Category: Genetically Modified Food

Everyday, citizens go to their local grocery store to buy food. Many foods claim to be healthy to eat and provide the most nutrition. Some of these foods could contain a label showing ‘GMO’ or ‘non-GMO’, and this can be confusing for some people. What do these food labels mean to everyday people, and should genetically modified foods be required to be labeled or do they even matter?

A GMO is actually a genetically modified organism, in this case they are crops. Any crop that has been changed in anyway is considered a GMO. In most cases crops are modified to withstand harsh climates and still produce the food we need by depriving plants of water and nutrients. Then, using a device called a ‘gene gun’, which inserts DNA on microscopic gold particles, or a soil bacterium capable of changing plants genes, they alter or silence parts of the plant’s genome, adjusting how and when the plant makes the hormones that let it know when to grow and when to wither. GMO crops can show any desirable trait in food with enough time and effort, and with developing technology humankind can further understand how the process works. Even with the technological advancements scientists have today, they still cannot predict how well non-GMO crops will grow compared to GMO crops, because modified organisms are engineered to work in specific environments. GMO foods are predictable and engineered for the best result, while non-GMO foods are all natural without synthetic genes being inserted to change the genome.

GMO crops are an entirely different type of food, but what kind of benefits do they yield? One of the most common is the physical modifications such as heat and drought tolerance. This is done by subjecting plants to harsh conditions in order to get it to act a certain way. In her article ‘Can GMOs Help Feed a Hot and Hungry World?’, Ostrander explains how the process works, “In the greenhouse, the researchers force the rice to cope with heat and deprive it of water just as it’s about to set seed” (p. 24). GMOs can also provide an excellent source of income for farmers as they are highly valued over traditional crops. Paul Kaiser, a farmer who was interviewed by Ostrander (2014), said “We earn over $100,000 per crop acre per year” (p. 27). To put this in perspective, farmers made an average of $6,000-$8,000 per acre of cabbage or cucumbers in California during 2012.

Why do so many people have negative feelings towards GMOs in today’s media if they have a bunch of positives? Regulation laws are vague as stated by Linnekin in her article, ‘A Crummy Law Leads to Crummy GMO Regulations’: “Two features of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard are particularly troubling. First, the law leaves room for “other factors and conditions” that would trigger mandatory GMO labeling. That vague language is sure to sow confusion and lead to lawsuits for years to come” (p. 8). GMOs can be created with dangerous insecticides, which is the other main reason why they are feared by many people. Insecticides are used on GMOs to prevent insects from attacking the crops, but some of the chemicals used are dangerous. One example includes the chemical used in the Vietnam War known as Agent Orange. McMillin states in ‘Trouble from Frankenfoods’, “The Veterans Administration (VA) regards Agent Orange exposure as associated with Parkinson’s disease, as well as numerous other conditions. These include diabetes, neuropathy, heart disease, liver dysfunction, chloracne, numerous cancers (e.g., leukemia, lung, prostate, and multiple myeloma) as well as birth defects (e.g., spina bifida) in the children of exposed soldiers” (p. 5). There are many bad things about GMOs, such as cross pollination and using chemicals known to be dangerous to treat crops. GMOs are safe to eat, but is their entire aspect also safe?

To finalize all thoughts, a GMO is any modification to an organism to change its genome, in this case the modification is to create bigger and stronger crops. Dangerous chemicals are used to treat the crops we eat, and poor regulations are put in place by our government to keep GMOs safe, but why is all of this information important? Take a look at the foods seen by people every day at the store and see how many people actually consume GMOs, the number could be quite surprising.

Genetically modified food in some communities is still mistakenly considered as too risky technology. For instance, an anti-GMO group called the Non-GMO Project maintains that there still are not enough trustworthy studies, this type of food can be avoided and GM does not have any pros at all. And, it is easy to understand this statement because many people do not like when natural processes have interfered with anything unknown, and they’re doubtful about that direction. So, what is so erroneous in this type of view?

Firstly, it is not so easy as it seems to avoid all GMO products, because 79% of soybeans, 70% of cotton, 32% of maize and 24% of canola are modified globally (James, Clive. 2013). In the USA it is even harder to not consume them due to the fact that 94 percent of the soybean crops in the United States were genetically modified (M. Shahbandeh, Oct 8, 2019). Moreover, according to the same research USA takes first place by hectarage of the biotech crop. In addition, about 60% to 70% of all processed grocery store products have some GMO ingredients, according to a 2015 story in Vox made by Brad Plumer.

Secondly, most recent studies are in a wide disagreement with this statement. In actuality, there have been more than 1000 studies on the safety of GMOs, which were not bought by interested parties. The most referable recent research is ‘Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects’. For this study in the spring of 2016 more than 20 scientists, researchers, agricultural and industry experts with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) gathered to analyze 2 decades of data and about 900 researches and tests of GMOs. Their conclusion says that genetically engineered (GE) crops are safe to eat and does not influence our environment, even their nutrition is not distinguishable from non-genetically modified crops. Even if this research does not give you enough satisfaction to rely on it, then look at the information given by the World Health Organization in 2014. According to their words, all of the international market’s genetically modified products have been approved by the safety assessments that were carried out by national authorities.

Thirdly, GM seeds will help to face the ‘feeding the world’ issue. The population in the world is anticipated to grow by 2 billion people in the next 3 decades, from 7.7 billion currently to 9.7 billion in 2050, according to a new United Nations report published on 17th of July of 2019. Sometime after publication of this report, a World Resources Institute’s work, called ‘Creating a Sustainable Food Future: Final Report’, stated urgent changes in the global food system are needed to make sure there is enough food for nearly 10 billion people by 2050. The report says that increasing the use of genetically modified crops is one of the most crucial steps to achieve desired result. The WRI recommended making significantly more genetically modified crops than just corn, soy and wheat, and to work with crops not trafficked globally such as sorghum, millet, peas, and barley. According to them, genetic engineering tools such as CRISPR can be able to solve the future problem of deficiency of food by developing more crop resiliency.

Despite all the information above, like all things in our world GM food cannot be completely safe. There are plenty of major factors that give some people reasons to join a non-GMO community: cross-pollination, the economy.

Cross-pollination is the process, during which one plant pollinates a plant of another variety. Plants have been doing this process since the emergence of life on Earth. GM crops are not the exception. The cross-pollination between GM and GM-free crops or in other words combining of GM and organic seeds may cause to a large quantity of problems for farm workers. Due to the asynchrony of the deregulation of GM crops around the world, GM crops might unexpectedly appear in organic food. Cross-pollination of those seeds might lead to difficulty with the GM-free status of agricultural companies and menace markets for them (Van Acker, McLean, & Martin, 2007).

Providing a GM crop to market is both high-priced and takes a great deal of time, and agrarian bioengineering companies are able to develop only those products that are more likely to bring a return on their investment (Ramaswami, Pray, & Lalitha, 2012). It is expensive, due to the fact that, the prices of bioengineered seeds are high and they are not affordable for smaller companies (Ramaswami et al., 2012). It is time-consuming because all GM products must be tested before getting to the market shelves (World Health Organization, 2014). A considerable range of problems comes from these characteristics of GM crops, including debts of small companies and only huge corporations have GM crops on the market (Finger et al., 2011).

