Schuessler 1
John Schuessler
Dr. Andrus
English 1001
11/3/2013
Kill the People or Their Economy?
Genetically modified (GM) food can be defined as meat and edible plants
modified through genetic engineering. Genetically modified foods should be labeled,
if not ban, because they are not healthy for the human body. There have been many
experiments performed to prove this to be true, organic foods are much healthier.
When it comes down to it if we don’t go out and harvest our own crops or
slaughter an animal for its meat, do we really know where our food comes from?
The answer to that is an astounding no. We go out to the grocery store and we buy
packages. Packages of food that may or may not contain something that will harm
our bodies in other ways than just having too many carbohydrates, sugars, or fats.
We bring these products home and we feed them to our families and even
sometimes our children, the future generation, and we have not a clue what they
could be doing to the human body. Even in some cases of growing your own crops.
Where did your seeds come from? Are they genetically modified to better grow in
any conditions to yield more crops? Then chances are, they are not the best for you
even though they are brought to your dinner table through your hard work.
We live in a society that is consumed by these products because buying organic
product means that more money is coming straight out of your pocket.
Schuessler 2
Genetically modified food is obviously a worldwide epidemic. It is
very influenced in some cultures and then others very discouraged. According to
The Introduction Of Genetically Modified Food In The United States And The United
Kingdom, “Controversy over genetic modification of food crops, simmering since the
first laboratory experiments in the 1970s, has intensified in the last decade with the
introduction of genetically modified crops to a global market. Countries such as the
U.S. and Brazil have embraced genetically modified (GM) foods, while others, such as
Argentina, and the countries of the European Union (EU) have imposed restrictions
on the use and sale of GM crops” (Botelho 13). This causes many questions. Why are
some countries so for this newfound idea while others are very much settle against
it? Could it be that these countries have different motives for their people, or does it
just come down to opinion? Research has showed that the United States of America
is the number one fattest country in the world. This is very ironic; the number one
fattest country in the world is also one of, if not the leaving supporter of, genetically
modified foods. This is not found coincidental. There’s something with genetically
modified foods that causes obesity. Scientists have not been able to pinpoint exactly
what it is yet but many are for certain GM foods not only cause obesity but many
other abnormalities as well. Scientist have run tests and found that the food is in fact
harmful for us.
In "Breaking News: Viral Gene in Genetically Modified Foods Might Promote
Diseases” they tell us that in genetically modified plants they use a plant virus that
acts as a promoter and starts the production of the proteins for the plant in keeps
running continuously causing the plant to yield more production (Breaking News:
Schuessler 3
Viral Gene in Genetically Modified Foods Might Promote Diseases). You might now
be thinking so what? If this virus is going to give me more food and it doesn’t affect
me then what is the problem. Well the rest of the article will tell us that problem
exactly as it says,
“Just beyond the promoter, or more accurately overlapping with it, is
part of an actual virus gene. It is sufficient in size and characteristics such that
it could theoretically be producing viral proteins. And that would be bad. Viral
proteins are well known to suppress defenses against viral infection—for both
plant and humans. In other words, if you eat food from any of the 54 types of
GM plants that use the CaMV promoter (including soybeans and most corn),
you may be much more susceptible to viral infections, including colds, hepatitis,
even AIDS. And because viral proteins can also be toxic to cell functions,
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in your diet might also promote cancer
and other diseases” (Breaking News: Viral Gene in Genetically Modified Foods
Might Promote Diseases).
Now you might be seeing the consequences. Are we really willing to risk the
health benefits for the cheap inexpensive food?
