term paper about gmo

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

Revealing the Truth about GMOs and its Controversy

Home » Papers » Research Paper on GMOs

Research Paper on GMOs

The Controversy of Genetically Modified Foods on Human Health

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are creatures in which their genetic make-up has been altered through genetic engineering or biotechnology in hopes of either obtaining favorable traits, eliminating unfavorable traits, or simply gene manipulation. Genetic engineering can be applied to plants, animals, bacteria, fish, and much more. Since its inception in 1973 (Goldbas), the use of genetic engineering brought us an increase in crop yields, increased our food supply, and enabled us to become more flexible in our resources in respect to climate change. In fact, about approximately 75%-80% of all genetically modified ingredients are present in processed foods (Imhoff). In addition, according to the Environmental Working Group, every American consumes about 193 pounds of genetically modified foods per year (Imhoff). Unfortunately, because the method was utilized for a short period of time and they’re a plethora of contradicting studies on GMOs’ impacts on health, the public have grown suspicious and fearful over the unknown risks that GMOs could have on human health in the future. Furthermore, the rise of large biotechnological companies that are capable of manipulating an enormous amount of our food supply with their own devised organisms fueled the public’s suspicion of what is exactly in their food. Thus, this led to a controversy of GMOs and the creation of two polarizing sides; One perspective depicting that GMOs can provide substantial changes to our lives and the other perspective being that our lives are on the line. In reality, however, most of the controversy of GMOs is derived from fear and speculation of the public and misinformation of various sources; Genetically modified foods are safe for consumption.

One of the main contributors that are fueling the controversy of GMOs on human health are the rhetoric that many sources use in order to frighten and sometimes make the audience perceive something in a specific way. For instance, an article from Natural News aggressively criticizes that Monsanto’s flaws in their own genetically modified corn MON810 that contains the Bt gene (Reynolds). In the article, the author includes words such as Franken-Food Company, and Franken-Food to imply that genetic engineering allows the creation of something hideous as it is equivalent to the creation of Frankenstein (Reynolds). Already, she is attacking the reputation of not only Monsanto, but other biotechnological companies that utilize genetic engineering. In addition, as she is directly attacking one of the largest biotechnological companies, she claimed that Monsanto had a twisted view of human ethics (Reynolds). Overall, the language that is being demonstrated is alarming and can persuade an audience to believe that they are in danger. Acknowledge the emotions that can erupt in response to such words; The power of words can be commanding. Another example would be the non-GMO Project, a popular non-profit organization that are dedicated to promoting a non-GMO food supply, that supports a study on the “GMOs Myths and Truths” created by 3 leading researchers at Earth Open Source (non-GMO Project). Even when the sources are utilizing their rhetoric in a professional fashion when describing their stance on going against GMOs, the words “unnatural” to describe the process of genetic engineering can instill a feeling of uneasiness in their audience. Anything that is not natural has to be something that is off. This may be the reason why the terms “organic” may make a product more appealing to consumers due to the fear of GMOs that are not deemed in that category. As a result, this may have fueled the unnecessary fear of GMOs’ impact on human health.

A second reason to why GMOs are safe for consumption is because the majority of scientists believe that GMOs are safe to eat despite the distinct portion of the public being suspicious over GMOs. According to the New York Times, about approximately 90 percent of scientists believe that GMOs are safe, while on the hand, only a third of all consumers can agree (Brody). Clearly, there is a disconnection between the scientific community and the general public. To support their stand, they utilized logically reasoning; Despite all of the health concerns over potential allergies and toxins in which they have not been fully addressed, there are a plethora of genetic engineering experiments and people consuming many meals without any issues as said by Robert Goldberg in an interview from the Scientific American (Brody). In fact, since the creation of the earliest genetically modified foods, there hasn’t been any detrimental impacts or solidly confirmed evidence of any health risks (Brody). On the contrary, however, one excellent criticism on genetically modified foods is that since the inception of genetic engineering, we may not know the long-term effects of genetically modified organisms even though we already know that nothing has happened so far. This will involve long-term studies on comparing the consumption GMOs products and non-GMO products (Brody). This is why various organizations such as the non-GMO Project and the Organic Consumers Association are dedicated to protecting the people’s health such as providing information on possible detrimental effects of GMOs. In addition, the non-GMO Project is considered America’s third party verification source for GMOs (non-GMO Project). In response, however, it seems absurd and unnecessary to be cautious of the potential long-term effects of GMOs since the basic concept of genetically modifying our organisms have been going on for centuries through the use of cross breeding similar species or cross pollination of similar plants. From an article, “Genetically Modified Foods: A Taste of the Future,” the author describes how we have always had the capability to manipulate the genes of various species in our agriculture for a long period of time (Lessick et. al). The only contrast between genetic engineering and the traditional methods of genetic manipulation such as cross breeding and cross pollination is the manner in which the method is done. Cross breeding or cross pollination consists of mixing of genetic composition in hopes of creating an offspring with a favorable characteristic, but it is only the result of random choice as we cannot control which specific gene we want to cross over (Lessick et. al). Furthermore, this is only possible with species that are closely related (Lessick et. al). On the contrary, genetic engineering eliminates some of the setbacks of traditional breeding. Not only does genetic engineering allows us to transfer desirable genetic traits directly without resorting to the use of trial and errors, but we can expand our possibilities of transferring genes from virtually any organism to a completely different organism. An example of this phenomenon would be inserting a Bt gene from bacteria to enable corn to produce their own insecticide (Reynolds). Not once have we questioned or grew cautious over the possible effects of consuming GMOs that were devised through traditional genetic manipulation. To further support this statement, according to Channapatna S. Prakash, the Director of the Center for Plant Biodiversity, even through the use of traditional breeding such as corn containing one gene that was originally found in soybeans, it wouldn’t even make it any less hazardous (Guterman). He also stated that traditionally hybrid species were never questioned for their safety (Guterman). If even credible scientists find genetic engineering almost as analogous as previous traditional breeding methods, why is it that the public is still fearful of consuming GMOs derived through genetic engineering.

Aside from understanding that there may be no health risks with regards to GMOs as confirmed by many scientists and their various studies, there are proven benefits that counters the fears that comes along with it. For example, according to an article published in the International Journal of Childbirth Education called, “GMOs: What are they?,” Goldbas discusses some of the advances biotechnology has brought to agriculture, resulting in addressing some of the world’s problems such as malnutrition and starvation; “Breakthroughs include food plants which have been altered to be pest resistant and have greater nutritional values.” (Goldbas). One of these plants include the South African white corn that has the potential to be enriched with more protein (Goldbas). Golden rice that is enriched with Vitamin A and are a few other examples that can be enriched with more nutritious content. Furthermore, plants can be genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides, viruses, and withstand extreme environmental conditions (Goldbas). To support the previous statement, he mentions the genetically modified cassava plant, a starchy root that is normally eaten in tropical Africa, can offer its consumers enhanced minerals, vitamin A, and protein as oppose to their genetically modified counterparts (Goldbas). Thus, this can help to reduce weakened immune systems, childhood blindness, and iron deficiency anemia (Goldbas). Furthermore, as stated in the article from Medical Surgical Nursing, some of the benefits are not limited to an elimination of natural allergens found in certain agricultural products, improving the shelf life of food, enhancing taste, and becoming ingredients to help develop edible vaccines and pharmaceuticals (Lessick et. al). As demonstrated, GMOs can provide a new influx of solutions to address any of our problems and make what we already have even better. On the contrary, however, it is stated that there is no proven consensus on the safety of GMO consumption (non-GMO Project). Furthermore, there are studies that have been conducted that suggests that there may be GMOs may need more attention. According to an article from the Environmental Magazine, the author introduces Seralini’s study in which two groups of rats were either given genetically modified corn, their non-GMO counterparts, GMO corn with glyphosate, or glyphosate and water (Imhoff). This was done to replicate Monsanto’s study on their own genetically modified corn. As a result, the rats that consumed Monsanto’s GM corn and exposed to glyphosate caused more premature deaths, the development of tumors in some of the subjects, and increased liver damage, and kidney damage (Imhoff). Therefore, it may be necessary to be alarmed about what GMOs could potentially cause. In response, although the experiment did produce alarming results, there were a few inconsistencies throughout the experiment that may have skewed Seralini’s data. One can say that the sample size is too small for a toxicology study and the species of rats were already susceptible to developing cancers (Genetic Literacy). In addition, some of the rats that were exposed to genetically modified corn even outlived some of the rats that were in the group that weren’t exposed to GMOs (Genetic Literacy). Perhaps, we need to conduct more studies to confirm, but as of present day, the potential benefits of GMOs along with the current observation the people are consuming GMOs without any concrete problem is promising to confirm their safety and worth. Instead, imagine the endless possibilities in our agriculture and resources that GMOs can bring across the globe.

Currently, the controversy of GMOs remains strong today as many people ranging from various backgrounds have different perspectives on the health impacts that they can potentially impose on us. Fortunately, there hasn’t been any concrete evidence or any sign that people who consume GMOs on the daily basis have exhibited any illnesses or allergens in response to them. On the contrary, however, it may be ideal to continue conducting experiments on GMOs since they have only been around since the 1970s and there are recent contradicting studies, such as the Seralini’s experiment replicating the Monsanto’s GMO corn study, that may indicate GMOs may seem dangerous than it seems. Though, what is undeniable is that GMOs provide us with a plethora of benefits that can aid many of the world’s issues and advancements including malnutrition and medicine. Furthermore, along with the promising fact that the entire globe are consuming GMOs without any issue may be the one step forward to end the controversy of GMOs impact on human health.

MOST TRUSTED SEAL. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://www.nongmoproject.org/

Brody, J. E. (2018, April 23). Are G.M.O. Foods Safe? Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html

Reynolds, J.L. (n.d.). Monsanto’s GMO corn has no improvements on yields or reduced crop damage, report claims. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from

https://www.naturalnews.com/052360_Monsanto_crop_yields_MON810.html

Goldbas, A. (20+). GMOs: What are they? International Journal of Childbirth Education, 29(3), 20+. Retrieved October 16, 2018.

