene from a third fish called an ocean pout, making it a transgene organism. The AquAdvantage Salmon is a sterile female, so arguably no contamination of wild population will occur (Egan). Nonetheless, fears about their possible escape and subsequent interbreeding with wild salmon populations terrify some; such an event could have disastrous ecological effects.

Evolution of Idea

I entered fall quarter of my senior year wanting this project to be about land, since that is where my fundamental interest lies. At the same time, however, I am fascinated with and entranced by the beauty of plants. To combine the two, I conceived my project as one focusing on land, but at multiple scales. With this clever manipulation of subject, I figured I would be able to communicate my passion for nature ranging from wide-open spaces to individual leaves. The only thing I wasn’t sure of was what I was trying to say with my proposed work. I am all for beautiful works of art that exist only to be beautiful, but I wanted something more from my year-long investment in Senior Reflection.

As I continued to sketch and brainstorm for my project, I realized what most excited me about it: the chance to communicate a specific thesis in a thought-provoking way. Now I was starting with the idea instead of with the presentation, an artistic process that I believe leads to works that can be equally beautiful but are much stronger thematically. I started conceptualizing my project as less about reflecting on the beauty of plants themselves and more of a social commentary on humans’ relationships with a specific subset of plants, namely GMOs. After all, as Edgar Degas said, “Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.” Through my Senior Reflection project, I wanted to open my viewers’ eyes to a new, and perhaps controversial, perspective on GM crops. This realization helped my project morph from something I wanted to create for my eyes to a work intended for public consumption instead of just my own enjoyment. This ended up being fitting, as I later found out our projects would be displayed from May until October, an honor of which I wanted to take full advantage.

Evolution of Aesthetic Presentation

The aesthetic details of my works continued changing as I refined the ideas behind project. In my proposal from fall quarter, I detailed two separate ideas of possible presentations. One was a series of eight images portraying four GMO crops, with two images per crop; the second was a series of nine images, one image per crop, which would be broken into three sections of three images each. Each crop in the series of eight would be depicted twice. Realistic expectations of it accurately drawn in colored pencil, while the fantasies surrounding its cultivation would be colorfully and dreamily represented in a watercolor work. The series of nine would display nine different crops, and the paintings would be hung in a 3x3 array. The paintings would additionally be categorized by row. The top would depict unrealistically positive depictions in watercolor, the center row realistic colored pencil drawings, and the bottom row displaying exaggerated fears, again in watercolor.

During winter quarter, these plans changed substantially. I decided to essentially scrap the series of nine and focus on the concept behind the series of eight. I decided the split in media in the series was uneven enough that it felt unbalanced and that the series of eight’s obvious presentation of both sides of the issue was unnecessary and perhaps a bit pedantic. In addition, I realized the fantastical watercolors were not only more exciting to look at and more fun to do than the botanical drawings, but also made the point I wanted to convey more concisely and with a bit more humor.

The decision to leave out the academic drawings would, in itself, bring attention to the outlandish nature of the watercolors. By removing the point of comparison to rational conceptions of GMOs and clustering together a diverse array of examples, I could let viewers realize for themselves that popular conceptions of these crops are a bit ridiculous. In the depth of a worried someone’s thoughts, the idea of each papaya in a field getting an inoculation of pesticide seems possible. Once displayed in brilliant color, however, and grouped with a gargantuan fish and an ear of corn-cum-weapon, the originally fearful viewer might see the depiction as overblown and a bit humorous. Ideally, after reading the caption beside the piece, he might go on to take time to revise his original conception of the GE crop as sinister or saintly.

Since I was now only going to have one image per species, I realized that tackling eight or nine different GM crops, each with their own image, risks, benefits, and quirks, was a bit overwhelming. Instead, I wanted to focus on really bringing out the story and personality of fewer crops, and decided that downsizing to six paintings instead of eight or nine would allow me to go as deeply into each subject as I wanted. Though the idea of showing agriculture impacting life at many different scales, from cellular processes to global land use concerns, was part of my original idea, I refocused on the simple, but rich, idea of making plant portraits. By focusing on only a few recognizable individuals of each crop, viewers would know what they were looking at and thus have more ability to connect with the subjects. I retained the concept of having meaning in the paintings’ organization on the wall from my original idea. In my new series of six, I would again choose an array, but this time make it 3x2. The final presentation displays works with positive expectations on the top row and ones with unrealistically negative portrayals in the media on the bottom row. In addition, they transition in color from cooler greens and yellows on the left to bright oranges and reds on the right.

Works Cited

“Adoption of Genetically Modified Crops in the US.” USDA Economic Research Service. 1 July 2010. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/

Bruening, G. and Lyons, J.M. “The Case of the Flavr Savr Tomato.” University of California: California Agriculture. 2000. http://ucanr.org/repository/cao/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v054n04p6&fulltext=yes

Egan, Timothy. “Frankenfish Phobia.” The New York Times. 17 March 2011. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/frankenfish-phobia/?emc=eta1

“Golden Rice.” Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. http://goldenrice.org

“GM Crop Database.” Center for Environmental Risk Assessment. http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database

“Harvest of Fear: Should We Grow GM Crops?” PBS. 2001. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html

“How Are GMOs Made?” Hudson Alpha Institute for Biotechnology. 2010. http://www.hudsonalpha.org/education/kits/gmod/gmos-made

“Labeling: Genetically Modified Foods.” Recipe for America. 11 November 2007. http://www.recipeforamerica.org/page.php?id=8

Miller, Henry I. “In Defense of Gene-Spliced Corn.” 13 October 2000. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/10/columns/fl.miller.genesplice.10.13/

“The Issues: Genetic Engineering.” Sustainable Table: Serving Up Healthy Food Choices. http://sustainabletable.org/issues/ge/