So, as can be seen from the above information, genetically modified food has both advantages and obvious disadvantages. However, the attitude towards it, as well as the support of the anti-GMO or pro-GMO group, remain up to the individual.

This is an argumentative research essay. The topic that I have chosen to write about is genetically modified organisms vs. non-genetically modified organisms. It has been big debate for many years in this country. I have done a couple of different since experiments in the past that tie into this topic. There are many different pros and cons to each of these topics. Out of all the food that is possible in the world, I believe that the food grown with non-genetically modified organisms are better for overall compared to the food grown with genetically modified organisms.

Genetically Modified Organism

A genetically modified organism is a plant, animal, microorganism or other organism who genetic makeup has been modified in a laboratory using engineering or transgenic technology. Back in 1973 two biochemist named Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen developed the genetic engineered bacteria. Genetic engineering gives the scientists the ability to take one gene to implant. Then in 1982 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first consumer product that was created by these two biochemists. Some examples of foods with genetically modified organisms; potatoes, apples, squash, soybeans, alfalfa, and papaya to name a few. There are hundreds of foods out there grown with genetically modified organisms. The genetically modified organisms can have a good or bad to your body.

There are not any pros to eating food that contain genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified organisms are beneficial to the famers is serval ways. Some of the advantages of genetically modified organisms are that it gives the farmer a higher yield and better growth in poor growing conditions. Some crops have been modified with genes that help them survive stressful conditions, such as droughts, and resist diseases like blights. Studies have shown that genetically modified organisms have reduced the number of pesticides used on crops that are grown with genetically modified organisms. The genetically modified organism plant has a gene that produces a protein that has toxins in it. The toxins are powerful enough to kill any pests or insects trying to destroy the crop. The protein gives the genetically modified organism plant a natural resistance. Also, the price of foods with genetically modified organisms are much cheaper for the consumer as well as the farmer.

There are many downfalls to genetically modified organisms such as allergies, cancers, and environmental concerns. People worry about all time about whether they will have a reaction to a food. For example, a study from the mid-1990s found that adding a protein from Brazil nuts to GMO soybeans could trigger an allergic reaction in people sensitive to Brazil nuts. Having a concern about getting a food allergy is normal for many people, but there have been no allergies that have been tied to a genetically modified organism food that is available in stores today. Another concern is cancer, because it is created from DNA mutations. It is proven that by adding a gene to these foods people are eating, they think that it can cause side effects to the DNA in their body. There are no ties to cancer being caused from eating genetically modified organisms. Lastly, there are concerns to the environment. The big concern in my opinion is the use of herbicides by the farmers on the crops. For example, most GMO crops are resistant to herbicides, such as Roundup. This means that farmers can use Roundup without fear of it harming their own crops. I understand that using herbicides helps kill the weeds around their crops as well as helps keep the bugs from destroying their crops. The only concern I have is that there are farmers out there who spray their crops on days that they should not, which causes the chemicals to drift in the air and land of someone’s personal garden or flower bed. The chemicals they use are stronger than normal which could kill those things or could be harm for the human when they eat the produce.

Non-Genetically Modified Organism

A non-genetically modified organism is a product was produced without genetic engineering and its ingredients are not derived from genetically modified organism. Also, the non-genetically modified organism has less chemicals and toxins involved the growing process that is less harmful to the body. Some examples of food that are grown without added genetically modified organism are organic plants and animals.

There are several ways that non-genetically modified organism is beneficial for the human body such as it is healthier, reduces the chances of having allergic reactions, and prevent nutrient deficiency. For example, you can gain far more nutritional benefits from eating organic fruits and vegetables than you would from the GMO variety. One reason I think non-genetically modified organisms are healthier for the human body is because it has less chemicals and some of the trans fats can be removed from the product. Another reason is that non-genetically modified organism has more nutrients that the human body needs to help grown and function daily. Also, there are benefits to the farmers for growing non-genetically modified organisms. Some of the benefits include premiums, potential growth in the next years, and higher demands for non-genetically modified organism crops. For example, farmers can capture premiums for growing non-genetically modified crops. But those premiums don’t come easy. Famers must go through a lot to fall under the category to receive the premiums. Farmers I have talked to say that growing non-genetically modified organism would be nice because of the high demands and the potential for higher yielder in the future.

There is lot of downfalls for farmers to grow non-genetically modified organisms. The main struggle that farmers go through is the financial portion. Some of the other struggles farmers must go through to grow non-genetically modified organisms is dealing with forward contracts, cleaning combines, on-farm storage, inventive ways of dealing with weed and insect pressure, certifications, audits and visits. Farmers must store the seed in a special climate-controlled building, needs extra storage bins to keep separate from the regular crops, and special drying systems. Another is the price for non-genetically modified organism which is going to be a little higher than genetically modified organism. For example, the price of non-genetically modified organism per bushel was twelve dollars and twenty-five cents and the cost for genetically modified organism per bushel was eleven dollars and fifty cents. There is not much of a difference for an average person looking at those numbers. When it comes to a farmer who has hundreds or even thousands of acres of tillable farmland it adds up quickly. People think that farmers make a lot of money, but farming is awfully expensive way to live.

Personal Thoughts

I conducted my own survey to find out whether the society in which I live would prefer a genetically modified organism or a non-genetically modified organism. About ninety percent of the people who responded to my survey believed that non-genetically modified organism was better for the body and for produces. Many of the participants gave a reason why they though this way. Almost all of them said that the main reason they chose non-genetically modified organism was because it was healthier, has less toxins that could harm the human body, less chances of allergic reactions, and easier for the human body to process. Another reason that was brought up from the women in the survey was that non-genetically modified organisms were better because it could cause women to have issues with their body. The other ten percent said that genetically modified organism was better. The reason that seems to connect between that group of people was researchers as well as scientists have genetically enhanced genetically modified organism type of foods to make the foods more nutritious. Also, to help control the climate diseases that exist in genetically modified organism crops.

In my opinion, I believe that non-genetically modified organism is better for not only for the human, but also for the environment. Some of the reason I would say that non-genetically modified organism is better for the human body would be that it is healthier, less likely to have any reactions, and less likely to cause cancer or any other diseases. Genetically modified organism is bad for the human body. For example, genetically modified organism (your regular fruits and vegetables) is bad for us in several ways, from weakening our immune systems, to causing certain kinds of cancers. I prefer to frow my own vegetables in my garden in the spring, summer, and early fall. I will eat the things I grow in the garden daily as well as I will the different vegetables to eat through the winter. I have been doing this for several years now because I believe that knowing where your food comes from is better because then you know what was done to the plant or animal. I use my own compost that has now add genetically modified organism, it is all organic. I have been made fun of because I am a young man doing this. I look at it this way, I know what I am putting in my body and where it come from. Growing your own food and raising your own food is not always done by older people, it starts when you are younger. The reason it starts when you are younger is because you can see how to grow your food without adding all the genetically modified organisms they do with certain produce in the store. There is a downfall to growing your own food or buying non-genetically modified organisms because it can cost more than regular GMO food. Non-genetically modified organism is going to much higher than the genetically modified organism, but the quality of food and less chemicals or toxins the food will be much lower than the genetically modified organism. By it being lower, it will allow your body to digest the food more rather than genetically modified organism.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe that non-genetically modified organism foods are much better for the human body despite they may cost more. Genetically modified organism is bad for the body and can cause harm to environment. We need to come up with a solution to lower the cost of non-genetically modified organism seeds. The reason behind that is to get more farmers growing non-genetically modified organism crops and the society eating more healthier food. Not growing genetically modified organism crops anymore will also help save on the environment because of all the chemicals use in the process of the growing the crops. In the end, we need work together to come up with solution to get more healthier non-genetically modified organism foods on the shelves that the stores.