( https://go-galegroup-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=8&docId=GALE%7CA378248863&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA378248863&searchId=R32&userGroupName=cuny_ccny&inPS=true )

Guterman, L. (2000). Scientists leave the lab to defend bioengineered food. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(32), A29. Retrieved October 16, 2018.

( https://go-galegroup-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=4&docId=GALE%7CA61878337&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegm )

Imhoff, D. (2013, March 1). Food Fight! Trying to Hold Back the Onslaught of Genetically Modified Foods-Or at Least Slap Them with a Label. E Magazine

Lessick, M., Keithley, J., Swanson, B., & Lemon, B. (2002, October 1). Genetically modified foods: A taste of the future. . MedSurg Nursing, 242+.

( https://go-galegroup-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=4&docId=GALE%7CA93008223&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA93008223&searchId=R29&userGroupName=cuny_ccny&inPS=true )

“Gilles-Éric Séralini: Activist Professor and Face of Anti-GMO Industry.” Genetic Literacy Project, geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/gilles-eric-seralini-activist-professor-face-anti-gmo-industry/.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

Need help with the Commons?

Email us at [email protected] so we can respond to your questions and requests. Please email from your CUNY email address if possible. Or visit our help site for more information:

Terms of Service
Accessibility
Creative Commons (CC) license unless otherwise noted

The Oxford Scientist

The University of Oxford's independent science magazine

Are GMOs safe? The debate over genetically altered foods

By Isabel Schmidt

The debate over the safety of genetically altered foods has been present since their inception in the 1990s . Indeed, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have often been viewed as being ‘unnatural’ . Greenpeace went as far as to destroy a field of GM corn in Norfolk in 1999, but the defendants were later acquitted by a sympathetic jury in a landmark trial. Yet, the advent of newer gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 (where a nuclease and guide RNA are used to specifically cleave DNA and remove or insert genes) has expanded the field of genetically altered foods worldwide. Despite distinctions between the historically-used method of gene modification and these new gene editing technologies, the use of GMOs continues to be viewed as dangerous by the public.

Genetic Modification versus Gene Editing

First, some definitions. Genetic modification refers specifically to the identification of desirable traits in an organism followed by the copying and insertion of these pieces of information into a new organism. Gene editing, on the other hand, refers to the process of snipping out and removing specific DNA sequences using CRISPR-Cas9 to switch certain genes on or off, all within the same organism. The process of gene editing is often perceived as a sped-up process of what could occur via natural or artificial selection. Conversely, the end result of genetic modification typically would not occur naturally.

Plants being genetically altered through the artificial selection of desired traits is nothing new. The plant Brassica oleracea manifests as cabbage, brussels sprouts, kale, broccoli, cauliflower, or kohlrabi depending on how the plant has been cultivated. Each form of the crop—known as ‘cultivars’—stems from farmers selectively planting seeds from plants that displayed desirable characteristics (called ‘phenotypes’), and these characteristics then becoming more prevalent over time. For example, European farmers specifically selecting crops with flower clusters has given us cauliflowers. Yet, these products are generally not recognised as GMOs as their evolution is seen as being ‘natural’.

Genetic modification of food crops should either improve the nutritional value and quality of the resource or ease its production, as highlighted in international agreements like the Cartagena Protocol. Genetic modification enabled the creation of insect resistant corn in the 1990s , fulfilling the requirement of improving food quality by bypassing the need to use pesticide on the crop yields. Scientists isolated a specific DNA sequence in the soil bacterium Bacillus thiurengensis that was known to produce an insecticidal protein. This sequence was then copied and transformed into the corn plant, now dubbed “Bt corn”. The location and expression of this insecticidal protein can then be moderated with different promoters (DNA sequences that proteins bind to and initiate transcription), such as CaMV 35S or PEP carboxylase. These GMO plants are then resistant to damage from insects such as the European corn borer.

This process is much more controversial. Critics have raised concerns about the potentially detrimental effects of Bt corn on non-target insects as well as the risk of Bt toxin leaking into the soil. But these concerns are not unique to genetically modified crops, with traditional pesticides sharing these risks. A more unique concern, however, is the transfer of herbicide-resistant gene markers from GMOs to invasive species through horizontal gene transfer. This could wreak havoc on surrounding environments (although, to date, this has been very rare). To safeguard against this risk, strategies using alternative markers have been developed, and strict regulations have accompanied the rise in GMOs. For example, GMOs undergo strict testing regimes before release onto the market, and many are only used as feed for livestock.

And yet, the potential benefits of altering species to produce more food with greater nutritional value ( such as golden rice containing vitamin A or carrots with a higher calcium content that prevent osteoporosis ) are undeniable, especially as the worldwide population continues to rise. Production of GM crops has increased 100-fold in the last 25 years , with genetically altered crops such as corn, soybean, cotton, potato, canola approved for commercialisation in the US alone .

The international response to GMOs

International treaties have been established to tackle the lingering distrust and confusion around genetically modified foods. A key aim of these treaties has been to dissociate new GMO and gene editing techniques from traditional plant breeding and selection strategies. For example, the 2000 Cartagena protocol —currently including 173 signatories—outlined the differences between genetically edited versus genetically modified foods.

The purpose of GMO regulations are broadly similar worldwide: to ensure they are safe for human consumption, animal consumption, and the environment. Yet, the approaches taken varies from country to country. Indeed, process-oriented approach es tend to focus on the regulation of the specific genetic modification techniques, while product-oriented approaches emphasise the safety of the resultant product, without regard for the process. This can lead to discrepancies in approaches internationally, which can hinder trade and stifle innovation in the field.

In fact, rules and acceptance of farming GMOs varies internationally. For example, India is pro the cultivation of GM crops, with an adoption rate of 95% for Bt cotton. But, countries such as Ecuador, Venezuela, and Peru have extremely strict rules preventing GMO cultivation—the prohibition of transgenic seeds and crops is even mentioned in Ecuador’s constitution!

International legislation is continually changing. In the United Kingdom, a bill was introduced to Parliament in May to relax EU–era restrictions which forbade the use of gene editing technology in food production. If this passes, gene edited tomatoes that are rich in Vitamin D could soon be on UK shelves . However, this bill specifically excludes genetically modified plants. In the United States, where typically more GM crops are cultivated, a 2016 federal law mandated that foods made with GMOs should be explicitly labelled as such.

Ultimately, genetically modified crops should be approached with caution while also recognising their potential benefits. Farmers were indirectly altering the genetics of plants decades before gene modification techniques were introduced, and the processes of gene modification and gene editing are simply further examples of scientific progress.

From this section

Disorders of consciousness are a clinical minefield. Here’s how we could be doing better

person with arms stretched out in front of son

To believe or not believe: Does free will exist?

BioArt: Producing art through biochemistry

CBD: Miracle or myth?

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Genetically modified organisms.

A genetically modified organism contains DNA that has been altered using genetic engineering. Genetically modified animals are mainly used for research purposes, while genetically modified plants are common in today’s food supply.

Biology, Ecology, Genetics, Health

Photo of a genetically engineered Salmon. Created so that it continuously produces growth hormones and can be sold as a full size fish after 18 months instead of 3 years.

Photograph by Paulo Oliveira/Alamy Stock Photo

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an animal, plant, or microbe whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.

For thousands of years, humans have used breeding methods to modify organisms . Corn, cattle, and even dogs have been selectively bred over generations to have certain desired traits . Within the last few decades, however, modern advances in biotechnology have allowed scientists to directly modify the DNA of micro organisms , crops, and animals.

Conventional methods of modifying plants and animals— selective breeding and crossbreeding —can take a long time. Moreover, selective breeding and crossbreeding often produce mixed results, with unwanted traits appearing alongside desired characteristics. The specific targeted modification of DNA using biotechnology has allowed scientists to avoid this problem and improve the genetic makeup of an organism without unwanted characteristics tagging along.

Most animals that are GMOs are produced for use in laboratory research. These animals are used as “models” to study the function of specific genes and, typically, how the genes relate to health and disease. Some GMO animals, however, are produced for human consumption. Salmon, for example, has been genetically engineered to mature faster, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated that these fish are safe to eat.

GMOs are perhaps most visible in the produce section. The first genetically engineered plants to be produced for human consumption were introduced in the mid-1990s. Today, approximately 90 percent of the corn, soybeans, and sugar beets on the market are GMOs. Genetically engineered crops produce higher yields, have a longer shelf life, are resistant to diseases and pests, and even taste better. These benefits are a plus for both farmers and consumers. For example, higher yields and longer shelf life may lead to lower prices for consumers, and pest-resistant crops means that farmers don’t need to buy and use as many pesticides to grow quality crops. GMO crops can thus be kinder to the environment than conventionally grown crops.

Genetically modified foods do cause controversy, however. Genetic engineering typically changes an organism in a way that would not occur naturally. It is even common for scientists to insert genes into an organism from an entirely different organism. This raises the possible risk of unexpected allergic reactions to some GMO foods. Other concerns include the possibility of the genetically engineered foreign DNA spreading to non-GMO plants and animals. So far, none of the GMOs approved for consumption have caused any of these problems, and GMO food sources are subject to regulations and rigorous safety assessments.

In the future, GMOs are likely to continue playing an important role in biomedical research. GMO foods may provide better nutrition and perhaps even be engineered to contain medicinal compounds to enhance human health. If GMOs can be shown to be both safe and healthful, consumer resistance to these products will most likely diminish.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, specialist, content production, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Are GM foods safe? New study of studies challenges long-established claim that GMOs pose no unique health hazards. Let’s review what they found

D o GMOs adversely impact humans? Thousands of studies have been performed over the past 20 years attempting to answer in part that question. The consensus, of course is ‘no,’ and it’s supported by massive numbers of independent reviews by, among others, the National Academies of Science in the US and the European Commission .

Nonetheless, researchers, sometimes for what appear to be ideological reasons, review selected previous studies and offer their reinterpretations, raising doubts about the consensus. That appears to be the case recently.

