Genetically Modified Organisms in Food

Deja Burgin
Glen Spoth
Participation In Government
1/11/16

Today in the world an exceeding amount of our food is produced after being genetically
modified. According to History of Genetically Modified Foods since 2004, genetically modified

crops were being grown by 8.25 million farmers in 17 countries. Monetarily, soybeans, maize,
cotton, and canola heavily influence the worlds biotech agriculture. America happens to be one
of the largest proponents in the advancing of biotechnology. The purpose of the DNA modified
products are to protect its consumers, save money, and overall aid the efforts of ending hunger.
Though the development of these enhancements appear to benefit lives, speculations have grown
in determining the measures of guaranteed safety within the process of creating and
technological works behind GMO foods . Generally the topic reverts back to one question most
consumers have on their minds. Is the world better off with or without Genetically Modified
food? Scientists have dedicated years of study on organisms and the combining effects of genes,
along with the inauguration of new science . The resulting outcome of the science is practical,
but not always exact in its production. Due to this, opinions have been formed suggesting that
genetically modified organisms are harmful. However these opinions may be just that...Opinions.
Based on the lack of concrete evidence, along with other contributing factors, genetically
modified organisms are yet to be proven harmful and should infact continue to be fabricated and
consumed.
Dating all the way back to the early 1800s, foods have gone under close observation and
of experimentation. Scientists and Farmers took interest in expanding the production size and
overall taste of fruits and vegetables. They referred to this practice of alteration as genetic
modifications. GMOs are certain type of organisms, plants, or animals, where the genetics have
been manipulated by manual engineering, the most popular of these modifications are the crops
used in agriculture. Early on scientist began with cross breeding with the revelation of DNA
combining. Farmers along with scientists wanted bigger and better crops to provide to
consumers. One of the first scientists to explore this was Gregor Mendel. According to the

History of Genetically Modified Foods Mendel was considered, The father of modern genetics
based on his plant hybridization experiments and the fact that he was basically the founder of
modern science genetics. Journalist, Lecia Bushak explains hybridization stating, The process
involves breeding between plants (or animals) of different species plants are more likely to
hybridize because pollen often disperses onto the flowers of other species. Mendel worked
specifically with pea plants between 1856 and 1863 and upon expansion of his doing came about
genetic engineering. Following his work was the start up of a famous agriculture company
known as Monsanto. This company controlled most of the seed industry and employed famous
chemist John Franz to redevelop glyphosate as an herbicide. Bushak also mentions in A Brief
History of GMOs that The Monsanto glyphosate later came to be known simply as Roundup,
which became one of the most commonly used herbicides among farmers, helping to keep pesky
weeds at bay. Today, Monsanto is one of the largest distributors of glyphosate-resistant crops,
currently referred to as Roundup Ready seeds. Between the time periods 1972 and 1973, U.S.
biochemists Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen developed a mechanism that allowed them to cut
DNA and attach it to other organisms, aggrandizing substantial modern biotechnology. Antonio
Regaldo points out, Around this same time, debate over GMO health risks began to come
about. (Regaldo 2015) Additionally the Journal of Central European Agriculture states Within
the last sixteen years worldwide production of genetically modified (GM) crops has been
increased sharply. At the same time, consumer's attitudes toward food products made from GM
ingredients have been largely negative. (Knezevic 2013) The consumers versus the scientist
have made the topic of GMOs to be very sensitive,but research from both parties ultimately
conclude that they should be consumed.