Organisms that have altered genomes in them are known as transgenics. A transgenic is essentially when an organism has been altered through the injection of another animal’s genes. Transgenics are generated in a laboratory either for commercial or research purposes and are created through the process of recombinant DNA where one gene is taken from organism and put with another to create a new organism. Golden rice is an example of a transgenic organisms and specifically, genetically modified organism (GMO). Standard rice, typically brown or white rice, includes a high amount of carbohydrates and, according to USDA National Nutrient Database, is rich in minerals like calcium, iron and sodium. White rice also has other benefits associated with it such as increased energy, improved metabolism and more control of blood pressure. However, it is not necessarily these benefits that the golden rice project is targeting and whilst giving people more access to these benefits, vitamin A deficiency is the main target.

Golden rice contains up to 35 beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A, where other forms of rice contain 0 vitamin A. The populations where golden rice is being distributed such as in Africa and Southeast Asia, have low vitamin A intake as there is little access to fruits and vegetables which vitamin A rich such as eggs, oranges and carrots. Approximately 900 micrograms (mcg) of retinol activity analysis (RAE) are recommended by the National institute of health and the populations where golden rice is distributed to have an average vitamin A intake of less than 100 per day. Golden rice is a biofortified food that addresses global health issues through the injection of genes from a daffodil into the rice to produce beta-carotene that is the forerunner for vitamin A. Vitamin A is a global issue that is causing 250-500 million children worldwide to become blind every year, half of whom die within 12 months of becoming blind. Golden rice addresses this devastating issue particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia as rice is cheap and accessible. Golden rice has pros and cons associated with it with the pros dominated by the health benefits linked with the GM food and the relatively cheap production whilst the cons of the GM food include the questionable benefits and ecosystem impacts. The GMO has multiple stakeholders who are directly affected by the transgenic including farmers as they make and grow the food, third world countries who require and receive the food and genetic engineers who originally made the recombinant DNA and are still doing so. A question I pose is, is golden rice useful in providing vitamin aid and whether or not the positives of golden rice outweigh its negatives.

Positives of golden rice is the valuable vitamin A and other health benefits associated with it that is not found in standard white or brown rice (the two most common forms of rice globally). Vitamin A is an important vitamin found most commonly in fruit and vegetables such as carrot, oranges and bananas which is often highly inaccessible for the populations affected by low vitamin A and vitamin A deficiency. As previously mentioned, vitamin A deficiency effects 500 million people and is a global issue that needs to be responded to and golden rice is an efficient response to the issue. In 2000, a prototype was announced and since then, the crop now produces 23 times more provitamin A (beta-carotene) than the original prototype. This is a significant health benefit as a lot of vitamin A (35 beta carotene is in each grain), which is now supplied to millions of people annually and is proven to be capable of reducing morbidity and overall mortality.

Another benefit of golden rice is the affordability and accessibility of the GM food making it sustainable for the long term. Rice is one of the cheapest foods to produce and distributed as it has an average production price of $0.24 per kilogram (kg) and is able to be produced in bulk with the average land holding of 3 hectares. This cheap nature and the pre-existing benefits of white and brown rice makes the food an ideal food to be genetically modified and distributed on a large, global scale. Rice is also one of the most common foods to be produced in nearby regions of where is distribution is occurring in Asia and Africa with Asian farmers accounting for 92% of the world’s total rice production making it easier to be distributed to Africa and in particularly Southeast Asia.

Negatives of golden rice is the questionable long-term effects and safety. As golden rice is an example of a GM food and GM foods are a relatively new practice with the first approved GMO food being released in 1994, the long-term safety and impacts are still under question. These long-term impacts can include a variety of effects such as negative health impacts as GMO’s are proposed to be unhealthy. According to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, GMOs are associated to immune system disorders, accelerated ageing and infertility. “Since the introduction of GMOs in 1996, chronic illnesses increased from 7% to 13% in just 9 years, allergies increased and other diseases such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise” (Jeffery Smith, 2011, ‘10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs’). The negative economic impact golden rice has is a negative of the GMO. Golden rice requires a large cost to set it up, technology transfer, the accessibility of the project, the sustainability and credibility of the rice and support from the governments”.

This is a significant negative as there are many other foods that are more accessible, not genetically modified and produce similar benefits and provide vitamin A. This question the necessity of golden rice and whether the large coast associated with it is worthwhile when not only other global issues could be helped solved with this money, but similar benefits could be distributed for a cheaper price.

GMO stands for genetically modified organisms. GMO foods are made through genetic engineering. According to my past knowledge of GMO foods is that they are very dangerous. They lead to many health risks that may lead to cancer or damaged organs. That’s just naming a few of the problems it can cause. With GMO they’re modified to do certain things such as resist pests and weed killers. But modifying DNA may cause changed down the road for genetics. These genetic changes may lead to mutations which completely change the GMO. The scary thing is certain weeds or disease can adapt to the new modifications of the crop or plants causing the same cycle of adaptation for anything towards the crops. Then we’d have to come in and modify the organism once more to be stronger and more stable against the oncoming evolution of diseases, weeds, or anything. GMO foods may not always necessarily harmful but viewing the big pictures of all the health risks on the line I believe that these foods are very harmful towards humans. The biggest threat caused by GM foods is that they can have harmful effects on the human body. It is believed that consumption of these genetically engineered foods can cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics. Besides, as these foods are new inventions, not much is known about their long-term effects on human beings. As the health effects are unknown, many people prefer to stay away from these foods.

But when it comes to the environment GMO foods are actually beneficial. They help many plants fend from diseases, and a big one is reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. With GMO’s they can be implemented to resist weeds which results in farmers having to till the land much less over time. This results in the big tractors not releasing all these toxic fumes into our atmosphere at rapid rates. In addition, many diseases have been identified for many plants. So being able to genetically modify these organisms to fend for themselves, which gives them a living chance is wonderful. This allows much more food put out into the world. But the downside still at the end of the day it’s very harmful towards its consumers. But for the most part the biggest GMO is corn which is mainly used towards farm animals as feed. I mean in perspective too all this I would like to say genetically modified organisms are green based on how they benefit the environment tremendously. Just in general the way they could possibly reduce the destruction of the atmosphere. I can’t exactly find any research leading to my hypothesis but it seems implied that they’re green throughout this peer review.