In January 2022, a study by Chen Shen and 2 co-authors published in Environmental Sciences Europe addressed the adverse effects in humans and animals from the intake of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or products derived from them was published. The study emphasized GM soybeans, corn and rice. Their claimed objective:

A systematic review of animal and human studies was conducted on genetically modified (GM) food consumption to assess its safety in terms of adverse effects/events to inform public concerns and future research.

Their conclusion directly contradicted the summary interpretations of more than 2500 existing studies:

Serious adverse events of GM consumption include mortality, tumour or cancer, significant low fertility, decreased learning and reaction abilities, and some organ abnormalities.

This analysis examines the team’s methodology. The conclusion reached is that it is sloppy and substandard at best and ideologically-motivated at worst.

How were the studies selected?

The authors screened seven databases and 84 other sources for feeding trials with GMOs for the period January 1, 1983 July 11, 2020 and found a total of 9668 hits. After more detailed, elimination of duplicates, excluding non-targeted experimental design etc, they finally identified 204 studies (203 on animals, one on humans) in which adverse effects were observed. The publication does not specify the adverse effects or the toxicological effects in more detail. Only tables 2-5 list adverse effects such as mortality, life span or survival rate, cancer rates, reproductive rate, organ changes.

For the 204 studies, 179 literature references are cited ( Refs. 19 – 197 ). The discrepancy between the number of studies and literature citations can partly be explained by the fact that some literature citations are listed several times for feeding trials with observed adverse effects (e.g. Refs. 26, 32, 35, 69, 74 ) although they were found in one and the same study.

From the outset, the paper makes some questionable claims. The authorsstate that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is one of the leading institutions that identifies feeding studies with adverse effects and publishes them in its ESFA journal. This is certainly not correct. EFSA does not carry out any feeding studies itself but analyzes and evaluates data submitted by the applicant about the GM plant or product and the published studies on this in the context of authorization procedures on a scientific basis.

It is incomprehensible in the publication that Ref. 35 is only given for GM plants, although EFSA has published more than 20 opinions for the investigation period (2017-2020). The results of the scientific opinions are always similar to that of Ref. 35 : The product as described in the application is as safe as is conventional counterpart .

The EFSA opinions published here also include the GM maize NK 603 x MON 810; NK 603, MON 810, MON 863, MON 863 x MON 810 x NK 603 and GM soybean GTS 40-3-2, which are particularly mentioned to serious adverse effects. Here the publication EFSA´s scientific opinions are widely misinterpreted.

Further, the publication states that EFSA has observed or found adverse effects upon the intake of 12 food enzymes from GM microorganisms ( Refs.76 – 87 ). However, the publication does not mention which effects are involved, leaving it up to the reader to find out. It is incomprehensible why these 12 opinions of EFSA or better of the CEF/CEP Panel, respectively were selected, although 39 other opinions on food enzymes from GM microorganisms were published in during the same period but are not mentioned.

Likewise, it is not clear why certain persons from the scientific panel are specifically mentioned, as the opinions are supported by all members of the panel. If one analyzes all the opinions of the panel on food enzymes, an allergic reaction of the food enzyme can be identified as a possible adverse effect. However, an allergic reaction cannot be ruled out for any enzyme , regardless of whether it comes from a conventional or GM organism. Thus, references 76 – 87 should not be listed as evidence of adverse effects of products derived from GMOs or GMMOs.

Primarily, the publication conveys that every one of the 179 references listed, adverse effects from the intake of products from GMOs on the health of humans and animals are actually found or that there are serious differences to the comparable conventional counterpart. That’s not true; not even close.

Not all of the 179 references, especially those in Chinese (83) and Japanese (2), were analyzed here, but many were. Here are nine selected at random ( Refs. 19, 20, 24, 30, 35, 50, 52, 64, 95 ). ot one describes any particular abnormalities with regard to toxic effects or differences to the corresponding counterpart.

Analyzing the studies claiming to document adverse effects

Here are randomly selected references, along with relevant actual conclusions from the papers:

Ref. 19 , ► Al-Harbi A. et al. (2019): “No adverse clinical or behavioural effects, or biomarkers of adverse health, were observed in rats fed GM corn compared to the other corn diets. These findings suggest that MON810 has negligible effects on the small intestine of rats at the cellular level compared with the well-documented toxicity observed in susceptible insects.

Ref. 20 , ► Appenzeller L.M. et al. (2009): “ These results support the comparative safety and nutritional value of maize grain from genetically modified Optimum ® GAT ® and conventional, non-transgenic hybrid field corn.”

Ref. 24 , ► Buzoianu et al 2012 “ Long-term feeding of GM maize to pigs did not adversely affect growth or the selected health indicators investigated ”,

Ref .30, ► Chukwudebe A. et al. (2012 ): “Hence, introduction of AHAS gene into soybeans does not substantially alter its compositional properties, nor adversely affect its nutritional or safety status to mammals.”

Ref. 35 , ► EFSA (2018) “In conclusion, soybean MON 87751, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.”

Ref. 50 , ► Lin T.H. et al (2016): “ Results of immunotoxicity assays revealed no consistent difference between rats fed for 90 days with GM 823-2210 papaya fruits, as opposed to those fed non-GM TN-2 papaya fruits, suggesting that with regard to immunomodulatory responses, GM 823-2210 papaya fruits maintain substantial equivalence to fruits of their non-GM TN-2 parent.”

► Ref 52 , ► Liu Q. et al (2017) :” Although differences in some serum chemistry parameters (alanine aminotransferase of female pigs and alkaline phosphatase of male pigs) were observed, they were not considered treatment-related. On the basis of these results, long-term intake of transgenic rice carrying Cry1Ab protein exerts no unintended adverse effects on WZSP offspring.”

Ref. 64 , ► Papineni S et al. (2017): “ Under the conditions of this study, the genetically modified DAS-444Ø6-6 diets did not cause any treatment-related effects in rats following 90 days of dietary administration as compared with rats fed diets with soybean of isoline control or commercial reference controls and are considered equivalent to the diets prepared from conventional comparators .”

Ref. 68 , ► Qian Z.Y. (2018): “ Based on these results and entire weight of evidence evaluation, it is concluded that the histopathological changes previously noted in the 2 female Wistar rats of Tianjin study were not treatment-related and that DAS-44406-6 soybeans are as safe as conventional non-GM soybeans.”

Ref. 95 , ► Walsh M.C. et al. (2012): “Conclusions/Significance: Perturbations in peripheral immune response were thought not to be age-specific and were not indicative of Th 2 type allergenic or Th 1 type inflammatory responses. There was no evidence of cry1Ab gene or Bt toxin translocation to organs or blood following long-term feeding.”

Ref. 125 , ► Huang Q et al. (2009 ) not related to gene engineering.

Ref. 151 , Song L.S. et al. (2017): This reference could not be checked, the information is probably incorrect. The article is not present in the bibliography list of Song L.S.

Ref. 185 , ► Zhi et al. (2011): “Conclusion: There were no signs of toxic and adverse effects for transgenic human alpha-lactalbumin powdered milk on rats.”

The publication does not explain why these references are listed as evidence of adverse effects, when that is obviously inaccurate. In accordance with good scientific practice, one might have expected that in the list of references ( Refs. 19 – 197 ) the studies in which no adverse effects were found are marked. But this is not the case. Thus, the impression remains that the intention is to suggest that negative effects were proven in all of the studies.

Even if not all references could be analyzed in detail, it can be assumed that only 14 of the studies listed in Tables 2 – 5 ( Ref. 26, 31, 32, 35, 37, 42, 68, 69, 74, 88, 97, 156, 193, 196 ) actually observed or demonstrated adverse effects. It is noteworthy that only four studies from China are listed, although almost 50% of the cited studies were performed in China.

Studies dubiously listed as showing ‘adverse effect: death, increased death rate, cancer

A review of few of some of the studies that did make claims of adverse effects, proved problematic:

Ref. 32. Cyran N. et al. (2008) is mentioned under 32a, 32b, 32c; but it is always the same study). The reference should more correctly read: Velimirov A., Binter C., Zentek J. (2008): Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Research Reports of Section IV (Volume 3/2008) of the Federal Ministry for Health, Family and Youth. This is an unreviewed report. The research was funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. However, this report was withdrawn by the Ministry due to serious methodological errors in the test procedures and in the statistical evaluation. The research results were considered unconclusive and unusable.

It is surprising that the authors of the publication did not notice the discrepancies when evaluating the report. The report is no longer listed on the ministry’s website, nor is it available on request. The Zentek study certainly cannot serve as scientifically verifiable proof for the adverse effects listed in Tables 3 and 4.

In the context of the Zentek feeding study, it is not understandable that the authors did not mention the multi-generation study by Hu et al. (2020): Three-Generation Reproductive Toxicity of Genetically Modified Maize with Cry1Ab and epsps Genes in Rats. This quite similar study found no ill effects.

Ref. 74 refers to the well-known long-term feeding study by Gilles-Éric Séralini

from 2012, which assessed the impact of GMO corn and glyphosate. It was accompanied by pictures of rats with large tumors—the result not from the corn or glyphosate but of using fast-mutating rats. Scientists and regulatory agencies around the world subsequently evaluated and eviscerated its methodology. The study was retracted the following year. It was later republished in a non peer-reviewed ‘predatory’ journal.

The effects listed in Tables 3 and 4 were mainly taken over from Ref. 74. These data derived from the initially withdrawn study ( Ref. 14 ). The tables give the impression that the data listed are scientifically recognized. This is by no means the case. The overwhelming criticism on the Séralini study is not mentioned anywhere in the publication.

Furthermore, the studies of the GRACE-, GwYST- and GMO 90* projects are not mentioned here, although these studies were carried out as a follow-up to the Séralini tudy. The results from these investigations refute or could not reproduce the results of Séralini . These studies were all published within the study period of this publication. Ref.104, 105 derived from the GRACE project, but they are not mentioned in any way in relation to the retracted study. Although Ref. 104, Ref. 105 indicated no adverse effects, these two publications are listed among those with negative effects due to the consumption of products derived from GMO.