According to Protect Yourself From Genetically Modified Foods, “In a study in
the early 1990s, rats were fed genetically modified (GM) tomatoes. Well actually, the
rats refused to eat them. They were force-fed. Several of the rats developed stomach
lesions and seven out of 40 died within two weeks. Scientists at the FDA who
reviewed the study agree that it did not provide a "demonstration of reasonable
certainty of harm." In fact, agency scientists warned that GM foods in general might
Schuessler 4
create unpredicted allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional
problems. Internal FDA memos made public from a lawsuit reveal that the scientists
urged their superiors to require long-term safety testing to catch these hard-todetect side effects. But FDA political appointees, including a former attorney for
Monsanto in charge of policy, ignored the scientists' warnings. The FDA does not
require safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the GM foods claim that they are
safe, the agency has no further questions. The GM tomato was approved in 1994”
(Smith 24). This is astounding! Studies were done that clearly proved the genetically
modified tomatoes caused abnormalities in the rats, yet they were still set out for
consumption to humans. This is insanity! Sure they have now taken me is
genetically modified tomatoes off the shelf that way humans cannot get their hands
on them anymore, but who says other foods, that we purchase every day, could be
genetically modified to harm us just like these tomatoes. Was at the scientist
intention to harm these rats by force-feeding them tomatoes? Of course not, but it is
absolute insanity that even after seeing the side effects of the rats after eating the
genetically modified tomatoes, these tomatoes were still put out on shelves for
human consumption. This really tells us that our government is willing to risk our
health to ensure that there is enough food to go around.
Genetically modified foods affect our daily lives more than we really think.
When we are forced to make a decision on what to eat, it normally comes down to
price. And it is a commonly known fact that genetically modified foods are cheaper
than organic foods. For college students the cheaper option is more popular. How
does this affect us in the long run? Looking further into this we will realize that for
Schuessler 5
our health benefits and the future of food production it would be a better option to
choose the organic product. But if we are not educated on what foods are
genetically modified how will we make the right choice? The simple answer this is
we won’t. Labeling is a key process to let us know what is in our foods. If one was
allergic to gluten for say, they would read the labels on the back of food packages to
ensure that they are not buying something I contains gluten. This applies to
genetically modified foods because if they are not labeled we will not know what we
are purchasing. Sure some say that they are safe for human consumption but there’s
not been enough research to fully prove this. In this case we should be letting people
decide for themselves on what food they would like to purchase even if they are not
educated in the subject to know what is genetically modified and what isn’t this may
have an effect on the economy in some cases. But the health of our citizens is more
important than the health of our economy. According to “A Preliminary Comparison
Of The Retail Level Effects Of Genetically Modified Food Labeling Policies In Canada
And France”, “In April 2004, Canada and the European Union (EU) simultaneously
adopted two opposite labeling systems, with the same goal of consumer choice and
consumer information. Canada implemented a voluntary labeling system of GM and
non-GM food allowing the adventitious presence of unlabeled ingredients at the 5%
threshold level. The EU reinforced its mandatory labeling policy of GM food by
lowering the threshold level from 1% to 0.9% and by extending the requirements to
feed, food sold in restaurants, and products that are derived from GM ingredients
but with no significant trace of genetically altered protein (such as soy or corn oil,
high fructose syrup, or soy lecithin)” (Gruère 149). The United Kingdom is very
Schuessler 6
eager to give their citizens an option when it comes to food. It is also very
interesting that United Kingdom requires genetically modified food labels on the
feed as well. This will ensure that anything caused by genetically modified foods,
such as disease or abnormalities will not be spread through the United Kingdom.
Labeling genetically modified foods is very controversial, as the saw from
Gruère in his “A Preliminary Comparison Of The Retail Level Effects Of Genetically
Modified Food Labeling Policies In Canada And France”. It is heavily debated due to
either health, moral, or economical reasons. In Brian Roe’s "Genetically Modified
Food Labeling: The Impacts Of Message And Messenger On Consumer Perceptions
Of Labels And Products", he tells us that “Genetically modified (GM) foods provide a
classic example of the challenges that society and individuals face in evaluating new
technologies that may become an unseen but pervasive part of life. Such
technologies generate a set of potential benefits (e.g., cheaper production costs, food
attribute enhancements) and possible costs (e.g., unintended allergic responses,
long-term health and environmental effects, ethical or moral issues). Consumers’
perceptions of these potential benefits and costs shape market responses to the new
technologies and, eventually, determine how widely the technology is adopted” (Roe
55). This statement is very accurate. When it comes the food production many
people have different views. Many believe that we should do what is best for our
economy, while others believe that we should do what is best for our bodies. The
labeling of genetically modified foods would not absolutely kill our economy. Sure it
would make it harder for farmers and food processors to generate more food, but
whoever said the farmers were paid that much anyway? This is another reason to
Schuessler 7
buy organic. The people who are slaving over our food are the ones that are getting
the lowest pay. If we purchase for organic foods from local vendors we will not have
to worry about this issue because the farmers will be receiving their full cut of pay
because we are buying the food directly from them.