Those that oppose genetically altered food products have argued specifically that it
promotes health problems, and lacks not only regulation but protection against negative
substances or occurrences that impact the environment as well. The hazardous risks to the health
of the human race are connected with research leading to the rates of increasing autism and more
possible side effects arising down the line. Also due to the contradicting results, researchers
believe that the herbicides have began to inundate crops, thus not reducing the original herbicide
problem, but encouraging a greater one. Each claim has provided conclusive evidence behind
their reasoning, and strongly remain on the side of prohibiting the use of GMOs in order to
continue protection of citizens and hold the scientist behind the GMO production accountable.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) along with the American
Public Health Association and American Nurses Association disapprove of the use GMO products
believing that it may cause deformities and possibly cancer after studies were undergone. GMO
expert Jefferey Smith said, following multiple examinations that, animal testings exposed organ
damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. The
human studies showed how genetically modified food could leave material behind inside us,
possibly causing long-term adversities. (Smith 2011) Research biologist, Dr. Stephanie Sennef has
recently began to warn many about the anticipated growth of autism. She predicts, At todays
rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic. (ANH 2013) Her studies specifically analyze
the correlation between Roundup crops and the autism rates. Round up is a genetically modified
crop that is made to be resistant to harmful herbicides like glyphosate. In a controversial research
paper, student Maggie Delano clarifies, The first Roundup Ready crops were developed in 1996,
with the introduction of genetically modified soybeans that are resistant to Roundup. These crops
were developed to help farmers control weeds. The modified crops are resistant to Roundup, and

the herbicide can be used to rid unwanted leaves. Roundup Ready crops include but are not limited
to canola, corn, soy, alfalfa, cotton, sorghum, and most recently wheat has been under
development. (Delano 2009) Returning back to the studies of Dr. Seneff, she found that the
biomarkers of children that consumed Roundup crops did infact have excessive amounts of
glyphosate. she concludes finally with In my view, the situation is almost beyond repairWe
need to do something drastic. (ANH 2013) In addition to autism, cancer is also a threat to the use
of GMOs. Smith adds again in his research. Medical groups have condemned the use of GM
bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1
(insulin-like growth factor 1)which is linked to cancer.(Smith 2011)
Besides being a health hazard, speculators believe that genetically modified organisms
harm the environment. In doing so it is said that there is an increase in the use of unwanted
herbicides, and herbicides resistant weeds, and lastly contaminate other organic crops. The
chemical toxicity of the GMOs has enhanced the risks to wild life beings, bees and butterflies
being the highest concern driven creatures recently. Environmentalist Emily Glass states on
website One Green Planet, Bees are hugely important in the pollination of many food crops, but
are unfortunately extremely endangered by modern agricultural techniques, such as GM crops.
Monarch butterflies are specifically at risk from GMO maize plants. In addition to bees and
butterflies, birds are also at risk, they potentially are control agents and pollinators similarly to
bees. Continuing with the environmental impacts, it was also added that ecosystems are affected.
The biodiversity, while it is critical in all ecosystems and to the sustainability of all species, is put
at risk by GMOs.(Glass 2013) When GMO induced crops are planted some of the useful heritage
seeds are no longer being used. The nature of GMOs means less weed flowers and eventually less
nectar for the pollination process. Moreover new science has also been determined to overall be

detrimental to environmental conditions. Most recently, the EPA approved a toxic herbicide
cocktail known as Enlist Duo, a blend of glyphosate and 2,4-D, to be used on genetically
engineered corn and soybean crops in six Midwest states with consideration for adding ten more
states. Earthjustice is arguing that the EPAs approval violated the Endangered Species Act, due to
the fact that there was no confirmation by the EPA from the Fish & Wildlife Service that
determined whether or not harmful to jeopardized plants and animals of the inundated 2,4-D use.
(Coot)
Deriving from the facts of the EPA violating the endangered species act, many believe that
the scientists behind production are not adequately being checked and are working with little to no
regulation. Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments
superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. Once
again Smiths expertise have proposed that, The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for
example, doesnt require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows
companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. (Smith
2011) Some feel that their is too much GMO foods being imposed on them. The attorney of
Earthjustice, Paul Achitoff states, Nobody wants Monsanto (Herbicide producing company)
controlling their diet, but that is what's happening. Also added by Earthjustice supporters is a
statement from Gary Hooser, that believes communities have the right to determine what is
produced in their communities. He says, People have give their government up to the politicians
and corporations. And now theyre ready to take back ownership of it. (Coot) Due to the fact that
consumers don't feel their ability of choice is being honored, many oppose the making of GMO
products. Recently large biotech companies have attempted to pass the an act in favor of their
GMO vending, this act has made some consumers fear what they are eating. An advocate for