So far, Séralini ’s results have still not been verified and it is more than doubtful that the adverse effects listed actually occurred.

► Ref. 69 Tudisco R. et al. (2015): This report must be included in a whole series of studies, to which Ref. 57 , Ref. 58 and Ref. 59 can also be counted. Curiously, the other studies from the working group around Tudisco and Infracelli are not mentioned in this publication. The information given in Tab. 4 is correct, but only incomplete. The slaughter weights of lambs fed with colostrum or milk from GM soy meal-fed dams are lower than those from the control group. A dose dependence of the slaughter weights is not detectable. In the body measurements, the lambs differ slightly in terms of height at withers and chest circumference, while there are no differences in the weights of the organs. Due to considerable methodological deficiencies, the study is not suitable for making substantial statements on the development of ram lambs fed with colostrum (Bistmilch) / milk derived from dams fed with GM soy.

Ref. 88 ► Talyn B et al. (2019): The title of this publication “Roundup, but not Roundup-Ready corn, increases mortality of drosophila melanogaster” is misrepresented as well.. Apparently, the GM maize itself has no influence on the lifespan of Drosophila melanogaster , but rather the pesticide used. Therefore, the reduced lifespan is a direct effect of the spraying agent and not a causal effect caused by the genetic modification of the maize.

While neither lifespan nor reproductive behaviors were affected by HT corn, addition of Roundup increased mortality with an LC50 of 7.1 g/L for males and 11.4 g/L for females after 2 days of exposure. — Ref. 88

It is not discussed why Ref. 88 is listed as a publication demonstrating adverse effects due to genetic engineering of the plant. It is simply listed as a negative effect of genetic engineering.

Almost the same can be stated about Ref. 35 , Ref. 68 , Ref. 156 and Ref. 193 listed in Table 3, 4 under severe adverse effects as “mortality” or “survival rate”. In the references as well as in the tables, the observed mortality is not related to the test substance. Animals were found dead in the cage during the experiment and the cause of death could not be determined. The accidental death of individual animals is very often observed in such studies. This is not uncommon and certainly not specific to feeding trials with diets containing GMO products.

Further in some studies the premature death is due to the gavage feeding, the handling of the animals or the housing conditions. In Ref. 196 , the individual surviving rate of the animals is found to be similar to the control group. Therefore, it can be assumed that the causes leading to the death rates are similar to both diets and unrelated to the genetic modification of soybeans. From a scientific point of view, it is not justified to attribute the adverse effect to genetic modification.

Unfortunately, the publication does not give any explanation or discussion as to why the authors list these feeding trials as studies demonstrating the serious negative effects (increased death rate) of GM feed. Numerous other investigations were carried out around the studies of Ref. 156 and Ref. 193 and in all of them no negative effects or serious differences to the conventional counterpart could be found.

The selected studies. many of which are misrepresented, present a bizarre picture about the safety of GMO crops. Every major scientific body and regulatory agency in the world has reviewed the research on GMO crops, including most of the studies cited here, and definitively declare crop biotechnology and the foods currently available do not present any unique health hazards. GM crops are as safe–and in the case of nutritionally enhanced varieties, such as Golden Rice, healthier–than conventional and organic crops. Here are summary statements from 12 independent global organizations.

See the full PDF here

Is there any value to this paper? A positive aspect is that it provides a good overview of feeding studies with GMOs and/or products derived from them, especially studies conducted in China.

However, the researchers selectively chose studies to draw a distorted interpretation and misrepresent key data and therefore the publication does not demonstrate scientifically proven negative toxic effects from the consumption of foods grown from genetically engineered seeds. As such this paper is misleading and open to exploitation by advocacy groups less interested in science than in promoting a biotechnology-rejectionist agenda.

Klaus-Dieter Jany, a retired biochemist, was for many years at the Federal Research Center for Nutrition beginning in 1989. He became head of the Molecular Biology Center in 1992. The focus of his work is on the application of genetic engineering in the food sector.

GLP Podcasts & Podcast Videos More...

updated v podcast home cameron and liza featured outlined

GLP podcast: Assessing the Cass report; Fetal genome surgery could treat disease during pregnancy; How ‘body-tracking data’ threatens privacy

Podcast: Is ‘runner’s high’ real? Here’s the science

Videos more....

Video: BBC uncovers massive deception by Britain’s ‘social egg freezing’ clinics

Bees & pollinators more....

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

Dissecting claims about Monsanto suing farmers for accidentally planting patented seeds

Analysis: Do neonicotinoid and glyphosate pesticides threaten bees? A reassessment

Infographics more....

Infographic: Could gut bacteria help us diagnose and treat diseases? This is on the horizon thanks to CRISPR gene editing

Gmo faqs more....

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer): Glyphosate cancer determination challenged by world consensus

Newsletter Subscription

Weekly Newsletter (Wed)
Daily Digest (Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri)
Weekly Top Six (Sun)
Featured Articles Only
Human Articles Only
Agriculture Articles Only
All Types of Content

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.

Skip to main content
Skip to FDA Search
Skip to in this section menu
Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Search
Menu
Resources for You (Food)
Agricultural Biotechnology

How GMO Crops Impact Our World

Feed Your Mind Main Page

en Español (Spanish)

Many people wonder what impacts GMO crops have on our world. “GMO” (genetically modified organism) is the common term consumers and popular media use to describe a plant, animal, or microorganism that has had its genetic material (DNA) changed using technology that generally involves the specific modification of DNA, including the transfer of specific DNA from one organism to another. Scientists often refer to this process as genetic engineering . Since the first genetically engineered crops, or GMOs, for sale to consumers were planted in the 1990s, researchers have tracked their impacts on and off the farm.

Why do farmers use GMO crops?

Most of the GMO crops grown today were developed to help farmers prevent crop loss. The three most common traits found in GMO crops are:

Resistance to insect damage
Tolerance to herbicides
Resistance to plant viruses

For GMO crops that are resistant to insect damage, farmers can apply fewer spray pesticides to protect the crops. GMO crops that are tolerant to herbicides help farmers control weeds without damaging the crops. When farmers use these herbicide-tolerant crops they do not need to till the soil, which they normally do to get rid of weeds. This no-till planting helps to maintain soil health and lower fuel and labor use. Taken together, studies have shown positive economic and environmental impacts.

The GMO papaya, called the Rainbow papaya , is an example of a GMO crop developed to be resistant to a virus. When the ringspot virus threatened the Hawaii papaya industry and the livelihoods of Hawaiian papaya farmers, plant scientists developed the ringspot virus-resistant Rainbow papaya. The Rainbow papaya was commercially planted in 1998, and today it is grown all over Hawaii and exported to Japan.

Learn more on Why Do Farmers in the U.S. Grow GMO Crops?

Do GMOs have impacts beyond the farm?

The most common GMO crops were developed to address the needs of farmers, but in turn they can help foods become more accessible and affordable for consumers. Some GMO crops were developed specifically to benefit consumers. For example, a GMO soybean that is used to create a healthier oil is commercially grown and available. GMO apples that do not brown when cut are now available for sale and may help reduce food waste. Plant scientists continue to develop GMO crops that they hope will benefit consumers.

Learn more about GMOs and the Environment .

Do GMOs have impacts outside the United States?

GMOs also impact the lives of farmers in other parts of the world. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is working with partner countries to use genetic engineering to improve staple crops, the basic foods that make up a large portion of people’s diets. For example, a GMO eggplant developed to be insect resistant has been slowly released to farmers in Bangladesh since 2014. Farmers who grow GMO eggplants are earning more and have less exposure to pesticides. USAID is also working with partner countries in Africa and elsewhere on several staple crops, such as virus-resistant cassava , insect-resistant cowpea , and blight-resistant potato .

Learn more about GMO Crops and Humanitarian Reasons for Development and GMOs Outside the U.S .

How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes

GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond

www.fda.gov/feedyourmind

The GMO debate

August 15, 2018

The issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as they relate to the food supply is an ongoing, nuanced and highly contentious issue.

Individuals from the scientific and medical fields fall on both sides of the argument, some claiming that genetically modified crops are helping to solve issues concerning hunger, environmental sustainability and an increasing global population, while others believe they’re doing more harm than good.

With studies supporting both sides, many wonder: Who should we believe? To give a clearer sense of the issues and arguments that surround GMOs, Dr. Sarah Evanega, a plant biologist, and Dr. David Perlmutter, a neurologist, weigh in from opposing sides. Here’s what they had to say:

What’s your stance on GMO food?

Dr. Sarah Evanega: Genetically modified organism (GMO) food is safe. In that respect, my stance mirrors the position taken by the National Academies of Sciences and the majority of the world’s scientific community.

I eat GMO foods, as do my three young children, because I’m confident in the safety of these products. I support GMO food because I’m convinced that GMO crops can help reduce poverty and hunger among smallholder farmers in developing nations. They can also lessen the environmental impact of agriculture in general.

Genetic engineering is a tool that can help us breed crops that resist drought, diseases, and insect pests, which means farmers achieve higher yields from the crops they grow to feed their families and generate extra income. We have seen, time and again, that farmers who grow GMO crops in Africa, and South and East Asia earn extra money that helps them do things we Westerners take for granted — like send their children to school and buy a propane stove so they no longer have to cook over fires fueled by cow dung.

In developing nations, much of the weeding is done by women and children. By growing crops that can tolerate herbicide applications, the children are freed up to attend school and the women have time to earn income to help support their families.

I know many of the scientists who are using genetic engineering to breed improved crops, and I’ve witnessed their dedication to making the world a better place. I support GMO food because I’ve seen first-hand how it can improve people’s lives. For farmers, access to GMOs is a matter of social and environmental justice.

Dr. David Perlmutter: Genetic modification of agricultural seeds isn’t in the interest of the planet or its inhabitants. Genetically modified (GM) crops are associated with an increased use of chemicals, like glyphosate , that are toxic to the environment and to humans. These chemicals not only contaminate our food and water supplies, but they also compromise soil quality and are actually associated with increased disease susceptibility in crops.