Although there are downfalls to having genetically modified foods, there are
good things about it as well. According to "A Look At The News From Around The
World On Genetically Modified Food And Crops", “Golden rice, enriched with β
carotene, continues to be in the news. According to Science News Philippines, golden
rice has gone through all safety evaluations appropriate and required at each stage
of the project. The International Rice Research Institute reports that they “are
following international and national guide- lines for food safety of genetically
modified crops, which require assessment of the nutritional value of golden rice and
potential toxicity and allergenicity of proteins from the new genes in it.” Let us hope
that it would be released soon to help fight the dreaded vitamin-A deficiency in rice
eating parts of the world”(Prakash 87). This resource could in some cases be very
helpful to us. In some cases it could help us end world hunger and give the
malnourished nutrients at a cheap cost. If we are able to produce golden rice and
very high quantities for very little cost this could very well and world hunger. This is
a huge controversy because this could end world hunger but at the same time we
could be giving these people that are already malnourished diseases and
abnormalities through this food. But according to "GM is not the only answer to
hunger" by Dominic Watts, Genetically modified foods are not the answer to world
hunger because there are better options to choose from, such as eating less, wasting
Schuessler 8
less, consuming less alcohol (which leads to less social dysfunction and poor health),
eat less meat and consumed less energy (Watts). This is other area where a large
controversy lies. If our society would cut back on so many things we could end
world hunger without the use of genetically modified foods. A large portion of our
society would not be willing to give up these things though. They are now part of
their lifestyle and maybe even traditions. Alcohol is a key component to many
parties, events and even casual drinking. As for energy consumption, sure there are
few tree huggers here and there, but many people love their television, staying up
late and many types of electronics. Consuming less food, we are the most obese
nation in the world. This will be one of the hardest things to overcome. Sure if
people ate less there would be a lot more to go around, but it is very unlikely that
this will happen anytime soon.
Possible ending of world hunger is one of the things that genetically modified
foods could help higher yield of food and lower-cost which would boost the
economy. According to "Companies Set To Fight Food-Label Plan" by Monya Baker
“Labeling would certainly have far-reaching consequences: around 94% of the soya
beans and 88% of the maize (corn) grown in the United States is genetically
engineered to resist herbicides, insect pests or both, according to the US
Department of Agriculture. The plan could affect tens of thousands of brand-name
products, and food manufacturers Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Nestlé have each
contributed more than $1 million to the campaign; meanwhile, agribusinesses
DuPont and Monsanto have chipped in more than $4 million apiece” (Baker). These
are incredible numbers. These companies are paying very high numbers towards a
Schuessler 9
campaign that will keep us in the dark about genetically modified foods and not
force the companies to label these foods. The fact the these companies are willing to
pay such a high dollar amount to ensure that we do not know what foods are
genetically modified tells us that these companies are making a much larger amount
from having their foods genetically modified as opposed to non-genetically modified
foods. If a company is dropping $4 million to ensure that we do not know if they’re
using genetically modified foods or not, and what parts of it are genetically
modified, it must be an astounding number that they’re making from using
genetically modified foods. As the public to this nation that these foods are produced
in we should be taking a course of action to find out what we are eating. We should
really be questioning what they have to hide and why they are paying so much to
keep us in the dark about genetically modified foods and if they are using them or
not.
