Markus Ricardo
The notion that scientists can change the genetic information of a life form is unbelievable. To
think that humans now have the ability to create different beings is something that is underappreciated
by many. Genetically modified organisms are in everyday life. Much of the food you eat contains or
involved the use of genetically modified organisms. Traditionally, people had used the method of cross
breeding to increase the probability of desired genes in plants or animals, but cross breeding can only be
done between beings of the same species. Genetic modification involves the shooting of desired genes
into the DNA of the chosen organisms. In the beginning stages of its development genetic modification
was used to increase the shelf life of tomatoes and recently to create fluorescent colored fish. The
desired genes no longer had to be from creatures of the same species. Scientists have developed plants
with genes from fish that help protect from frost and genes from other plants that help protect from
drought. Scientists can also develop plants that will contain more nutrients or a built in pesticide. With
technology like genetic modification, some corporations hope to combat world hunger and better
distribute food across the world. With the development of plants that can save soil and reduce the use
of pesticides scientists hope to help save the environment. However, genetically modifying an organism
is unnatural and the consequences cannot be foreseen. Skeptics are unsure about accepting GMOs into
the world market just yet because there have been no tests on the long term effects of the consumption
of genetically modified foods. Tests have been done that determined the effects of GMOs on their
surrounding environments are negligible; however, the spread of the gene to non-target plants can
change ecological systems considerably. Weeds and insects may develop resistance to herbicides and
pesticides with the constant exposure to them. In the economic sense big companies like Monsanto
have created a reign over soybeans with their modified seed. Farmers cannot replant Monsanto seeds
and farmers whose plants get the gene naturally from surrounding farms will face legal action due to
patent infringement. Only time will tell if GMOs are safe, but until then what can be done to make
consumers feel better about this new technology? How can we combat the negative consequences
while harnessing the power of this technology?
As time progresses more attention must be focused on the environment. A lot of what we do as
humans is not always in the best interest of the environment. Genetic modification of plants and crops
that are extensively grown in the United States is aimed to avoid hurting the environment by reducing
the amount of pesticides sprayed as well as reducing the amount of soil wasted through erosion, as
explained by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) in one of
their articles: “Pocket K No. 4: GM Crops and the Environment.” It is also pointed out that with the
exponential growth of the population of the earth and climate change, foods that are easily grown in
any climate must be developed to keep up with the growth. The ISAAA begins the article with the
environmental benefits of genetically modified crops. A study assessing the impacts of the crops on the
use of pesticides shows that the adoption of the technology from 1996 to 2010 has reduced the
environmental footprint of pesticide use by 17.9%, reducing the number of emissions of greenhouse
gases equivalent to removing nine million cars from the road. There are several other results given to
support the reduction of pesticide use. The employment of GM crops has been documented to have a
positive effect on the number of beneficial insects in the US and Australian fields. Furthermore,
adoption of Bt corn, corn with a pesticide gene, did not show any indication of having negative effects of
insect abundance in the Philippines. The ISAAA continues the article by explaining how crops are
assessed for safety. The three main things that are studied for safety are the impact of the crops on nontarget organisms, whether the crop might persist in the environment longer than they should, and the
likelihood and consequences of the gene being transferred unintentionally to other crops. Studies are
done pre-commercialization to ensure the biotech crops are safe for consumers and the environment. It
is explained that although studies show genetic modification does not increase the invasiveness of a
crop or its effects on non-target organisms that the plants should continue to be monitored for anything
unexpected. In response to the development of insect’s resistance to pesticides the ISAAA clarifies that
the government and the GM industry are working on methods of farming to address the issue. For
example, farmers need to have a certain amount of non-transgenic crop for every set quantity of
transgenic crop, stopping insects from adapting to the modified plants with pesticide genes. Genetically
modified crops are evaluated and tested before being commercialized in addition to sound agricultural
systems being put in place in order to minimize potential risks. The impacts of GM crops on the
environment are tested and watched carefully and the effects are negligible, if not nonexistent.
There is no telling what the long term effects of genetically modified crops are until they have
been around for a long enough period of time. Even then, who knows what an unnatural process like
gene modification can do. The article fails to address what types of processes can be developed to help
combat insect’s evolution to resist pesticides. The ISAAA simply states that scientists and industry
workers are working on ways to do so and suggest a method that has not been proven or tested. The
article does not address what happens when the gene has spread to other plants except for the plants
not being any more invasive than usual. There are plenty of other ways the spread of the gene can affect
the environment like disrupting ecosystems and possibly changing the biodiversity of surrounding
environments. If the gene can spread to the plant’s surroundings, it will continue to spread completely
changing a species, maybe several species, of plant.