This ultimately leads to an increase in the use of pesticides and further disrupts ecosystems. And yet, despite these drawbacks, we haven’t seen increased yield potential of GM crops, although that has always been one of the promises of GM seeds.

Fortunately, there are innovative alternatives to the issue of food insecurity that are not dependent on using GM crops.

Is GMO really less healthy than non-GMO food? Why or why not?

SE: From a health perspective, GMO food is no different than non-GMO food. In fact, they can even be healthier. Imagine peanuts that can be genetically engineered to reduce levels of aflatoxin , and gluten-free wheat , which would give those with celiac disease a healthy and tasty bread option. GM corn has cut levels of naturally-occurring mycotoxin — a toxin that causes both health problems and economic losses — by a third.

Other GMO foods, such as vitamin A-enriched Golden Rice , has been fortified with vitamins and minerals to create healthier staple foods and help prevent malnutrition.

In general, though, the process of engineering crops to contain a certain trait, such as pest-resistance or drought-tolerance, does nothing to affect the nutrient quality of food. Insect-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops actually reduce or eliminate the need for pesticide applications, which further improves their healthfulness and safety.

We have seen this in Bangladesh, where farmers would spray their traditional eggplant crops with pesticides right up until the time of harvest — which meant farmers were getting a lot of pesticide exposure and consumers were getting a lot of pesticide residue. Since growing pest-resistant Bt eggplant, however, they’ve been able to greatly reduce their pesticide applications . And that means GMO crops are healthier not only for the farmer, but the consumer.

Similarly, studies have shown a new disease-resistant GMO potato could reduce fungicide use by up to 90 percent . Again, this would certainly result in a healthier potato — especially since even organic farmers use pesticides.

I understand that people have legitimate concerns about highly processed foods, such as baked goods, breakfast cereals, chips, and other snacks and convenience foods, which are often made from corn, soy, sugar beets, and other crops that are genetically engineered. It’s the manufacturing process, however, that makes these items less healthy than whole foods, like fruits, vegetables, and grains. The origin of the ingredients is irrelevant.

DP: Without question, the various toxic herbicides that are liberally applied to GM crops are having a devastating effect. In terms of the nutritional quality of conventional versus GM food, it’s important to understand that mineral content is, to a significant degree, dependent on the various soil-based microorganisms. When the soil is treated with glyphosate, as is so often the case with GM crops, it basically causes sterilization and deprives the plant of its mineral absorption ability.

But to be fair, the scientific literature doesn’t indicate a dramatic difference in the nutritional quality comparing conventional and GM agricultural products in terms of vitamins and minerals.

It is now, however, well-substantiated that there are health risks associated with exposure to glyphosate. The World Health Organization has characterized glyphosate as a “ probable human carcinogen .” This is the dirty truth that large agribusiness doesn’t want us to understand or even be aware of. Meanwhile, it’s been estimated that over 1.6 billion kilograms of this highly toxic chemical have been applied to crops around the world. And to be clear, GM herbicide-resistant crops now account for more than 50 percent of the global glyphosate usage.

The connection between GM crops and use of chemicals poses a significant threat to the health of humans and our environment.

Does GMO food affect the health of the environment? Why or why not?

SE: GMOs have a positive impact on the health of the environment. Recently, a meta-analysis of 20 years of data found that growing genetically modified insect-resistant corn in the United States has dramatically reduced insecticide use. By suppressing the population of damaging insect pests, it’s also created a “halo effect” that benefits farmers raising non-GM and organic vegetable crops, allowing them to reduce their use of pesticides, too.

We’re also seeing the use of genetic engineering to breed crops that can produce their own nitrogen, thrive in dry conditions, and resist pests. These crops will directly benefit environmental health by cutting the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and water. Other researchers are working to accelerate the rate of photosynthesis, which means crops can reach maturity quicker, thus improving yields, reducing the need to farm new land, and sparing that land for conservation or other purposes.

Genetic engineering can also be used to reduce food waste and its associated environmental impact. Examples include non-browning mushrooms , apples, and potatoes, but could also be expanded to include more perishable fruits. There’s also tremendous potential in regard to genetically engineered animals, such as pigs that produce less phosphorus material.

In summary, GMO crops can have remarkable environmental benefits. They allow farmers to produce more food with fewer inputs. They help us spare land, reduce deforestation, and promote and reduce chemical use.

DP: No doubt. Our ecosystems have evolved to work in balance. Whenever harmful chemicals like glyphosate are introduced into an ecosystem, this disrupts the natural processes that keep our environment healthy.

The USDA Pesticide Data Program reported in 2015 that 85 percent of crops had pesticide residue. Other studies that have looked at the pesticide levels in groundwaters reported that 53 percent of their sampling sites contained one or more pesticides. These chemicals are not only contaminating our water and food supplies, they’re also contaminating the supplies for other organisms in the surrounding environment. So the fact that GM seeds now account for more than 50 percent of global glyphosate usage is certainly concerning.

Perhaps even more importantly, though, is that these chemicals are harming the soil microbiome. We are just now beginning to recognize that the various organisms living in the soil act to protect plants and make them more disease resistant. Destroying these protective organisms with the use of these chemicals weaken plants’ natural defense mechanisms and, therefore, will require the use of even more pesticides and other chemicals.

We now recognize that plants, like animals, are not autonomous, but rather exist in a symbiotic relationship with diverse microorganisms. Plants are vitally dependent upon soil microbes for their health and disease resistance.

To summarize, the use of pesticides for GM crops is disrupting ecosystems, contaminating the water and food supplies for the environment’s organisms, and harming the soil microbiome.

Is GMO food necessary to feed the entire world population? Why or why not?

SE: With the world’s population expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, farmers are now being asked to produce more food than they’ve produced in the entire 10,000-year history of agriculture. At the same time, we’re facing extreme climate change events, such as prolonged droughts and severe storms, that greatly impact agricultural production.

Meanwhile, we need to reduce the carbon emissions, water pollution, erosion, and other environmental impacts associated with agriculture, and avoid expanding food production into wild areas that other species need for habitat.

We can’t expect to meet these enormous challenges using the same old crop breeding methods. Genetic engineering offers us one tool for increasing yields and reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint. It’s not a silver bullet — but it’s an important tool in the plant breeder’s toolbox because it allows us to develop improved crops more quickly than we could through conventional methods. It also helps us work with important food crops like bananas, which are very difficult to improve through conventional breeding methods.

We certainly can feed more people by reducing food waste and improving food distribution and storage systems worldwide. But we can’t afford to ignore important tools like genetic engineering, which can do a lot to improve the productivity and quality of both crops and livestock.

The social and environmental problems that we face today are unprecedented in scale and scope. We must use all the tools available to address the challenge of feeding the world while taking care of the environment. GMOs can play a part.

DP: The argument that we need GMO food to feed the entire world population is absurd. The reality of the situation is that GM crops have actually not increased the yield of any major commercialized food source . In fact, soy — the most widely grown genetically modified crop — is actually experiencing reduced yields. The promise of increased yield potentials with GM crops is one that we have not realized.

Another important consideration in terms of food security is the reduction of waste. It’s estimated that in the United States, food waste approaches an astounding 40 percent . Leading health commentators, like Dr. Sanjay Gupta, have been vocal on this issue and highlighted food waste as a key component of addressing the issue of food insecurity. So there’s definitely a big opportunity to reduce the amount of food that needs to be produced overall by cutting waste out of the supply chain.

Is there a viable alternative to GMO food? If so, what is it?

SE: There’s no reason to seek an alternative to GMO foods, from a scientific, environmental, or health perspective. But if people wish to avoid GMO food they can purchase organic products. Organic certification does not allow the use of genetic engineering. However, consumers need to be aware that organic food does carry a rather hefty environmental and economic cost.

A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that organic food costs at least 20 percent more than nonorganic food — a figure that can be even higher with certain products and in various geographic regions. That’s a significant difference for families living within a budget, especially when you consider that organic food is not any healthier than nonorganic foods, and both types of food typically have pesticide residues that fall well below federal safety guidelines.

Organic crops also have an environmental cost because they’re generally less productive and require more tilling than conventional and GM crops. They also use fertilizers from animals, which consume feed and water and produce methane gas in their waste. In some cases, take apples for example, the “natural” pesticides that organic growers use are far more toxic to humans and the environment than what conventional growers use.

In terms of plant breeding, some of the improvements that are possible with genetic engineering simply couldn’t be accomplished through traditional methods. Again, genetic engineering offers plant breeders an important tool that can result in a healthy, eco-friendly approach to agriculture. There’s simply no scientific reason to avoid this technology in producing food for the world’s growing population.

DP: Absolutely. There are many innovators working on solutions to sustainably solve the issue of food insecurity. One area of focus has been reducing the waste across the supply chain. For example, Apeel Sciences , a company that has raised funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, developed a natural coating that’s made of leftover plant skins and stems. It can be sprayed on produce to slow the ripening process and extend shelf life, which helps consumers and supermarkets alike reduce food waste.

In addition to this, forward-thinking researchers are now deeply involved in studying the microorganisms that live on and near plants in terms of how they function to enhance not only the health of plants, but the quality and quantity of nutrients that they produce. According to British agricultural researcher Davide Bulgarelli, in a recent article published by The Scientist, “Scientists are looking to manipulate soil microbes to sustainably increase crop production — and novel insights into the plant microbiome are now facilitating the development of such agricultural tactics.”

The research that looks at how microbes benefit plants is consistent with similar research relating microorganisms to human health. So another alternative is to harness and take full advantage of the beneficial interaction between microorganisms and plants to create a healthier and more productive agricultural experience.

Dr. Sarah Evanega is a plant biologist who earned her doctorate degree from Cornell University, where she also helped lead a global project to help protect the world’s wheat from wheat stem rust. She’s currently the director of the Cornell Alliance for Science , a global communications initiative that’s seeking to restore science to the policies and discussions around genetically engineered crops.