labeling laws, Scott Fader reveals, House of Representatives dubbed the DARK Act or Deny
Americans the Right to Know Act would block state GMO labeling laws and restrict FDAs
ability to craft a national mandatory GMO labeling system. H.R. 1599 would also allow companies
to make natural claims on GMO foods. (fader 2015) Biotech companies have attempted at
spending millions in the beginning 2015 to lobby Congress and gain support of their act. Overall
consumers want the opportunity to know when their food is being engineered and whether or not it
is safe. When proven harmful, opposers feel that the continuation of production should end or
perhaps be studied more before consumption.
Contrary to the many beliefs on why food engineering should not be consumed is the
multiple reasonings as to why they should continue fabrication. Scientists have proven with years
of production that genetically modified foods will and have infact impacted the lives of most. This
is something that many of the opposing forces has failed to do, they lack the concrete proof.
Studies have linked connections to problems (that have solutions), but have not pinpointed actual
cases and until then should be reamed as inaccurate accusations. Opponents have also failed to
visualize that GMOs is a scientific matter, and should not be questioned with ideology, but with
pure biotechnology science. One scientist points out its beauty when commenting, It is
marvelous how submicroscopic strands of DNA, through their many permutations, can influence
the structure, development, and functioning of every living species on the planet...it also seems
ironic that the same molecules have played such a powerful role in the recent political life of our
species. (Marschall 2005) GMOs work solely at the benefit of people in creating long term ways
to keep humanity fed, advancing technologies for the future, and their general safety that has been
highly doubted.

Ending hunger and improving the chances of survival is one of the most imperative
concern with those that market and research the production of GMOs. Rather than speculating, big
companies like Monsanto rely on pure facts. The fundamental facts are these: By 2050, the world
will need to produce somewhere between 70 percent to 100 percent more food to meet demand,
according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other authorities.
Dr. Fraley adds, Moreover, we will need to do this sustainably, so we can feed humanity again in
2051, and all the years thereafter.(Fraley 2014) From the research of Dr. Fraley, it is only
common sense to know that sooner or later there will be a definite need of food alteration in order
to continue survival. Another way that aids the efforts of preventing hunger is through the changes
in the economy. Food grown locally has always been known for its ridiculously high prices, but
GMO production would actually help insure more families are able to eat. While proposed by
many that soon the human race will die of starvation, scientists see a clear solution in food
engineering. UC Berkeleys David Zilberman says The solution is straightforward: genetically
modified crops. The professor of agricultural and resource economics contends that regulators, by
failing to approve more GMOs, are wasting one of the best tools modern agriculture has for
fighting climate change, growing more with less, and making more affordable food.(Finz 2014)
Results have been shown in creating affordable foods. Fraley helps again by adding that, GMO
crops are helping to provide more affordable food to consumers around the world. In fact, it's
estimated that world food prices would be 10 percent to 30 percent higher without GMO crops.
(Fraley 2014) The science behind GMOs is meant to adhere to upcoming problems, and supply the
the world with solutions.
Furthermore, those that have had negative attitudes about the safety of GMO food simply
are ignorant to the relative facts. The topics of herbicides and inadequate testing come up when

debating this food production, but without the assurance of safety, the foods would be unable to
undergo production and consumption. In the United States, GM food products must be
rigorously tested before they can be sold, this process is more elaborate than non GM crops. The
Memorial business institute confirms, stating, The testing process can take 7-10 years, and must
include evaluations of potential risks to humans and livestock as well as potential risks to
wildlife and the environment.(Battelle staff 2015) Throughout history, GMOs have been proven
to be the most highly tested food products based on its advanced science. Once a new invention
of food has been produced, it is checked numerous times by various scientists before marketing.
The Institute also discovered that in a review of more than 1,700 peer-reviewed studies found no
evidence that GMO crops produce adverse effects in humans or livestock. A specific experiment
overseen a study of 29 years of livestock health and productivity data. the results are as stated,
Looking at relevant data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered
feed and covering more than one billion animalsconcluded that GM feed is every bit as safe
and nutritious as non-GM. (Battelle Staff 2015) More organizations have came to the
conclusion that foods containing GM ingredients are as safe as the same foods containing
ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional techniques.
Lastly, genetically modified foods should continue to advance because of the endless
possibilities it provides for future relations. There is a beauty in the science generated by those
who have studied all possible outcomes and can see the greatness in what is to come. All the
future holds are advancements and solutions. Specifically droughts, global warming, climate
change and population increases will undoubtedly affect the foods we eat, therefore scientists
have already began to make improvements. One particular scientist, David Zilberman has begun
the research and studied many organisms. Interviewer Finz recounts his studies saying, He cites

