Gann 1
Bruce M. Gann
Melissa Hardy, Ph. D.
BIOL 1010 – 009 (M-W-F 1200)
16 November 2012
Should Genetically Modified Food be sold in the United States?
1. Summary of the Issue
Criticism has been raised that even though that it has been almost two decades since the
first Genetically Modified Foods hit the market, around 1996, there is not much know about the
effect that it may have on themselves, or on they children. Their concerns are that scientists do
not fully understand the impact these genetic changes will have on the nutritional quality or
toxicity of food. It is feared that allergy-producing proteins may spread widely through the food
supply. There are also fears that this technology will have the power to create unintended
ecological disaster in the form of rampant weeds, voracious oversized fish, and rapidly evolving
plant viruses.
2. The Biology
Genetically modified Foods are made by combining genes from different organisms,
meaning moving pieces of DNA from one organism to another. Locating genes for important
traits, for example those advising insect resistance or desired nutrients, is one of the most
difficult steps in the process. This manipulation of the gene is known as recombinant DNA
Technology. The resulting organism is known as a “genetically modified”, “genetically
engineered”, or “transgenic” organism. The purpose for creating Genetically Modified Foods is
to increase yield, insure easier production of crops, and to increase nutritional value of the food.
Gann 2
Genetically Modified Organisms are currently used to make medicines and vaccines, foods and
food ingredients, feeds, and fibers.
3. Advocating
David A. Kessler, Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration,
while giving testimony before House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, FDA and Related Agencies, on April 20, 1993. Kessler argues that the public is
already faced with a bewildering assortment of new technologies, particularly with the advances
in medical enhancements and other scientific enrichments which bring with them a large array of
confusing litany of new terms. It is very important that the public at large understand exactly
how the government is overseeing these developments and they need to have confidence in that
process.
Kessler states that the FDA is working meticulously to be the vanguard of biotechnology.
They intend to ensure that these new crops meet the same high principles as the food we eat
today. The FDA ensures the public that no hazardous food crops make their way onto America’s
dinner table. The FDA understands the concerns and anxiety over products developed through
biotechnology, especially food products. There are many misconceptions about what the
bioengineered food is and about how FDA intends to regulate them. These techniques are being
used to reach the same goals and improvements that plant breeders have sought through
conventional means.
Today’s techniques are different from their ancestors in two substantial ways. First, there
is greater precision with more complete characterization and more predictability about the
qualities of the new variety. Second, there are possibilities for crossing boundaries that could not
Gann 3
be crossed by traditional breeding. For example they enable the transfer of characteristics from
bacteria or animal into plants. It is in this, the ability to cross natural boundaries, which many in
public are concerned about when they hear about biotechnology. Kessler understands these
concerns. That is why Kessler disagrees with those who say we need only concern ourselves with
the final product and not the process that created it. The studying of the final product ultimately
holds the answer of whether or not the product is safe, knowing the process used to create the
product helps in understanding what questions to ask. In that is how the FDA currently regulates
food products, and products derived through biotechnology will be treated no differently.
4. Opposition
Jeremy Rifkin, Director, Foundation on Economic Trends, in a 1991 Press Release, is
opposed to genetically engineered food. Rifkin argues that, the full scale of biotechnology in
agriculture and in food production increases philosophical environmental, economic, and ethical
trepidations. The issue of if we should take on such a long journey where we become the
engineers of life is, possibly, the biggest question ever to face the human family. He argues that
the release of hundreds of engineered life forms into the world ecosystems raises difficult
environmental questions and poses serious potential risks to human health. Rifkin states, because
they are living engineered products are inherently more unpredictable than chemical products.
They can reproduce, mutate, and migrate. When comparing the risk of biotechnology products
with exotic organisms, by environmental scientists, which has in some cases not only adapted,
but wreaked havoc on the environment, the long term cumulative release of thousands of
genetically engineered organisms could be just as destructive. Biotech products could have lethal
impact on small single family farms which could destroy farming communities. He points out the
case of the bovine growth hormone and how when it is injected into cattle on a daily basis can
Gann 4
increase milk production by at least twenty percent per dairy cow, and because of already
flooded milk market, this is a major threat to small dairy farmers that cannot produce milk as
cheaply as with farmers that use the hormone. In effort to find commercial applications,
scientists are crossing species boundaries at an ever increasing rate. Rifkin states, they are
putting human genes into animals and animals genes into other animals and plants. This practice
of engineering transgenic plants and animals is far beyond traditional breeding techniques.
Cross-species genetic crosses may be the decisive transgression to dignity and integrity of the
biotic community. Rifkin worries, prolonged use of these cross-species organisms could mean
the end of the natural world as we currently know it.
5. Personal Feelings
The danger of unintended circumstances is very real, and the loss of control could
quickly turn detrimental to the environment, and the human race. One issue is that biotech is still
in its infancy and need more research and experimentation in order to insure that we are in full
control of the outcome.
However, the advantages cannot be overlooked. The effect on agricultural expenditures
and malnutrition faced in many areas of the globe are good reasons to continue to investigate
further use of genetically engineered organisms. Nevertheless regulation and oversight of these
organisms and processes are vital.
Gann 5
Works Cited
McLure, Jason. “Genetically Modified Food; Should labels be required?” CQ Researcher, 22.30
(2012): 717-740. Web. 11 November 2012.
Plumer, Brad. “Everything you needed to know about California’s genetically modified food
fight, in one post” The Washington Post, The Washington Post Company. 03 November
2012. Web. 13 November 2012.
Phillips, Susan C.. “Genetically Engineered Foods; Do They Pose health and Environmental
Hazards?” CQ Researcher, 4.29 (1994): 673-696. Web. 10 November 2012.
"What are Genetically Modified (GM) Foods?" U.S. Department of Energy Genome Programs,
17 May 2012, Web. 14 November 2012.