Dr. Perlmutter is a board-certified neurologist and four-time New York Timesbest-selling author. He received his MD from the University of Miami School of Medicine where he was awarded the Leonard G. Rowntree Research Award. Dr. Perlmutter is a frequent lecturer at symposia sponsored by institutions such as the World Bank and IMF, Yale University, Columbia University, Scripps Institute, New York University, and Harvard University, and serves as an Associate Professor at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. He also serves on the board of directors and is a fellow of the American College of Nutrition.

This article first appeared on Healthline .

Get Our News Blast

The Gmo Debate: Weighing The Pros and Cons

Categories: Genetic Modification GMO

About this sample

Words: 601 |

Published: Feb 7, 2024

Words: 601 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Introduction, argument 1: increased crop yield, argument 2: environmental and health concerns, argument 3: improved nutritional content, argument 4: reduction in chemical pesticides, argument 5: contribution to medical advancements.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 558 words

2 pages / 780 words

1 pages / 384 words

1 pages / 489 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on GMO

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, have been a topic of heated debate in recent years, sparking conversations about the potential benefits and risks associated with their widespread use. From increased crop yields to [...]

In a world where the intersection of science and food production is becoming increasingly complex, the debate surrounding the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has ignited a fervent discussion among consumers, [...]

In today's fast-paced and convenience-driven society, the definition of "food" has become increasingly blurred. With the rise of processed, packaged, and fast foods, many people have lost touch with the true essence of what food [...]

The debate over the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has gained significant attention. GMO labeling refers to the requirement of indicating on food packaging whether the product contains genetically engineered [...]

Technology is created by the comparatively small and smart human brain, which has changed the landscape, redefined natural resources and even diversified the food human being rely on. Over the past 30 years, there is a [...]

Think back to the last meal you had; now think about how much of that food you consumed was genetically modified (GM). About 80% of today’s processed food contains genetically modified organisms, otherwise known as GMO’s. [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Genetically Modified Organisms in Farming Essay

Introduction, works cited.

Farming is one of the backbones of the US economy given the fact the country is the leading exporter of various agricultural products. This aspect was captured clearly in Whiteman’s poetry, as he noted, “ through the ample open door of the peaceful country barn, a sun-lit pasture field, with cattle and horses feeding; and haze, and vista, and the far horizon, fading away” (Whitman 78).

In this article, it is argued that the use of genetically modified organisms in farming should be supported since it helps in boosting productivity because of the soaring population.

A census conducted in the ministry of agriculture in 2007 revealed that at least two-billion farms were under agricultural production. The central region of the state boosts of farming, especially the Great Plains, where rearing of various breeds of animals and several plant types take place. Farmers in the country concentrate on the production of corns, turkeys, tomatoes, potatoes, and sunflower.

Overgrazing and mono cropping was the major issue in the agricultural sector leading to soil erosion and environmental degradation. The issue of land use raised a heated debated and the ideas of Leopold claiming, “ Central insight was that everything is connected ” are valid since the agricultural sector was highly depended by the majority in the country (Leopold 265).

Colonialists had the capacity to produce more products since they utilized the oxen effectively, but it had an effect on the fertility of soil since deeper plough cuts allowed more contact between soil components and oxygen, causing nutrient depletion. Overgrazing never allowed soil to absorb adequate oxygen in order to sustain life.

In the mid 19 th century, the country adopted scientific methods of farming leading to improved economic growth. The state had to formulate various laws to ensure sanity in agriculture, with the Morrill Act and the Hatch Act playing a critical role.

Baker noted in his writing that, “ cities swelled, people talked frequently of the eastern megalopolis in the typically overheated prose of Time Magazine from 1966, a coruscating corridor of light, an unbroken, 450-mile-long conglomeration of humanity stretching from Boston to Washington ” (Baker 377). This means people were interested in exploring new opportunities in farming in the states believed to support agriculture.

Therefore, the government had to move in to regulate the activities of farmers to ensure land use was in accordance with the law. The two bills facilitated the development of agricultural institutions of higher learning to enhance innovation. Currently, many farmers prefer genetically modified organisms due to their ability to grow rapidly.

However, a debate is ongoing on the viability of GMO products and the major concern is their impact on people’s health. This paper addresses the issues surrounding the manufacture and use of GMO products in the agricultural field.

Manufacture and usage of genetically modified organisms are in the rise in the country, but a controversy exists regarding their effects on the health of consumers. A controversy over the labeling, regulating, and prohibiting the supply of GMO foods exist and the major antagonists are biotechnology companies, government regulators, and a few scientists given the fact the products pose a diverse effects on the environment, farmers, and pesticide resistance.

Members of the public have been made to believe that GMOs are harmful to their health, but no scientific study supports the claim meaning foods obtained from genetic organisms have lesser risks just like the ones manufactured conventionally (Scatasta and Wesseler 244). Since researchers started engaging in studies to establish the effects of GMOs, documentation of a report confirming toxicity of the products is not yet out.

The law does not force companies producing GMOs to label their products, but the case is different in European countries. Those opposed to genetically manufacture products, such as the Organic Consumers Association and Greenpeace society, argue that regulatory bodies have been sleeping on the job because they have not yet identified the effects of these products even after receiving heavy funding from the government.

For some activists, GMO products have long-term effects even though they are not established and as such, they call on government regulators to insist on labeling. In his conclusion, Abbey noted that, “ an observant reader might have noticed a lack of poke-in-the-ribs” (Abbey 413). This means the issue of GMO has always raised controversies in the country for many years.

From a medical perspective, opponents are of the view that consuming GMO foods exposes an individual to risks as opposed to utilizing farm products manufactured conventionally. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science posted in its website a statement claiming that foods made from GMO products have no risks when compared to others manufactured conventionally.

The American Medical Association and the National Academies of Sciences echoed these sentiments, as they both suggested that GMO foods do not have health effects and many studies confirm this assertion as well. The main risk of modifying a plant or animal species lies with the introduction of an antigen (Chen and Shelton 162). The studies going on in GMO testing centers focus on establishing whether the allergens have the capacity of altering the genetic composition of a specifies.

Regulation of genetically modified organisms in Europe is mandatory because allegations exist regarding the likelihood of the products to transmit dangerous compounds to consumers. The focus of the European Green Party and Greenpeace organization is to push the government to regulate the supply of such products in the market with claims that they affect people’s health significantly.

In their reports, organizations opposed to GMO products claim that allergens are likely to cause allergies in people leading to reactions to environmental conditions. In the United States, people are opposed to GMO goods because they cause allergic reactions. For the proponents of genetically modified organisms, the chances of introducing allergenic compounds or toxins to plants are minimal given the fact the process is scientific (Momaday 570).

Transgenic engineering of genes is known to have lesser impact as far as expression of genomes and metabolite levels are concerned. In other words, conventional breeding is likely to facilitate undirected mutagenic transmission. In fact, many studies confirm that conventional breeding has never been risk-free meaning it allows the transmission of toxic compounds.

In the United States and Europe, the kiwi fruit was introduced in early 1960s through conventional processes, but current studies prove that many people suffer from allergies because of consuming the products made from the fruit (Prudham and Morris 162).

Some studies support the claim that genetic modification could be employed effectively in removing allergens from foods hence reducing the risks of suffering from allergies. In 2003, a research undertaken on soybean revealed that genetically modified organisms do not have main allergens.

Opponents of GMO technology are concerned with testing since decisions do not consider the views of all other stakeholders meaning it is done without adequate consultation with the population and other concerned stakeholders. Companies are often quick to withdraw funding in case they realize that compounds are harmful to people’s health even before they are introduced in the market. The company was aware of the effects of nuts on people’s health and it went on to test the product for allergies (McHughen and Smyth 18).

The organization wanted to confirm whether serum reacts in any way with transgenic soy. Again, they tested the effects of the product on human skin and the results were positive meaning it causes allergy in people. Instead of communicating to relevant authorities appropriately, the company simply halted the program. In 2005, a similar case was reported when a study was conducted on the pest-resistant field pea that had been developed in Australia.

Animals utilize the product as a pasture crop. The test was positive meaning it had an effect on people’s health, as it caused allergy in mice. Just as the previous study, the program closed without giving a sufficient reason. Since various products have failed to pass validity test, many people are concerned with the free supply of GMO foods.

Government regulators approve most GMO products used as animal feeds, but businesspersons tend to exploit the opportunities to supply the products to the unsuspecting buyers locally and abroad leading to serious health problems.

On the other hand, opponents claim further that continued use of GMO products would affect breed diversity in the sense that fewer cultivars would be used (Doull and Greim 2075). Genetically modified products resist diseases, but if they fail, it would lead to overuse of agrichemicals, which is harmful to the environment.

According to the United Nations report, the future of US farming lies with the GMO technology because the world population is to hit ten billion in the next ninety years. The population increase is to exceed its target in fertile regions, including the United States and farming through GMO’s offers a perfect solution. However, diminishing agricultural fields and issues raised by environmentalists do not allow continuous clearance of forests to pave way for farming. Seeking an alternative seems the only solution in order to ensure sustainability.

Therefore, US farmers should be allowed to use genetically modified organisms to increase food production in the country. Clearance of forests is not an option towards food production because of issues to do with global warming. Scientific research suggest that continuous interference with nature would definitely lead to problems because rain seasons are likely to change and this would not go down well with farmers.

While opponents accuse GMO technology for causing a myriad of diseases, scientific studies are yet to prove the allegations meaning utilization of the technology should be encouraged. It is concluded that food security would be enhanced in case application of GMO technology is legalized in the country. Utilization of conventional agricultural methods would not serve the ever-increasing population.

Both opponents and supporters of GMO technology underscore the fact that the population increase calls on the government to think of alternative sources of food because the current sources are not adequate.

Abbey, Edward. “Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks”. American Earth: Environmental Writing since Thoreau . Ed. Bill McKibben and Albert Gore. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 2008. 413-434. Print.

Baker, Russell. “The Great Paver”. American Earth: Environmental writing since Thoreau . Ed. Bill McKibben and Albert Gore. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 2008. 359-379. Print.

Chen, Mao, and Anthony Shelton. “Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Rice in China: From Research to Commercialization”. Annual Review of Entomology 56.1 (2011): 81–101. Print.

