I am in Debate Group B (not debating this week, but you said it was okay to do this one instead of next debate’s debate paper)
Dominique Roubé
Environment and Politics
November 1st, 2013
Professor Woodhouse
Word Count: 2,027
Genetically Modified Organisms: Beneficial or Detrimental?
The dispute of whether or not stricter regulations need to be implemented within the agribusiness
industry has always been a constant issue, especially in the USA. In order to investigate whether or not stricter
regulations truly need to be implemented, let us focus on one specific aspect of it; genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). Since around the 1980s when genetically modified organisms started to become quite popular, there has
been a heated debate as to whether their use will benefit mankind in the long run or ultimately cause more
problems without fixing any. On the one side people say that not only are GMOs just as safe to consume as
regular food, they provide a higher yield per acre, allowing easier profits for farmers in developing countries along
with the potential to feed more people with less land, which is quite important with the increasing problem of
global hunger. Along with this it could help to provide essential nutrients and vitamins that were not previously
available to everyone and help with resistance to pests and inclement weather, which would have previously
killed some crops off. However, on the other side people claim that GMOs can cause serious health risks in the
long run due to increased use of pesticide in the farming process. Along with this GMOs can increase health risks
such as allergies, asthma, autism, and ADD. On the economic side it could also end up costing farmers more than
normal crop production, making it a less economically viable solution. Overall, in this debate paper both sides of
the argument will be studied in order to come to a justified conclusion as to whether or not GMOs are safe in the
long run and therefore if stricter regulations need to be implemented within the US agribusiness industry.
To start, let us look at an article that looks at GMO production and consumption in a positive light and
summarize the arguments it presents. This article focuses on the topic of the current debate on whether or not a
I am in Debate Group B (not debating this week, but you said it was okay to do this one instead of next debate’s debate paper)
law should be passed that requires foods that are genetically modified to be labeled as such. Essentially, this
article uses that topic to highlight how labeling would only cause people to fear something that does not need to
be feared. Using that as a starting point the article mentions the many benefits that GMOs provide. First, it starts
off by saying that GMOs are just as safe as other foods and that the FDA has tested all the GMOs on the market
and have not found any to be toxic or allergenic (The Editors, 3). Following on, it states that GMOs allow for a
much cheaper option in terms of food and state how removal could increase some families’ yearly food bill by as
much as $400 (The Editors, 5). Another huge economic benefit is the benefit to individual farmers and how a
recent study in India has showed the genetically modified crops have “increased their yield per acre by 24 percent
and boosted profits by 50 percent” (The Editors, 6), allowing them to provide for their families more easily and
providing a boost to the economy. Finally, another important benefit of GMOs is that they can provide greater
amounts of nutrients and vitamins that people usually lack in their normal diet. For example, genetically modified
products such as Golden Rice, cassava, and corn have had massive increases in the amount of beta-carotene that
they provide (as well as other essential nutrients), which could help to provide more vitamin A into the diet,
helping to curb childhood blindness (The Editors, 7-8). Overall, the article ends by saying that this labeling decision
is essentially deciding whether we will continue to develop this “immensely beneficial technology or shun it based
on unfounded fears” (The Editors, 9).
In order to fully understand this article let us first look at the source. This article comes from the magazine
Scientific American which is quite a well-known and reliable source for scientific news, which helps to make their
argument seem stronger. Next, looking at the actual facts presented throughout the article, most of them were
supported by statistics and strong evidence, helping to make their argument stronger. However, one of the weak
points of this article is that it only looks at one side of the argument, instead of providing a couple of the potential
issues with GMOs, which weakens their argument slightly. Overall though, this article was quite strong, provided
good evidence, and allowed the readers to see not only the economic, but also the health benefits of GMOs and
how GMOs could be the solution to addressing the growing issue of world hunger.
I am in Debate Group B (not debating this week, but you said it was okay to do this one instead of next debate’s debate paper)
Next, looking at an article with a radically different view on GMOs another side of the argument can be
examined. To summarize this article, it essentially tries to debunk the previous thought benefits of GMOs and
presents some other disadvantages as well. To start, the article first debunks the myth of how GMOs present
quite large increases in crop yield by saying that GMOs have provided “less than marginal gains in actual yield”
(LaSalle, 1), which is supposed to be one of the big benefits of GMOs. Next it debunks the myth of how it is
actually more economically beneficial to farmers by pointing out that the price of corn seed is “three times
greater than it was just a few years ago”(LaSalle, 1). Finally, it debunks the myth that GMOs are supposed to
require the use of less herbicides by saying that due to the genetic engineering, resistance in weeds is growing
which requires a “cocktail of herbicide applications” (LaSalle, 1). It then goes into the harms to consumers by
mentioning that since “farmers are forced to market on volume” they “have no market rewards for nutritional
quality or penalties for ecological impact” (LaSalle, 3) meaning that consumers get less vitamins and nutrients out
of their food which could cause health problems. Regarding more serious health problems the article mentions
how laboratory tests have yielded that test animals fed GMOs have displayed “underdeveloped organs,
reproductive problems, accelerated aging and even death”(LaSalle, 8). Along with this the rapid increase of
allergies, asthma, autism, and ADD in the USA is being attributed to GMOs as well. They help to support this claim
by saying that “the human body has not changed, but our diet undoubtedly has” (LaSalle, 10). Finally, the article
uses the evidence presented above to urge the public to demand that labels be put on these foods and that GMOs
“should not be allowed into our food system until extensive long-term, third-party studies … have been
performed”(LaSalle, 13).