I’ve formed many opinions on GMO foods throughout my research and to me I believe they’re a great idea and I like the idea of this all but for humans it’s very harmful towards us. Yes, they may be very beneficial towards the environment in tremendous ways such as reducing toxic fumes caused by tiling land for crops to remove weeds. Although weeds may not be extinguished for good it’s still a step in the right direction for the better of the planet. It may not completely eliminate the use of tractors but it’s a very big impact on the environment because big farm vehicles like that produce crazy amounts of harmful toxins out into the atmosphere. But farm vehicles alone won’t change the big picture of all the other toxins released everywhere in the world. Along with all this we’re improving the defense of these foods being planted. They’re at serious risk at disease no matter where they’re placed so modifying them to resist all these pesticides and disease is a game changer and can really make a huge difference. The fact that farmers won’t be as such risk at losing their crops to disease caused seasons will benefit them. Along with that we’ll have many more crop-based foods out on the market. Even if we run into extra crops left, they can be used towards feed for farm animals or used as compost to enrich the soil or land. These crops have many great uses no matter the turn out. So, when it comes to allowing them to fend for themselves towards all these problems it’s very beneficial. GMOs can be very effective for the planet. Allowing us to modify anything to better it is crazy to me. Who knows maybe one day they’ll genetically modify humans for longer life or any substantial change to better us for the future. The only downside side of genetically modifying anything is over time it will adapt and it will be a constant cycle of modifying and adapting. So, by the end of all this we may just end up with mutant genes of whatever’s being modified. Yes, it may be worth it for the time it’s working but once it’s adapted and we continue to try and modify it to resist the newest strand of whatever disease then the mutations may cause serious issues. As long as we maintain the organisms, we change we should be fine.

References

1. Klümper, Wilhelm, and Matin Qaim. “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops”. PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 11, Mar. 2014, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629.
2. Wolfenbarger, L. L., and A. P. R. Phifer. “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants”. Science, vol. 290, no. 5499, 2000, pp. 2088–2093., doi:10.1126/science.290.5499.2088.
3. Bawa, A. S., and K. R. Anilakumar. “Genetically Modified Foods: Safety, Risks and Public Concerns—a Review”. Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 50, no. 6, 2012, pp. 1035–1046., doi:10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1.

Introduction to GMOs: Definition and Overview

GMOs, a highly disputed topic around the world. Huge organizations like Monsanto, Bayer, and the Center for Food Safety are constantly contending over pros vs. cons. Though, what exactly is a GMO? In summary, a GMO or genetically modified organism is when one organism’s genetics are revised to give a gene to or receive a gene from another organism. Like creating drought resistant crops, taking from crop A who thrives in a dryer environment and giving crop B those genes, creating a new subspecies that is more resistant to dry climates. Due to the many different amounts of evidence that can both favor or attest to GMOs, their existence can be greatly influenced by how they affect consumers, especially when it comes to economics, environmental and human safety. A major pro of GMOs is that they can help create more food for less and are better for the environment all benefiting consumers. A major con of GMOs is too many unknown variables with what seems like not enough long-term studies to back them up.

The Process of Creating GMOs

The process of creating GMO is different between each individual company, but all have similar outlines of what kind of GMOs to create. It starts with a need for a specific trait in a crop is implemented like drought resistance or adding in a nutrient. Then begins the testing and isolating that specific gene, last begins the process of inserting that gene into the crops of interest there are two different types of methods when it comes to genome insertion, the widely used ‘shotgun’ method because altering the genome of plant seeds is difficult due to their rigid structure. Many biotech companies use ‘gene guns’ that shoot metal particles coated with DNA into plant tissue with a 22-caliber charge (Powell, 2015). This may lead to unknown factors like other genes being affected besides the genes being targeted for modification. Another way which can also lead to unknown factors because of the unpredictability of genes, but can be more accurate in genetic modification is using bacteria to invade and alter a seeds DNA to create the wanted GMO.

Economic Implications of GMOs for Consumers

Genetically modified foods have a higher start cost but equals to lower prices in the long term. It has been shown that initially start-up costs to companies for GMOs is higher, but those higher startup costs cover the research and testing done before those GMOs are ready for market. Since the long-term benefits make up for those initial high start-up costs. More companies look into using GMOs to increase yield (the amount farmers can harvest at a time) and increasing that quality meaning bigger and better crops with less loss during harvesting. In an article, ‘Economic Impact of GM Crops’ a table chart spanning from 1996-2012 of cost vs revenue of first- and second-generation crops shows that initially in the US a first-generation soybean technology, GMO cost farmers roughly “15-39$ while the income was around 38$” (Brookes & Barfoot, 2014). Therefore, companies would need to raise prices in the beginning to make up for that dollar loss. “As the second-generation soybean GMO rolled out in the 2000’s ‘it costs about 47-65$ but with a revenue of 149$ and an increase of yield up to 11%” (Brookes & Barfoot, 2014). More crops being produced with bigger better yields can equal to more people having access to more foods that they normally would not have, with revenue almost double the costs of the GMO technology prices would become more affordable to the consumers.

Environmental Benefits of GMOs

Secondly, with GMOs deforestation and greenhouse gasses can be reduced, and land sustainment can be increased. Farmers would not have to cultivate, till, and rotate their lots as often as they do now. Greenhouse gasses can be reduced due to “the fuel savings associated with making fewer spray runs and the switch to reduced tillage or no tillage (RT/NT) farming systems facilitated by GM HT crops, have resulted in permanent savings in carbon dioxide emissions. In 2015, this amounted to a saving of 2,819 million kg of carbon dioxide, arising from reduced fuel use of 1,056 million liters” (Staropoli, 2019). Soil would be less likely to be compromised due farmers applying less harmful insecticides and herbicides to protect their crops. If GM crops can be modified to have natural pest resistance and herbicide resistance the environmental footprint can be drastically lowered by agriculture because of GMO technology. “PG Economics reports that in 2014 these GM crops contributed to the reduction of almost 2.4 billion kg in carbon dioxide emission savings. The cultivation of GM crops globally contributed to reduced fuel burning equivalent to removing 1.07 million cars from the road” (Staropoli, 2019).

Nutritional Enhancements Through GMOs

Lastly is GMOs can introduce new nutritional contents to foods that normally have little or none, for example ‘golden’ rice. With the ability to swap genes into other crops, foods like rice that initially have no nutritional content, but can be produced in mass easily in resource poor countries, can be genetically engineered to have high levels of whatever nutritional content is missing in that populations diet. An example is countries lacking vitamin A food that they can easily produce, manage and more importantly afford that is also gives them the nutrition they need to live. ‘Golden rice’ has been used in countries like Africa and Asia where vitamin A deficiency is high and “the lack of vitamin A in rice led to the death of more than one million children and 350,000 going blind in the past” (Mahgoub, 2016, p. 244).