Doull, Gaylor, and Lovell Greim. “Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863)”. Food Chem. Toxicology 45.11 (2007): 2073–2085. Print.

Leopold, Aldo. “From a Sand County Almanac”. American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau . Ed. Bill McKibben and Albert Gore. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 2008. 265-294. Print.

McHughen, Alan, and Stuart Smyth. “US Regulatory System for Genetically Modified Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), rDNA or Transgenic Crop Cultivars.” Plant Biotechnology Journal 6.1 (2007): 3-21. Print.

Momaday, Scott. “A First American Views His Land.” American Earth: Environmental Writing since Thoreau . Ed. Bill McKibben and Albert Gore. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 2008. 570-582. Print.

Prudham, Scott and Angela Morris. “Making the Market ‘Safe’ for GM Foods: The Case of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee”. Studies in Political Economy 78.1 (2006): 145–175. Print.

Scatasta, Sara, and Justus Wesseler. “Differentiating the consumer benefits from labeling of GM food products.” Agricultural Economics 37.2 (2007): 237-248. Print.

Whitman, Walt. Whitman: The Mystic Poets . Woodstock: Sky Light Paths Publication, 2004. Print.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, April 9). Genetically Modified Organisms in Farming. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-in-farming/

"Genetically Modified Organisms in Farming." IvyPanda , 9 Apr. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-in-farming/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Genetically Modified Organisms in Farming'. 9 April.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Genetically Modified Organisms in Farming." April 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-in-farming/.

1. IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Organisms in Farming." April 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-in-farming/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Organisms in Farming." April 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-organisms-in-farming/.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Food Production
Froma Harrop Views on Genetically Modified Food
Growing GMO Seeds: Monsanto Corporation
Nitrogen from Food Waste
Is Composting Feasible in New York City?
Global Warming and Agriculture
Agricultural Studies: The Kuwaiti Pineapple
The Botanical Garden Collection

Undergraduate
High School
Architecture
American History
Asian History
Antique Literature
American Literature
Asian Literature
Classic English Literature
World Literature
Creative Writing
Linguistics
Criminal Justice
Legal Issues
Anthropology
Archaeology
Political Science
World Affairs
African-American Studies
East European Studies
Latin-American Studies
Native-American Studies
West European Studies
Family and Consumer Science
Social Issues
Women and Gender Studies
Social Work
Natural Sciences
Pharmacology
Earth science
Agriculture
Agricultural Studies
Computer Science
IT Management
Mathematics
Investments
Engineering and Technology
Engineering
Aeronautics
Medicine and Health
Alternative Medicine
Communications and Media
Advertising
Communication Strategies
Public Relations
Educational Theories
Teacher's Career
Chicago/Turabian
Company Analysis
Education Theories
Shakespeare
Canadian Studies
Food Safety
Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
Movie Review
Admission Essay
Annotated Bibliography
Application Essay
Article Critique
Article Review
Article Writing
Book Review
Business Plan
Business Proposal
Capstone Project
Cover Letter
Creative Essay
Dissertation
Dissertation - Abstract
Dissertation - Conclusion
Dissertation - Discussion
Dissertation - Hypothesis
Dissertation - Introduction
Dissertation - Literature
Dissertation - Methodology
Dissertation - Results
GCSE Coursework
Grant Proposal
Marketing Plan
Multiple Choice Quiz
Personal Statement
Power Point Presentation
Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
Questionnaire
Reaction Paper
Research Paper
Research Proposal
SWOT analysis
Thesis Paper
Online Quiz
Literature Review
Movie Analysis
Statistics problem
Math Problem
All papers examples
How It Works
Money Back Policy
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
We Are Hiring

Genetically Modified Foods (GMO), Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 635

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Whether individuals are okay with it or not, we live in a world today where genetically modified foods (GMOs) are everywhere. What is meant by this is that unless an individual only eats organic foods day in and day out, he or she is invariably putting GMOs into his or her mouth every day. After becoming cognizant of this actuality, individuals often worry that they might not be buying the correct and safest products for their families. Therefore, it is imperative that all individuals become aware of the pros and the cons that come with GMOs. (WebMD)

To start off, individuals must come to grasps that at this time and age, it would be increasingly difficult to live a life eating only foods that do not contain GMOs. While this may seem alarming to some, there must be room for clarification as to what exactly are the purposes for GMOs. Often times, food is genetically modified for simple reasons, such as to grow grapes without seeds inside of them. However, other times, modifications are much more drastic, such as changing the color or the taste of a specific pepper. What this means is that scientists are able to acquire a desired taste by combining science with nature.

Despite the fact that there have been a variety of tests by the Food Administration in order to ensure that the food that farmers are growing is safe, there have been numerous reports where the food has not been reported in pristine condition. In general, it has been found that the consumption of a variety of foods with GMOs have been proven to increase the likelihood of an individual developing a food-based allergy. While this is not something grave, it is certainly something that should be taken a look at, given that a food that is being produced deliberately directly affects someone’s personal life. (“Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Foods.” )

Genetically modified foods should not be regarded as dangerous, for individuals would never produce something that puts someone else’s life at risk. However, one should be cautious about what she decides to consume because of the fact that one does not always know what is inside the food that is being consumed.

A setback about producing GMOs is the fact that they do not have much economic value. This is due to the manner in which GMOs take just as long to grow as normal fruits and vegetables, amongst other foods. What this means is that there is no increase in production, so farmers do not have the ability to distribute their merchandise at faster pace. Perhaps the only advantage that GMOs would have within a market is that fact that they would prove to be great competition against other distributors. Other than that, however, GMOs could prove to be incredibly unprofitable.

An upside to GMOs is that often times, they contain more nutrients than the ordinary, unmodified product. This happens because when the fruits and/or vegetables are being modified, new nutrients must be injected into the foods in order to ensure that the foods will indeed be modified.

It is imperative that all individuals become aware of the pros and the cons that come with GMOs. Because of the fact that not many people are aware of what exactly they are putting into their mouths, it is the farmer’s and distributor’s responsibility that they are able to provide individuals with the best product that is available. One’s safety should never be put at risk just so that a profit can be made from selling something that will only make individuals sick. Therefore, individuals should be more wary of what they put into their mouths and consume.

Works Cited

“Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Foods.” HRF . HealthResearchFunding.org, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 2 July 2015.

WebMD. “The Truth About GMOs: Are They Safe? What Do We Know?” WebMD . WebMD, n.d. Web. 2 July 2015.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

11 Rules for Safe Handling of Hazardous Materials, Essay Example

Leadership Style as a Success Factor on Projects, Term Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

GMO Labeling

How it works

GMO’s Food is a crucial and fundamental necessity of human life. Because of this, the United States had an average of 2.08 million farms in 2014 (Facts, 2018). Production from these farms not only play a factor within the U.S. but globally as well. Mexico, Canada, and China are just some of the countries that received agricultural products from the United States in 2015 that added up to a total of $133 billion dollars (Facts, 2018). Such success of exports is due to the attention, care, and quality of production that is put into each product.

Shape, size, colour, and overall quality are highly important factors in exports such as fruits and vegetables. Farmers of the United States recognition of this shows through the 82.7 million acres of land harvested in 2017 specifically for corn (USDA, 2018). Farmers receive help in maintaining the value of crops and products through the scientific process of genetic engineering. Also referred to as genetic modification (or GMOs), this artificial process is completed by the extraction of genes from a specific species DNA and forcing it into another species genes (GMO Education, 2018). Genetic engineering has the ability to develop new traits in plants, prevent apples from browning, and create new organisms (GMO Facts, 2018). Majority of processed foods in the U.S. contain GMOs, to include crops such as cotton, soy, corn, and canola (GMO Education, 2018). Although many believe there are positive outcomes of genetic engineering, the amount of research that has gone into the overall safety and true benefits of consumers is little. Because there is a knowledge barrier and lack of credibility of GMOs, the labelling of products that contain any trace of genetic modification should be required. Japan and Australia are two countries that recognize the importance of requiring products that have been genetically modified to be labelled and advertised as so (From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology, 2016). However, countries such as the United States and Canada have no regulations or laws against unlabeled, genetically modified products (From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology, 2016). With the lack of evidence and knowledge of GMOs and its effects, this is a hazard for consumers who may not be aware of the unnatural process products of their possession have gone through.

Genetic engineering traces back to as far as 7800 BCE, a time when scientists had first discovered the process of artificial selection of plants (From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology, 2016). The breakthrough of genetic engineering truly occurred in 1973, when Herbert Boyer, Stanley Cohen, Rudolf Jaenisch, and Beatrice Mintz developed methods to transfer foreign genes of one DNA to another with bacteria and mice (From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology, 2016). Once research was conducted and guidelines were set for future experiments, the United States Supreme Court had ruled to allow the patenting of GMOs in 1980 (From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology, 2016). In 1980, the first genetically engineered crop to be approved for production by the United States Department of Agriculture was the Flavr Savr tomato (From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology, 2016). Flavoured vines, longer periods of ripeness, and reduced chances of rotting during transportation were all results of the reversal of the gene that produces polygalacturonase (an enzyme that softens fruit) in tomatoes (ACS Publications, 2018). Flavr Savr tomatoes were discontinued shortly after its release in 1997 (ACS Publications, 2018). Many concerns and questions arose when a lawsuit revealed 44,000 memos of unreleased studies on the fruit (ACS Publications, 2018). The Californian company Calgene that invented the Flavr Savr tomato had conducted tests on rats that unveiled the many health issues the fruit caused such as internal bleeding, stomach lesions, and death (Smith, 2017). Although scientists of the Food and Drug Administration had given warnings of the risks and effects of genetic modification, this was ignored and has lead to the estimated amount of 193 pounds of GMOs the average American eats every twelve months (Americans Eat Their Weight in Genetically Engineered Food, 2018). According to Dr Pusztai, a scientist against genetic modification, genetic engineering poses a health threat and risk for they are unpredictable and uncontrollable (Arpad Pusztai and the Risks of Genetic Engineering, 2018).