In order to fully understand this article, like the previous article, let us quickly look at the article source.
This source came from a website called “Tree Hugger”, which gives the reader an idea of the side that will be
supported before the even article begins, making this article slightly less strong. Also, the fact that it is completely
against GMOs without even providing a bit of the other side of the argument makes their overall argument less
effective. Along with this, the evidence does not seem to be supported as much with facts and statistics as the
I am in Debate Group B (not debating this week, but you said it was okay to do this one instead of next debate’s debate paper)
previous article, making the reader question the validity of some of the arguments presented. Regardless though,
this article helps to shed some light on how GMOs can actually have serious health issues and how it may not be
as economically beneficial as first thought. It is interesting to see how the hard evidence presented in the previous
article can be turned around, helping to support the other side of the argument. This then brings into question
what should be believed even with all the facts presented.
Finally, looking at an article with a view that is in between the other two views expressed above may help
us to see the various sides of the argument more clearly. To summarize, this article uses the example of a
company named Monsanto, which produces genetically modified seeds, (Puga, 1) as a base to look at the GMO
argument from both sides. On one side scientists argue that with the increasing population comes an increase in
demand for food and one key way of providing for this increasing demand is via GMOs (Puga, 8). Also, many
organizations, such as the American Medical Association, have reached the conclusion that there is “no harm in
biotechnology” and that in fact it has “only contributed to improving agriculture and health” (Puga, 9). For
example, there are many drugs that are made by using GMOs today that were previously difficult to make, such as
insulin for diabetes patients (Puga, 10). However, on the other hand other people argue that GMOs “pose health
concerns as well as threaten the rights of small farmers” (Puga, 11). As well as this, scientists argue that
studies have shown that Bt toxins found in some genetically modified corn damages red blood cells in humans
(Puga, 13). Also, genetic modification can lead crops to become “homogeneous”, causing the loss of the diversity
of the crop and decreasing its chance of survival (Puga, 15). It is also argued that GMOs are causing “huge food
allergies and dietary diseases like Crohn’s disease” (Puga, 18). Finally, the article also mentions that GMOs are not
even mainly going into the food supply or feeding the hungry. They are mainly being used to produce “biofuel,
fatten livestock, and to produce the raw ingredients for junk food” (Puga, 22), which mainly only affects the
wealthy of the world. This means that it is not helping world hunger as much as first thought. Overall, the counter
argument is saying that “we need to produce more of the right stuff and less of the wrong stuff” (Puga, 20).
I am in Debate Group B (not debating this week, but you said it was okay to do this one instead of next debate’s debate paper)
In order to fully understand this article let us again look at the source of the article. This one comes from
the NBC, which is a relatively well-known source, which helps to support the arguments presented. Also, this
article looked at both sides of the GMO debate impartially and interviewed quite a few scientists, not only making
their facts and arguments seem more reliable, but also allowing the reader to make their own decision as to
where they stand by the end of the article. Regarding the facts presented for the advantages of GMOs, it helped
to shed some light on how they can help a lot in the medical field, which was not mentioned in any of the
previous two articles and how it does not pose any serious health issues like some people say. However, the other
side flips this argument around by saying that GMOs not only actually pose serious health risks in the long run,
they are not even helping to solve world hunger, which is the main argument for GMOs. Overall, this article
presented a lot of facts and gave the reader a lot to think about in terms of the GMO debate. It also showed again
how the same facts can be manipulated in order to help support both sides of the argument.
In summary, based off of the articles presented above, it becomes clear that GMOs, if not abused and
with strict regulation, are actually quite beneficial overall. They not only provide farmers with an opportunity to
make more profits and for families to have to spend less on food, it also allows the food they produce to be of
higher quality, providing people with the necessary nutrients and vitamins to stay healthy. Also, GMOs can be
used not only as food but to produce important drugs for diseases like diabetes. Although there is some
opposition saying that GMOs can be harmful in the long run both health wise and economic wise, at this point in
time GMOs seem like their benefits outweigh their costs and with the growing problem of world hunger, they
provide the best long-term solution overall. Therefore, it can be concluded that the US agribusiness does not
necessarily need to impose stricter regulations, at least on GMOs, but merely needs to keep a close eye on things
like these in order for the true benefits to emerge.
I am in Debate Group B (not debating this week, but you said it was okay to do this one instead of next debate’s debate paper)
Works Cited
*The Editors. “Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea.” Scientific American. Scientific American, 6 Sept. 2013. Web.
05 Oct. 2013. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-badidea>
LaSalle, Timothy J. “Why GMO Foods Have Failed at Producing Healthy Food for More People.” TreeHugger.com.
Tree Hugger, 8 Sept. 2009. Web. 05 Oct. 2013. <http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/why-gmofoods-have-failed-at-producing-healthy-food-for-more-people.html>
Puga, Kristina. "The Use of GMOs in Our Food Supply – a Look at The debate." NBC Latino. NBC, 24 July 2013.
Web. 05 Oct. 2013. <http://nbclatino.com/2013/07/24/the-use-of-gmos-in-our-food-supply-a-lookat-the-debate/>
* Note: No other information was given regarding the authors’ name in the first citation (they were merely
referred to as “The Editors” of Scientific American)