Many of the concerns about GMOs can be grouped into one: the uncertainty of its effects. It is a
relatively new technology and because it is so unique it is hard to predict what it can do. In the article
“10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs” by the Institute for Responsible Technology the number one reason given
is because GMOs are unhealthy, the number two because GMOs contaminate - forever. Since 1996, the
year GMOs were introduced, the percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses has
jumped from 7% to 13% (from 1996-2005). Transferred genes have been found in wild plants
threatening the self-propagation of weeds resistant to herbicides. The spread of the genes coupled with
the possibility of producing new toxins, allergens and carcinogens paints an ominous picture. With the
evolution of herbicide resistant plants farmers must use more herbicides which are known to harm
animals and pollute the environment. The Institute for Responsible Technology does not only bring to
light the harmful health and environmental effects of GMOs, they also reveal the lack of supervision in
the industry of genetic modification. Independent researchers have been fired or silenced when they’ve
attempted to release information to the media. Government oversight is said to be dangerously lax. The
FDA does not require any tests to be done because the genetically modified foods are essentially the
same as the non-transgenic foods and although FDA scientists believe there are unpredictable side
effects, FDA bureaucrats push for long-term studies and the selling of GM products. Overall, the United
States has tested the effects of GMOs in an insufficient manner and has continued to allow the growing
and selling of GM products. Although there is not much evidence of the dangers there is also not much
evidence of its safety, so what is the best course of action?
There are many suspicions about genetically modified foods and how they might affect people
and the environment. There is not much evidence to give a clear answer as to whether they are more
beneficial or more detrimental. The article by the institute for Responsible Technology says that GMOs
are unhealthy for the reason that the number of people with chronic illness has increased since the
introduction of genetically modified foods. To make the statistic sit better with those in support of
GMOs they could possibly give statistics of the number of people with chronic illness in the years prior
to the introduction to show that it is an abnormal increase. However, they also explain that there is no
real evidence that the increase is related to GMOs, it is only a suspicion. Most of their other reasons to
avoid GMOs are reasonable, but for a few there is very little evidence or they are simply accusations. For
instance, saying the biotech uses “tobacco science” to claim product safety. Claiming that independent
scientists have caught big business leaders altering test results, but they do not say who the scientists
are and do not provide any of the evidence. It is hard to make a solid case with hollow claims.
There is a lot of back and forth with genetic modification since a few of the key points of the
debate have no sure reasons to be advantageous or disadvantageous. Those points are subject to
anybody’s opinion. In my view articles without a bias are those with the best arguments, or at least the
best sounding arguments. In the article “GMO Foods: Key Points in the Genetically Modified Debate” by
Marjorie Olster, a few of the main arguments in the GMO debate are dealt with without bias. In the
discussion of the health effects of genetically modified foods it is explained that the World Health
organization has not seen any ill health effects resulting from GMOs on the international market. It is
also explained that many worry of the long term effects and an increase in allergies or diseases resistant
to antibiotics, but there has been no evidence to support those theories. The sub-heading concludes
with the sentence “the safety of genetically modified foods must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,”
showing that there is no clear side to the author’s opinion. Although there seems to be more support
for GMOs, she is just relaying the dialogue. On the front that GMOs can help combat world hunger it is
explained that conventional methods such as cross-breeding and splicing have been successful for
decades and that genetically modified plants do not increase yields, especially not in proportion to how
much they more cost in comparison. With a clear side to the argument in terms of crop yield, the article
helps support the anti-GMO movement. On an economic standpoint GMOs are expressed to be harmful
to trading and in turn the entire United States economy. There is no doubt about it, if there are
restrictions against GM foods in other countries there is no way we can trade the immense amount of
genetically modified crops we grow. It is as simple as that and that is how it is presented in the article
once more assisting the movement against genetically modified plants.
In most debates that deal with the environment and the safety of people I support the side with
fewer ties to big business. However, in the case of genetically modified plants I find that I continue to
want to support the development of this technology even with claims of lobbying to hide test results. I
understand that no case for the long term safety of modified foods has been made, but they’ve been
around for some time now and there must be a reason I haven’t heard much about the side effects of
their consumption. I believe that the whole idea of changing the genetic material of a living thing is
substantial and something you’d see only in a sci-fi movie. It has great potential and although at the
moment it cannot solve the problem of world hunger, it definitely has the potential to. I have read
about possibly growing crops with vaccines or antibiotics. It is something that can have a far-reaching
impact on the world. On the other hand, I do find it a bit risky to continue using GMOs without true
knowledge of the potential side effects both by consuming and farming. I feel that research and testing
needs to continue so that those against GMOs can feel safe about this technology.
Visser, Nick. "GMO Foods: Key Points In The Genetically Modified Debate." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 02 Aug. 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.
Cooney, Scott. "The Economic Argument Against GMOs: A Top Ten List." The Inspired Economist. The
Inspried Economist, n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.
"Institute for Respsonsible Technology." Institute for Responsible Technology. N.p., n.d. Web.
31 Oct. 2013.
"Pocket K No. 4: GM Crops and the Environment." GM Crops and the Environment. ISAAA, July 2012.
Web. 31 Oct. 2013