Genetic modification tends to advertise and claim to be created to benefit consumers and businesses. However, recognizing the potential hazards and unnatural problems this process may cause is important. GMOs get recognition for its assistance in improving quality as well as quantity. An example of this is the excessive 17% of overproduction of food taking place within the United States (Lombardo, 2017). Genetic modification has the capability to be transported to areas that are limited to food supplies without spoiling as fast (Lombardo, 2017). GMOs would have the ability to assist in fixing this issue if it did not have connections to cancer, contribution to antibiotic resistance, and the triggering of food allergies (Lombardo, 2017). Six companies have control over the entire genetically modified seed market and individual research is prohibited on anything produced from it (Lombardo, 2017). In January of 2017, a study discovered that glyphosate (the main ingredient of a herbicide) can cause a liver disease that is illegally lower by thousands of doses (Scientist’s Ground-Breaking Research Uncovers New Risks of GMOs, Glyphosate, 2018). Genetic modification has a surplus of dangers and side effects that are unpredictable and cannot be reversed. The cross-pollination of GMOs has caused seeds to travel far from where it originally came from and outlast the strong effects of global warming and nuclear waste (Smith, 2017). As well as having negative effects on farmers and organic crops, the health and well being of future generations is put at stake (Smith, 2017). The widespread of genetic engineering makes creating solutions difficult, however, there are some solutions and even positive effects of GMOs.

Because first impressions seem to be profoundly valued throughout today’s society, GMOs have an important role when it comes to appearance in marketing. Well before products make it to shelves of grocery markets, farmers have to manage and tend to crops. Genetic engineering can help assist farmers through capabilities like herbicide tolerance, disease resistance, and drought resistance (What Are the Benefits of GMOs, Both Today and in the Future, 2018). Genetic engineering can help grow food at a constant, cost-effective rate for population rates that continue to rise up to an expected ten billion people in 2050 (What Are the Benefits of GMOs, Both Today and in the Future, 2018). 90% of scientists believe genetic engineering is entirely safe, but many still question the reliability and actual purpose of genetic modification (Brody, 2018).

The correct labelling and advertisement of GMOs are one of the most efficient and effective ways citizens can become for educated on food source information. There is no evidence of consumer safety and evidence since there has never been any sort of individual, long-term research on genetic modification (GMO Facts, 2018). Although it is currently legal in Canada and the United States for GMOs to be unlabeled, 93% of Americans believe otherwise (GMO Facts, 2018). Just Label It is one of the many organizations that have caught the attention of the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) by standing against GMOs and addressing the threats and dangers they possess (It, Just Label, 2018). Proper advertisement and labelling of GMOs will help further inform, educate, and draw attention to the unknown power of genetic engineering.

GMO Facts. Non-GMO Project,

USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System. USDA ESMIS,

GMO Education. Institute for Responsible Technology,

ACS Publications,

Smith, Jeffrey. Throwing Biotech Lies at Tomatoes Part 1: Killer Tomatoes. Institute for Responsible Technology, 16 Jan. 2017,

EWGFoodNews. Americans Eat Their Weight in Genetically Engineered Food. EWG Tap Water Database,

Arpad Pusztai and the Risks of Genetic Engineering. Organic Consumers Association | Campaigning for Health, Justice, Sustainability, Peace, and Democracy,

Crystal Lombardo. Vittana.org, 10 May 2017,

Scientist’s Ground-Breaking Research Uncovers New Risks of GMOs, Glyphosate. The Organic & Non-GMO Report,

Smith, Jeffrey. 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs. Institute for Responsible Technology, 16 Jan. 2017,

What Are the Benefits of GMOs, Both Today and in the Future? Food Dialogues,

Brody, Jane E. Are G.M.O. Foods Safe? The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Apr. 2018,

It, Just Label. Right to Know Center. Just Label It,

Cite this page

GMO Labeling. (2020, Mar 20). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-labeling/

"GMO Labeling." PapersOwl.com , 20 Mar 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-labeling/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). GMO Labeling . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-labeling/ [Accessed: 14 May. 2024]

"GMO Labeling." PapersOwl.com, Mar 20, 2020. Accessed May 14, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-labeling/

"GMO Labeling," PapersOwl.com , 20-Mar-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-labeling/. [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). GMO Labeling . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gmo-labeling/ [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

COMMENTS

Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems
The term "genetic modified organisms (GMO)" has become a controversial topic as its benefits for both food producers and consumers are companied by potential biomedical risks and environmental side effects. Increasing concerns from the public about GMO, particularly in the form of genetic modified (GM) foods, are aimed at the short- and ...
114 GMO Essay Topics & Samples
Our experts have gathered GMO essay topics that will be great for a variety of assignments. You can examine the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified foods. Or talk about the harmful effects of pesticides. Besides, click on the links to read GMO essay examples. 🏆 Best GMO Essay Topics & Examples. Genetically Modified Food Essay
Genetically Modified Products, Perspectives and Challenges
A number of studies show the economic benefits of using genetically modified products. Between 1996 and 2011, farmers' income worldwide increased by $92 million from the use of genetically modified crops. Part of the revenue is due to the more efficient treatment of weeds and insects, while another part is due to lower overall production costs.
Genetically modified foods (GMOs); a review of genetic engineering
Aim. This review article mainly focuses on the importance, possible risks and state of public debate on genetic engineering particularly on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). During the last ...
The state of the 'GMO' debate
The GMO conversation was different in Africa and South Asia than in the United States, which dominated in terms of overall volume and gross reach. The gross reach for the 2018 GMO conversation in the US was 3.6 billion, compared to 116 million in Kenya and 113 million in the Philippines, the two next largest geographies.
Research Paper on GMOs
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are creatures in which their genetic make-up has been altered through genetic engineering or biotechnology in hopes of either obtaining favorable traits, eliminating unfavorable traits, or simply gene manipulation. Genetic engineering can be applied to plants, animals, bacteria, fish, and much more.
Are GMOs safe? The debate over genetically altered foods
The debate over the safety of genetically altered foods has been present since their inception in the 1990s. Indeed, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have often been viewed as being 'unnatural'. Greenpeace went as far as to destroy a field of GM corn in Norfolk in 1999, but the defendants were later acquitted by a sympathetic jury in a ...
Genetically modified organism (GMO)
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are produced using scientific methods that include recombinant DNA technology and reproductive cloning.In reproductive cloning, a nucleus is extracted from a cell of the individual to be cloned and is inserted into the enucleated cytoplasm of a host egg (an enucleated egg is an egg cell that has had its own nucleus removed).
Genetically Modified Organisms
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an animal, plant, or microbe whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.. For thousands of years, humans have used breeding methods to modify organisms.Corn, cattle, and even dogs have been selectively bred over generations to have certain desired traits.Within the last few decades, however, modern advances in biotechnology have ...
Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public's Concerns and How Scientists Have
by Megan L. Norris Summary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products. Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer. One specific concern is the possibility for GMOs to negatively affect human health ...
Are GM foods safe? New study of studies challenges long-established
How were the studies selected? The authors screened seven databases and 84 other sources for feeding trials with GMOs for the period January 1, 1983 July 11, 2020 and found a total of 9668 hits.
GMO Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas
GMO is an acronym for Genetically Modified Organisms, or organism that have undergone changes in a lab. Some of these changes may include heat resistance, frost resistance, resistance to pesticides, etc¦ Because of GMOs harmful traits and inconclusive research, GMOs should be banned. Surprisingly, we have been genetically modifying organisms ...
How GMO Crops Impact Our World
The three most common traits found in GMO crops are: Resistance to insect damage. Tolerance to herbicides. Resistance to plant viruses. For GMO crops that are resistant to insect damage, farmers ...
Genetically Modified Food Essay: Pros & Cons of GM Foods
This genetically modified food essay covers the technology's positive and negative aspects that have so far been accepted. Currently, a lot of food consumed is composed of genetically altered elements, though many misconceptions and misinformation about this technology still exist (Fernbach et al., 2019).
The GMO debate
The GMO debate. August 15, 2018. The issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as they relate to the food supply is an ongoing, nuanced and highly contentious issue. Individuals from the scientific and medical fields fall on both sides of the argument, some claiming that genetically modified crops are helping to solve issues concerning ...
The Gmo Debate: Weighing The Pros and Cons
GMOs are prevalent in our society, with a wide range of products, from food to pharmaceuticals, containing genetically modified ingredients. The debate surrounding GMOs has sparked a divide between those who support their use and believe in their benefits, and those who are concerned about their potential risks and impact on the environment.
Pros and cons of GMO foods: Health and environment
the risk of outcrossing, where genes from GMO foods pass into wild plants and other crops. a negative impact on insects and other species. reduction in other plant types, leading to a loss of ...
Genetically Modified Organisms in Farming Essay
Currently, many farmers prefer genetically modified organisms due to their ability to grow rapidly. However, a debate is ongoing on the viability of GMO products and the major concern is their impact on people's health. This paper addresses the issues surrounding the manufacture and use of GMO products in the agricultural field.
GMO Essay Examples
Essay. Genetically Modified Food GMO Organic Farming. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living creatures that have been modified through genetic engineering to suit the needs of the modifier. Farmers can make changes in the genome of their crops and animals to get a certain quality they desire in their GMOs.
Genetically Modified Foods (GMO), Essay Example
Often times, food is genetically modified for simple reasons, such as to grow grapes without seeds inside of them. However, other times, modifications are much more drastic, such as changing the color or the taste of a specific pepper. What this means is that scientists are able to acquire a desired taste by combining science with nature.
Gmo Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
GMO Food The process of genetic modification of an organism Genetic modification of an organism is the process by which the genes of an organism are altered to introduce useful genes that are believed to help it to grow and thrive in any given condition. The genes contain DNA, a basic building block of all living organisms that is responsible for the presence or absence of certain traits or ...
GMO Labeling
Essay Example: GMO's Food is a crucial and fundamental necessity of human life. Because of this, the United States had an average of 2.08 million farms in 2014 (Facts, 2018). ... and the triggering of food allergies (Lombardo, 2017). Six companies have control over the entire genetically modified seed market and individual research is ...