Challenges and Concerns: Legal and Ecological Impacts

Cons when dealing with GMOs is legality when it comes to ownerships of GMO and GMO seeds, farmers being unable to breed GMO crops. Due to the competition over GMOs, GMO technologies and the expensive start-up costs, these same companies that are investing into GMOs are also investing in ‘sterile seeds’. Meaning these seeds will produce a harvest and offspring but will not ‘breed’, therefore theses farmers cannot breed these GMO crops and could potentially get fined largely if they do. This would not be sustainable for farmers to make a competitive market for themselves, leading to smaller agricultural markets or farmers having to constantly raise prices to afford to pay the companies investing in GMOs prices for more seeds. That higher cost is would get passed to consumers and market.

Potential Health Risks: Allergies and Super Pests

Secondly, although these crops can be modified to have a pesticide or herbicide resistance genetically modified into their code, as they are being harvested the left over after harvest will wither in the area. If they do, they can potentially breed pest resistance as well and creating ‘super pests’. A ‘super pest’ is an insect that has become resistant to the types of pesticides used, which can happen both with the pest resistance that GMO crops can have or pesticides used. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a great example of a gene used in GMO pest resistance. In a study by the University of Arizona it was found that “Bollworms resistant to the Bt gene reach sexual maturity faster, almost ensuring that those resistant mate with each other” (Gao, Liu, Wu, & Wu, 2004). Though GMO did not directly affect the bollworms, indirectly through natural selection it gave bollworms the opportunity to adapt to survive the new environment. With super pests that could potentially damaging the GMO crops, farmers could lose out on huge yields and cause a shortage. Shortages and losses can equal to higher prices and less accessibility to those crops for consumers and market.

Furthermore, an issue with GMO that can directly affect consumers would be GMO creating food new food allergies. Since GMO is the process of moving around, adding, or subtracting genetics in foods and crops, new food allergies could be created or intensified. A product of a genetically engineered food can produce a ‘novel protein’. One example is lectin, a protein in beans used in potato crops (Mahgoub, 2016, p. 265). There are consumers who have a food allergy to lectin, and could result in those consumers becoming ill or even dying if the allergy is severe enough. Correct and efficient labeling of GMO would need to be established before GMOs with novel proteins could or should be released to consumers.

Conclusion: Weighing the Pros and Cons of GMOs

In conclusion, GMO can benefit consumers economically by creating more food and better-quality foods. Starting off as more expensive due to research and testing, but long-term benefits is worth it. Being able to produce more foods with better nutritional contents GMOs can feed more people and keep them nutritionally well, though all those new gene’s being added into the mix, may create new allergies to foods, consumers have been eating before GMO technology was introduced. All the while GMO can also benefit the environment by using up less land. With more naturally resistance crops being created, using up less harmful chemicals to protect them against threats like pests and weeds, it is a balancing act though, because more exposure to the gene can also create a more resistant pest.

Looking at all the evidence, I would have to agree that the pros of GMO definitely outweigh the cons. A lot of the initial hurdles and obstacles are all political and economy based, pest resistance can still happen when these crops are exposed the same chemicals routinely and it is just nature’s way of adapting itself to the human component. GMO could be the start of ending famine in countries far worse off and dealing with America’s own ever-growing population by creating something that is cost effective, easy to grow and maintain all the while having it contain common basic nutrients populations are missing. As long as a system can be developed to label those GE crops appropriately, food allergens can be avoided, just as they would today.

Sources

1. Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2014). Economic Impact of GM Crops. GM Crops & Food, 5(1), 65-75. doi:10.4161/gmcr.28098
2. Mahgoub, S. E. (2016). Genetically Modified Foods: Basics, Applications, and Controversy. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group.
3. Gao, Y., Liu, C., Wu, Y., & Wu, K. (n.d.). Status of Resistance to Bt Cotton in China: Cotton Bollworm and Pink Bollworm. Bt Resistance: Characterization and Strategies for GM Crops Producing Bacillus Thuringiensis Toxins, 15-25. doi:10.1079/9781780644370.0015. Retrieved From https://cals.arizona.edu/crop/cotton/bt/6Publications/PBWupdate0604.pdf
4. Powell, C. (2015, August 11). How to Make a GMO. Retrieved from http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/how-to-make-a-gmo/

Some believe that GMOs, genetically modified organisms, are radical, unstable, and treacherous forms of food that should not be eaten. The truth is far from what many have heard. In actuality, a GMO is an organism that has had its DNA modified by scientists in order to change a part of that organism for the better. GMOs have been proven safe by scientists around the globe, but GMOs are still considered to be dangerous by many. GMOs have been submerged in controversy due to mixed opinions on the morality of their very existence. GMOs can carry more nutrients and can be healthier than traditional and conventional foods. GMOs are an adequate source of food for many countries around the world, providing those in need with healthy diets. GMOs should be given a second look because they are easy to grow, have nutrients that normal foods do not have, and can efficiently solve dietary issues, and even diseases.

It is thought that GMOs are harder to grow, while the truth is in the hands of the farmers who handle crops daily. GMOs are almost effortless to grow, as their genes have been molded to survive in the harshest of circumstances. GMOs are verified to grow with speed and ease, as a study showed that genetically modified “fast growing salmon can reach market size in 18 months, roughly half the time its non-genetically modified counterpart, and requires less feed” (Nesbit, 2017). This confirms that GMOs are not only faster, but also easier. The genetically modified salmon requires less food than other salmon, allowing farmers to grow more food. GMOs have proven themselves in the lab, but farmers need to test GMOs in the field. The GMO dispute affects everyone, especially in Arizona, where a farmer named Kevin Rogers is ready to plant his cotton for the season. Cotton in Arizona has been plagued with pests, and GMO technology has made Cotton resistant to these pests, without potentially harmful pesticides. Rogers explains that “if it were not for GMO technology, the cotton industry in Arizona would not be thriving or sustainable” (Johnson, 2014). This reveals that farmers need and benefit from GMOs in order to thrive. Without GMOs, cotton farmers, like Rogers, would not have a sustainable source of crops. GMOs are needed, especially for farmers who rely on easy growth. GMOs can be grown with ease, but they also carry nutrients that normal foods would not carry.

Many assume that GMOs have less nutrients and are unhealthy. In reality, most GMOs are created to carry more nutrients within them. These GMOs are called biofortified foods and crops because they are fortified with mass amounts of nutrients. For example, Omega-9, an extremely healthy canola oil, “is a high stability liquid oil made from patented specially bred Nexera canola seed from Dow AgroSciences” (Dow AgroSciences, 2014). Omega-9 canola oil has a reduced amount of linolenic acid, and an increased amount of oleic Acid, which will increase the amount of healthy acids, and decrease the amounts of saturated fats. Omega-9 canola verifies the fact that GMOs carry more nutrients and can be healthier than conventional foods. Golden rice is another example of a healthier GMO substitute to conventional foods. Golden rice has been modified to carry more beta-carotene, a pigment that is broken down to vitamin A after consumption. Golden rice has a successor, called the ‘super’ banana, which “was named one of ‘Time magazine’s’ Best Inventions of 2014” (Norero, 2018). Both golden rice and the super banana demonstrate that GMOs can have added nutrients that conventional foods do not have. The invention of golden rice and the super banana presume that GMOs will have to play an important role in the future, including helping with combating dietary issues and disease.