The United States seems to be one of the biggest against labeling genetically
modified foods. As stated before European countries have incorporated into their
wall then companies have to label which foods are genetically modified and which
aren’t. According to "What's On The Label?" by John Krebs, “In the United States,
labeling regulations are largely about the material content. In Europe, the method
and place of production may also be specified in law, even if they make no material
difference to the contents. This difference in approach is evident in the labeling of
genetically modified (GM) foods. Whether the plant from which a food is made is GM
is irrelevant in the United States, given its emphasis on overall content rather than
process. But in Europe, labeling of foods containing DNA or protein from GM plants
Schuessler 10
is mandatory, and legislation has now been extended to include purified derivatives
such as glucose syrup and canola oil” (Krebs). It is very confusing as to why United
Kingdom is against genetically modified foods while the United States of America is
for it. If the United Kingdom is against genetically modified foods there must be a
reason. Genetically modified foods could bring an uprising to their economy. Either
the United Kingdom knows more than the United States does about this topic or
United States is choosing to overlook key aspects of genetically modified foods that
give people a bad outlook on them. Labeling these Foods is very important to the
health of countries citizens. Again according to Krebs in “What’s On the Label?”,
“Labels are meant to inform you and to help you to choose. But when you go
shopping, how much time do you have to read about the differences between 30
types of chicken soup or 300 varieties of breakfast cereal? Consumers seem to want
more and more choice, and consumer pressure groups definitely want more
information on food labels. Choice and information are also attractive to regulators,
because these options are less likely to be viewed as restricting individual freedom
or stifling food industry innovation than the alternative of regulating food content”
(Krebs). Krebs is pretty much calling us a little picky here. He says that we want
many options so we can choose the food that we would like to purchase. The key
component to this quote is when it defines a food label. “Labels are meant to inform
you and to help you to choose.” Should we not be informed about genetically
modified foods as well as the contents of a food product? Technically the genes that
are inserted through genetic modification are the contents of the food as well.
According to David Morgan in "Genetically Modified Food Labeling And The WTO
Schuessler 11
Agreements", “Governments began to regulate GMOs in response to the
development of recombinant DNA technology. In contrast to the techniques used by
human beings for thousands of years to modify genetically plants, animals and other
living organisms (such as yeast), recombinant DNA technology allows one or more
specific genes to be inserted into an organism” (Morgan 306). This explains about
the time when the United Kingdom and other countries decided to crack down on
genetically modified foods, unlike the United States. We should not be leading the
food companies run rampant doing what they desire to the food that we are eating
on a daily basis.
We have looked at and analyzed the reasons behind having genetically
modified foods and why they should be labeled. With these foods we have noticed
that the cons outweigh the benefits. It is not worth having abnormalities or diseases
progress in our youth or even ourselves just to either make a quick buck or produce
more food. There’s no reason that governments cannot require food agencies or
companies to have labels on their food product’s telling us simply whether it is
genetically modified or not. They either have something to hide, or thinking that
there will be a risk to themselves such as a loss and profit. And for these reasons
genetically modified food should be labeled if not ban.
Schuessler 12
Works Cited
Prakash, C. S. "A Look At The News From Around The World On Genetically Modified
Food And Crops." GM Crops & Food 4.2 (2013): 85-87. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.
Botelho, David, and Hilda Kurtz. "The Introduction Of Genetically Modified Food In
The United States And The United Kingdom: A News Analysis." Social Science
Journal 45.1 (2008): 13-27. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
Gruère, Guillaume P. "A Preliminary Comparison Of The Retail Level Effects Of
Genetically Modified Food Labelling Policies In Canada And France." Food
Policy 31.2 (2006): 148-161. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
Roe, Brian, and Mario F. Teisl. "Genetically Modified Food Labeling: The Impacts Of
Message And Messenger On Consumer Perceptions Of Labels And Products."
Food Policy 32.1 (2007): 49-66. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
Morgan, David, and Gavin Goh. "Genetically Modified Food Labelling And The WTO
Agreements." Review Of European Community & International Environmental
Law 13.3 (2004): 306-319. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
Smith, Jeffrey M. "Protect Yourself From Genetically Modified Foods." Total Health
27.3 (2005): 23-26. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Nov. 2013.
Schuessler 13
Krebs, John. "What's On The Label?" Science 306.5699 (2004): 1101. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.
Baker, Monya. "Companies Set To Fight Food-Label Plan." Nature 488.7412 (2012):
443. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
"Breaking News: Viral Gene in Genetically Modified Foods Might Promote Diseases."
Web log post. Institute for Responsible Technology. Institute for Responsible
Technology, 24 Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Sept. 2013.
Hodgson, John. "US Says No To GM Labels." Nature Biotechnology 17.7 (1999): 623.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
Waltz, Emily. "'GMO-Free' Logos." Nature Biotechnology 27.11 (2009): 967.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.