at least 300 traits of genetic crop modificationincluding technology that would make some
crops drought resistantthat arent being used due to pressure from an anti-GMO lobby he
regards as elitist.(Finz 2014) Zilberman questions, Why not take advantage of these new
molecular discoveries?...Small organic farming is nice. But if we really want to deal with climate
change and with our growing population, then we have to take advantage of science. It is hard
to believe that food is not made with GMO since it is so suitable for consumption. The
technology will continue to enhance our lives in every discovery made. GM crops are factors of
our live, and we are all benefitting from foods and medicines derived from these transformed
plants. Many benefits include according to researcher, Peter Raven ..virtually all beer (the
brewing yeast), virtually all cheese (chymosin or rennin, the enzyme that causes milk to curdle),
virtually all soy products, about a quarter of the medicines (such as insulin) we use, most maize,
much squash, and virtually all papayas produced (Raven, 2013). There has been absolutely no
cases of ill health that has originated from the consumption of these products for the past twenty
years. Scientist add that there is no reason we should expect bad things to happen either. With
logic and proven science in order, GMOs are only assets to consumers.
As stated before, foods that have been genetically altered should be consumed based on
the many beneficial factors that are subsequently advent from its production. Based on the
evidence provided by the reasoning of those who oppose GMOs, it is clear that many are
unaware of the truth behind the science . Despite the many perceptions consumers have
concocted to oppose the developments of biotechnology in the world, the facts and science
cannot be dismissed. Foods that have been altered go under many tests to ensure safety of the
products, the work being contributed to the inventions of these foods is to hinder the potential
threat of human starvation, and lastly, GMOs are made to strictly benefit lives of consumers and

the science does nothing but advance useful technology. In conclusion it is merely mistake to
believe harm will come with the production of genetically modified organisms placed in foods.

Bibliography
James, Clive. "History of Genetically Modified Foods." History of Genetically Modified Foods.
ISAAA Organization, 2012. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.
Smith, Jeffrey. "10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs - Institute for Responsible Technology." Institute for
Responsible Technology. N.p., 25 Aug. 2011. Web. 4 Jan. 2016.
ANH-USA. "The Pulse of Natural Health Newsletter." The Alliance for Natural Health. N.p., 23
Dec. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
Delano, Maggie. "Roundup Ready Crops." The Roundup Ready Controversy. STS.015, Apr.-May
2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
Glass, Emily. "The Environmental Impact of GMOs." One Green Planet. N.p., 2
Aug. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
Coot, Mike. "Features | Earthjustice." Earthjustice. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Jan. 2016.
Faber, Scott. "The DARK Act Block Consumers' Right to Know." The DARK Act Block
Consumers'
Right to Know.
Just Label It, Sept. 2015. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.
Fraley, Dr. Robert T. "GMO Foods and the Tooth Fairy." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.
Finz, Stacy. "GMOs: Research Says They'll Help End Starvation, but Americans Remain Wary."
Cal

Alumni Association. N.p., 13 Oct. 2014. Web. 28 Dec. 2015.

Battelle Staff. "Five Good Reasons to Support GMOs." Five Good Reasons to Support GMOs.
Battelle Institute's, 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
Marschall, Laurence A. "Mendel In The Kitchen: A Scientist's View Of Genetically
Modified Foods."
Natural History 114.2 (2005): 67-70. History Reference Center. Web. 20 Dec. 2015.
Raven, Peter H. "GMO Answers." Community Manager. N.p., 2013. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
Knezevic, Nada, Jelena Dugum, and Jadranka Frece. "The status and prospects for genetically
modified food in Europe and Croatia." Journal of Central European Agriculture 14.1 (2013):
250+.
Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
Bushak, Lecia. "A Brief History Of GMOs." Medical Daily. N.p., 22 July 2015. Web. 10 Jan.
2016.
Regalado, Antonio. "The Next Great GMO Debate." MIT Technology Review 118.5 (2015): 24.
Science Reference Center. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.