Dietary issues exist in many countries around the world because of an inability to provide a sustainable diet for families. GMOs are a cost-effective solution that can help provide those in need of a more nutritious diet. One case of GMOs solving dietary issues is golden rice and the super banana battling vitamin A deficiency. Every year, vitamin A deficiency causes 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness, Xerophthalmia (the inability to create tears), and over two million deaths worldwide (Norero, 2018). These deaths mainly occur in children, most typically under the age of five (Norero, 2018). Golden rice can help solve this problem because of its increase of vitamin A. Golden rice has enough vitamin A that “150 grams of this rice provide the [daily] recommended amount of vitamin A for a child” (Norero, 2018). According to the Golden Rice Project, golden rice will cost around the same amount of money as regular rice, making it a cost friendly solution to vitamin A deficiency (Mayer, 2019). Adding to the many people who are deficient in vitamin A, it is estimated that around 800 million people are malnourished around the world today (Burnett, 2015). With an estimated 9.8 billion people in the world by 2050, we will need novel solutions to meet the world’s increasing food needs (Burnett, 2015). Many GMOs are trying to help fight the hunger problems that the Earth is facing. One of these GMOs that is trying to combat world hunger is ‘AquAdvantage’ salmon. AquAdvantage salmon, the first genetically altered animal to be cleared for commercial sale “reaches commercial maturity in half the time of wild salmon, using 25% less feed doing so” (Burnett, 2015). AquAdvantage salmon makes more for less, which is the ratio we need to feed the steady growing population. Without GMOs, feeding an exponentially growing population would be next to impossible. GMOs not only help fight hunger and malnutrition, but can also help fight off disease.

GMOs help fight many diseases, including Malaria. Every 30 seconds, a child dies from Malaria, totaling at 3000 children dying everyday due to extreme disease (Unicef n.d.). 405,000 people were killed by the deadly disease in 2018, over 67% of the deaths occurring in children aged five years and under (World Health Organization, 2020). The battle against Malaria has been tough, but a study at the University of California-Irvine may have the answer. The 20-year-long study has resulted in the insertion of “genes from mice into mosquitos, that provide them a strong immune response against the malaria-bearing Plasmodium parasite” (Burnett, 2015). The added genes make the mosquitoes resistant to malaria, and able to pass the resistance to offspring. The mosquitos have been extremely effective, and similar principles are being applied to fight diseases like yellow fever, dengue fever, and chikungunya (Burnett, 2015). Even though GMOs have proven themselves to be nothing but beneficial to the world, opposition to GMOs still exists around the world.

According to the GMO Watch, 28 countries in Europe alone currently ban GMOs, believing that they are dangerous and immoral (GMO Watch, 2019). The GMO Watch also believes that GMOs cause cancer, liver damage, and kidney damage. The MD Anderson Cancer Center has proven this wrong, stating that “sticking with a plant-based diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains outweighs any GMO health concerns”. Many people also believe that GMOs are morally wrong. A nutritionist, Susan Schenck, has stated that “GMOs are the worst thing happening in food right now” (Hovet, 2018). Schenck has done many things to avoid GMOs, including moving to Ecuador, where GMOs are illegal (Hovet, 2018). Schenck says that GMOs are immoral, and that changing genes in organisms is “nothing short of genocide” (Hovet, 2018). Schenck and others who speak against GMOs without research need to wake up. With 7 billion people, and many more on the way, it is more morally wrong to ban an efficient way to provide nutritious food for all who need it.

In conclusion, GMOs deserve renewed attention because they have proven to have many pros: they are safe and easy to grow, contain more nutrients than other foods, and can effectively address nutrition and disease issues. GMOs will help farmers across the world with the growth of their crops, not mitigate the growth of crops. GMOs are created to carry more nutrients and prevent disease, and do not cause disease. The banning of GMOs will result in the starvation of many due to disease and hunger. Tomorrow’s children will benefit from a world where GMOs create a sustainable future. The morality of GMOs is less significant than the morality of the death of millions.

Have you ever known that GMOs is safe for human’s life? GMOs is considered to be safe and dangerous by some people. There was a debate in 2018 that showed about genetically modified food, which is created for preventing from pests, infecting from virus ad contaminating from some insecticide chemical. There are some advantages and disadvantages of GMOs. For the disadvantages, Hirshberg, Van, and Brody have disagreed that using too much GMOs on food might lead to cancer, resist medicine’s effects and lack of immunity. On the other hand, Bernhoft, has agreed that GMOs would be applied according to the increasing of people, preventing cancer, storing freshness, and supporting diet person along with Smith and McGloughlin concurred that GMOs was the main element to rise nutrients in food, GMOs could be developed to pharma crops, and made some foods looked colorful. Respectfully, we understand the points of disagreement; nevertheless, we personally agree with Bernhoft that GMOs is helpful to humans which are preventing cancer, lessening synthetic preservatives, and decreasing chemical function.

The first and most important reason of GMOs good function is preventing from cancer. According to Bernhoft (2018), GM plants have numerous illustrations such as blometoes, the combination of blueberries with tomatoes, they extend the total of anthocyanin that support diet person and prevent from cancer. The writers think that humans have tendency to be diseased especially cancer, and GMOs might be interested for preventing from genetic engineering of products. Besides, GMOs could be developed to prevent other diseases. It is possible that some fruits might be gene modified to combine of their properties for their purposes on the future. For these reasons, GMOs might be the most important chemical to cure a lot of people.

The second reason that makes GMOs useful is lessening synthetic preservatives. The writes agree that GMOs could reduce rotten of junks might disadvantage to many factors such as scenery, even the animal lives. GMOs might be the important element that can resolve this problem. Bernhoft (2018) supported that genetically modified foods could store freshness lengthy foods which might lessen synthetic preservatives, the chemical which is used to store the freshness of goods for a long age. It possibly starts the dangerous diseases, for example, food allergy triggers, heart disease, and cancer from building great amounts using this chemical. Not only that, but GMOs also could make foods more simply for handing over clients that could dispose of the food desert, and urban side in which is difficult to buy affordable or good-quality food. Evidently, GMOs could decrease synthetic preservatives.

The last reason that makes GMOs beneficially is decrease chemical functions. According to Bernhoft (2018), In the future, humans in the world will be reached to 12 billion in the half of century. The needs of better quality of product will be continuously raised as well. Sprouting plants with GMOs can reduce the price of rising production costs, using weed killer, preventing damage that would be happened from pests, and insects. Nowadays, there are some new viruses, diseases and germs that can be intercepted the growing process of plant. The high technologies will allow GMOs plants safe from these unknown viruses. From the writers’ perspective, the result of damage from pests could create huge amounts of spending funds to rise. In addition, using too much weed killer or chemical could cause dangerous diseases to farmers or gardeners. The chemical which from the herbicides might cause the allergies such as itching from touching the skin. Also, if farmers used insecticide for a long period, they would get physical disorders. For example, headache, dizziness or vomiting. Thus, GMOs could lessen chemical usage.

To conclude, there are several benefits to GMOs which are saving humans from cancer, decreasing synthetic preservatives, and deducting chemical using. We personally believe that GMOs would be more attractive because of its good functions, in the future, the increasing of population and demands will be unstoppable as well as consumption. Therefore, GMOs might be a good option in order to replace the insufficient nutrients and framing will be grown in advance.

Recall back to the last meal y’all had; now think about how much of that food you consumed was genetically modified. Nearly more than half of today’s processed food contains genetically modified organisms, contrarily known as GMOs. If you have never questioned where the food you consume on a daily basis comes from, it is about time to start questioning. A GMO is a different version of a plant or creature that is designed by modifying genes utilizing biotechnology. As of now, more than 30 sorts of plants have been genetically modified and ready to purchase. The FDA pretends that GMOs are nothing to be concerned about and that it is absolutely fine to consume food that is artificially produced. From their view, GM plants are just as reliable and tested the same as traditionally grown plants. The FDA gives the safety testing up to companies that create GMOs, yet, the tests cover the real evidence of the risks, so they can earn profit from users.

“In 1986, distribution by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development called ‘Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations’, turned into the first intergovernmental report to address issues encompassing the utilization of GMOs” (Dewey). Self-supporting studies not sponsored by these unethical companies prove that GMOs discovered in food are not approximately as trustworthy as approved organic food. GMOs have been confirmed to generate cancer, hurt the environment, plus cause various other health difficulties. Forbidding GMOs would produce a cleaner environment to inhabit, without having to agonize about what the food you consume is composed of. CFS is already in the courts to stop the newest hazardous GMOs and their companion pesticides. Although forbidding may not be achievable in the approaching future due to the massive corporations that gain off of GMOs, labeling products should be a necessity so that users can decide if they desire genetically made food or not.

So, how? Are they so dangerous? To begin, the FDA does not manage the security of the studies on genetically modified food; they leave it up to corporations that produce them. The corporations that produce them, nonetheless, crave to earn money in the simplest way attainable, so their results display no indications of any danger. Independent animal research not associated with these companies show health risks resulting from GMOs that include infertility, immune system difficulties, gastrointestinal difficulties, organ changes, and quite big tumefactions. If you are content with eating food that can create all of those difficulties, then you favor genetic modification. The risks go even notably than health dangers: GMOs also endanger our environment, food security, and agricultural system. Diffusing crops with extreme substances of herbicide can contaminate ground, H2O and can infect our food. Essentially, the only people profiting from genetically modified foods are the companies that make them. If they aren’t uncovering their studies to users who just want to know what they are eating, then there must be something deserving coverage.

There are hundreds of companies and people that are pro-GMO and believe that genetically modified foods don’t pose harm to us or the environment. Here are some ongoing models. Soylent is likely the most master GMO organization out there. It creates a plant-based powder that can be made into a healthfully complete beverage. The organization has emphatically guarded GMOs, remembering a total article for its site enumerating the logical and moral help for biotechnology. Betty Crocker as of late enchanted the master horticulture Internet-based life masses when it reacted to a person who had found the organization’s icing was named ‘mostly created with hereditary designing’ and was not exactly satisfied.

These individuals believe that we should view genetically modified food as an improvement to our lives. “The logical agreement is that GMOs are as sheltered to eat as whatever other nourishment, that they lessen soil-harming culturing, decrease carbon discharges, diminish bug spray use, and lessen the utilization of the most lethal herbicides for far milder ones” (Phillpott). “Because these labels assert a negative, claims made about the absence of certain substances can also be used to manipulate consumers and disparage competing products when there are no legitimate health issues involved. This is precisely the case with genetically modified products” (Mooney).

Labeling genetically modified foods is the initial step in making progress toward forbidding them. Insufficient individuals, especially in the United States, are proficient in the risk of GMOs. The marking prerequisite emerged because of open weight and a confounding exhibit of state rules. Laws restricting the utilization of these sorts of nourishments are normal, in reality, more than 64 nations around the globe have prohibited the utilization of them the first step on the road to banning them. Not enough people, particularly in the United States, are knowledgeable about the danger of GMOs. There is no conceivable explanation that GMOs shouldn’t be restricted, or at any rate, labeled. Changing marks of nourishment items to show that they either contain GMO or not, won’t cause costs to go up, or cause organizations to spend more cash on creating names. However, while I underwrite general society’s entitlement to know and legitimate naming everything being equal, in a significant way it is deceiving. Organizations like General Mills change marks continually, and the cost of the items continues as before. Including marks would make buyers that are mindful of eating items that contain GMOs vibe significantly more secure. Naming items to show they contain GMOs would profit, so they attempt and push any law that is agreeable to marking ceaselessly.

A few people contend that without utilizing biotechnology, there would not be sufficient nourishment for everybody. In any case, the generation of non-hereditarily designed harvests in nations around “Western Europe is similarly as powerful as cultivating hereditarily built yields in the United States. Different investigations in parts of Africa presume that utilizing conventional systems improved the generation of work by 25% more than the strategy for hereditarily building yields. Today, we produce as a lot of nourishment to encourage 10 billion individuals, for a populace of billions” (Brody). There are various instances of the risks of putting GMOs in nourishment can cause, yet the ventures that produce hereditarily adjusted seeds avert any change.

There is sufficient proof on GMOs that show the mischief they cause to the individuals and nature. It tends to overpower to consider the debasement of our administration and huge organizations that just spin around making a benefit. In the event that we can’t confide in our legislature to secure us against nourishments that demonstrate they cause disastrous wellbeing dangers, at that point what would we be able to do? “One day the United States will join the 50 different nations that have made it either made it compulsory to name GM nourishments or have just restricted them” (Linnekin). Naming items would cause no bother for anybody however the organizations that have the right to lose cash for what they’re selling. Until GMOs are restricted and we investigate elective choices to developing mass measures of harvests in a solid manner, at that point the hereditary change will keep on directing the nourishment business.

Works Cited

1. Brody, Jane E. ‘The Debate Persists Over G.M.O. Foods Citation Metadata’. The New York Times, MLA 8th ed., 24 Apr. 2018, pp. D5(L)+. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A535917584/OVIC?u=j246913002&sid=OVIC&xid=53e40db4 Accessed 14 Nov. 2019.
2. Dewey, Caitlin. ‘The Apple That Never Browns Wants to Change Your Mind about Genetically Modified Foods’. Washingtonpost.com, 23 Jan. 2017. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints, http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A478684092/OVIC?u=j246913002&sid=OVIC&xid=86cc974a Accessed 18 Nov. 2019.
3. ‘Genetically Modified Food’. Introduction. Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2019. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/ZQVWOL877014690/OVIC?u=j246913002&sid=OVIC&xid=475a1462 Accessed 18 Nov. 2019.
4. Linnekin, Baylen. ‘A Crummy Law Leads to Crummy GMO Regulations’. Reason, vol. 50, no. 5, 1 Oct. 2018. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A554289589/OVIC?u=j246913002&sid=OVIC&xid=84c03bbb Accessed 18 Nov. 2019.
5. Mooney, Kevin. ‘The Strong-arm Tactics of Anti-GMO Zealots Must Be Resisted’. Washington Examiner, 2019. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/JFIIPB630222005/OVIC?u=j246913002&sid=OVIC&xid=528c6a33 Accessed 14 Nov. 2019.
6. Philpott, Tom. ‘Blowing It’. Mother Jones, vol. 43, no. 1, 1 Jan. 2018. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A520055755/OVIC?u=j246913002&sid=OVIC&xid=48617ed3 Accessed 14 Nov. 2019.

GMOs are genetic materials that are used to prevent foods from rotting. GMOs, known as genetically modified organisms, are organisms that alter a segment of DNA from other organisms (‘GMO Facts’). Farmers have said if this is safe or not. Many scientists say that GMOs are safe due to long-term feeding research which says, “the organism does not cause harm from safe chemical and pesticide usage”. Examples of foods that are modified are corn, canola, and peanuts. In 2014, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture approved the Arctic Granny and Arctic Golden Apple to be the first genetically modified foods in the market (‘Introduction to Genetically Modified Organisms’). Farmers disagree and say, “Apples should stay GMO-free”. However, over the decades the controversy of GMOs has sparked a lot of riots in other countries like the United Kingdom and Australia, about the vandalism of crops, because of the many businesses spent on it (‘Introduction to Genetically Modified Organisms’).

Manipulating genes is not radical, we have been altering genes for specific traits for some time. For instance, scientists will extract DNA from the organism and make a new genetic material out of it. Yet, scientists that study the material are not able to research where foreign GMOs are founded due to the breeding. Plant biologist Peggy G. Lemaux says “it is not irrelevant that one can cross varieties from breeding”. This means the materials founded cannot be produced from the amount of material seeds grown from the ground (‘GMO Facts’). Even though the segment of DNA is extradited from one or another it is true that GMOs prevent foods from dying and rotting.

Definitions

• Pesticide – a substance used to destroy insects and organisms that harm plants and animals.
• Breeding – changing the traits of plants to produce characteristics to improve the quality and form plants.
• Genetic variation – the changing structure of genes that are permeant connected with a result of a gene form.
• Diversity – exploring different elements that are surround within the same distance.
• Riot – a violent appearance where there

History

GMO should be ok to use from now on. GMOs came into grocery stores in 1994 by selling tomatoes (‘GMO Facts’). In 1980, researchers were working on technology to copy genes and proteins to eventually determine the proper gene function (Plumber, Brad). In the United States, scientists have said GMOs are safe to consume and did not cause health issues like heart disease. Some states have made a legislation of instilling food labels on foods that contain GMO ingredients (White, Ajita). In the late 20th century, technology has given scientists the ability to expand the diversity of genetic crops. The United States Government and scientists researched the refined process of how GMOs are created (White, Ajita). Since the most common GMO product is corn it has evolved the ability of hybrid corn since the 1930s to the 1990s.

Though in the 1940’s researchers seek additional means to introduce the variety of genetic variation from gene plants. Since 1985, scientists have created controllable ways to genetically engineer plants with desirable traits. It was revealed that farmers injected cows with modified hormones to produce more milk in 1994 and would get criticized by because it can harm the cows. In 1995, sixty-seven percent of modified cheese like Kraft was approved. In 2008, ninety-two percent of soybeans in the United States were modified in two states Nebraska and South Dakota meaning they have the highest percentage out of the forty-eight states (‘The GMO Age Beings’). Also, farmers from Midwest states like South Dakota was found to have the highest amount of GMO crops due having plants like corn and canola (‘The GMO Age Begins’).

Meanwhile, in 2009, European Unions like France banned the importation of GMO crops due to fear of harsh chemicals (‘The GMO Age Beings’). Yet, In the United Kingdom it was found that forty percent of researchers agreed modified foods were necessary (‘The GMO Age Beings’).

Argument

In 2010, it was founded that farmers used GMO technologies to grow crops (Plumber, Brad). Modifying foods like fruits and vegetables are good and bad for the environment. The reason for this is because foods growing from the ground are not meant for having chemicals to grow faster but makes the process much faster for consumers that want things quick (Plumber, Brad). The foods that are known for being modified is corn, canola, and peanuts (‘GMO Facts’). However, corn is a well-known food for scientists to modify (Borel, Brooke). Corn is a vegetable and through the years 2000 to 2010 scientists have said corn is a common source for GMOs in the market (Plumber, Brad). Scientists should consider GMO’s to be good and bad for consumers.

In 2014, critics against GMO’s said during a debate that “farmers are putting genetically modified crops to increase the usage of herbicides” (Staff, NPR). In which, one could agree because herbicides are a substance of toxins that destroy unwanted crops and plants. However, scientists took some questions on a debate like “what is the reason to genetically modify foods” and “what are the benefits of increasing GMOs in foods”. It simply does not answer the question why GMO crops have increased in usage of herbicides. This raises the question of whether scientists find it ridiculous that genetically modified organisms are safe for consumption (White, Alita).

Well, the question raised by the farmer is, is it safe to eat GMOs? According to Down to Earth, most of the foods that we eat like snack bars, cookies, and cereals are modified (Staff, NPR). Yes, it is true that scientists and farmers stated that consuming modified foods is safe, but from studies most of them responded by saying, “Yes, of course, eating modified foods are okay because we have not founded any research on health-related issues” (Staff, NPR). Though the foods contain harsh pesticides which is what people use to kill bugs it has shown that GMO foods like corn is used to help grow them at a fast pace. Even though one like myself can criticize the use of genetically modified products there many advantages as well.

For instance, GMO crops that are harvested will last for long time because the food products are growing. Also, having the advantage of growing food with less land and being able to feed the population, while it will increase slightly in the future. Also, the consummation of water resources which allow networks to have less impact on the environment. The benefits of harvested GMOs are it saves crops from going into extinct. Meaning if a vegetable is molding and there is lack of variation risk of getting bacteria it is able to make an exact clone of it. Another thing is copied nutrients are able resolve vitamin problems that countries like Nigeria where they can enhance the quality of fruits like banana for better texture. Therefore, growing out foods using herbicides adds a little information in what is beneficial for crops, but also have many disadvantages as well.

In the United States, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has reports of not putting GMO labels on food cans. This is a problem because GMO ingredients are added in foods while shoppers are not aware of it. However, this causes foods to have increased risk of allergies like digestive problems because of the impacts of tested animals of genetic modification. The issues with that are foods are likely to be affected from farmers that grow crops that require an agreement with government officials to grow specific products like tomatoes and vegetables. Since the amount herbicides are encouraged by officials it was found that the substance had become stronger and sufficient to restore ingredients in foods that were going into waste which caused farmers values to drop. What is surprising about this the exposure of antibiotics that are listed as ‘disease resistance’ which farmers who go through FDA regulations are supposed to know how artificially antibiotics in GMO crops are. Yet, in the future it’s likely that herbicides will become stronger and less likely to make food supplies safe, but also can create ways in making foods a lot healthier and having little chances of food allergies and sickness.

Conclusion

Overall, the foods that world consumes is primary modified, but it does not stop people like me eating the foods we enjoy regardless of the chemicals and pesticides added it stills lets the world population not starve to death proceed with living happily and better.