Thorne 1
Joe Thorne
English Composition II
Professor Richardson
28 March 2013
Modern Science in Today’s Foods: A good idea or bad?
Stop! Danger! These are familiar words of warning; however, Warning: May Contain
GMOs (genetically modified organisms) is not. This new cautionary cry has entered the world
of warnings, a cry that is under great debate. Since the 1990’s, companies like Monsanto and
Cargill have been producing genetically engineered seeds that are said to be “more productive,
pest-resistant and environmentally friendly than conventional crops.” (McLure 717) Yet they
oppose labeling of products containing GMOs, stating “the labeling effort is an attempt to
demonize a technology with enormous potential benefits.” (McLure 719) Opponents say foods
made from GMO crops may pose environmental and health risks and products containing them
should be labeled. Genetically engineered seeds have entered our lives and landed on our
plates. Without labeling of products containing GMOs, the peoples’ right to choose what to
feed to their families is infringed upon.
In the 1970’s, a movement started with the good intention of making farming more modern
in an attempt to feed the hungry. This movement was coined the “Green Revolution” but in
the 1990’s some people started to call it the “Gene Revolution” with the introduction of
Thorne 2
transgenic crops. (The Future of Food) The purpose of genetic engineering is to alter or
improve plants with new desirable traits. But these traits come with a cost.
Fig. 1. This cartoon depicts the potential danger of GMO foods. (Valdman Google Images)
Manufacturers of genetically modified seeds claim that their seeds are healthier, produce
larger yields, provide cost savings and are better for the environment. These statements have
fallen short of their promise. According to a review in the Annals of Internal Medicine,
comparing organic foods to conventional foods, the evidence showed no real difference in the
nutritional quality between the two. (Smith-Spangler 357) Whereas organic foods showed
thirty percent less detectable pesticide residues, children that were on an organic diet showed
significantly lower levels of pesticide residue in their urine. (Smith-Spangler 358) As to the
claim of higher yields, “a survey conducted in 2009 by Union of Concerned Scientists found that
herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans showed no yield increase over non-GE crops, and insectresistant corn had only a slight advantage over conventional corn.” Also, “a 2007 Kansas State
University study found that non-GE soybeans had 10 percent higher yields than biotech
Thorne 3
soybeans.” (Food & Water Watch 15) Another unrealized claim is the cost savings. Many
farmers are finding the price of the seed of GE crops overshadow any cost savings in reduced
herbicide applications. In 2008, “Soybean farmers were able to save between $3 and $20 per
acre on reduced herbicide costs, but GE soybean seed can cost $23 more per acre than
conventional seed.” (Food & Water Watch 15) Some farmers “are losing a $1 per bushel on GE
crops and are forced to rely on farm subsidies.” (The Future of Food) But the largest concerns
are the effects on the environment. With the over use of glyphosate (Round-Up) herbicides
and Bt (Bacillus thurengiensis) insecticides, weeds such as waterhemp and insects like the corn
borer and corn rootworm have become resistant to them. This is causing farmers to spray
more herbicides and insecticides, some of which are extremely toxic, and is increasingly
harmful to the environment. This also increases the farmers’ costs. Raoul Adamchak the
organic farm coordinator at UC-Davis says, “If people had been smarter – the farmers, the
companies and the U.S. Department of Agriculture – they could have easily developed rotations
and minimal-use programs to avoid resistance…you can put resistance off for many years, or
possibly even indefinitely.” (qtd. in McLure 724) Another harmful effect of GE crops is the
unwanted cross pollination. Cross pollination occurs by the wind, birds or insects transferring
pollen from one plant to another. The unwanted cross pollination in corn, rice and wheat has a
negative impact on our environment and economy by elimination of diversity in species and
elimination of possible exports of crops to foreign markets. Many foreign countries have
banned GMO’s because they perceive them to be unsafe, and as a result, refuse the
importation of suspected GMO crops from the U.S. This costs farmers approximately $300
million dollars annually. (The Future of Food) The unwanted pollination can also lead to GE
Thorne 4
plants infecting non-genetically engineered plants which will in turn affect their seeds thereby
dramatically changing or eliminating the non-genetically engineered plant. And if that isn’t
enough to cause concern, Monsanto Corporation is currently working on what is being called a
“terminator gene”. This terminator gene is designed to render a plants’ seed sterile and is
being created in an attempt to keep farmers from saving seeds. (The Future of Food) If this GE
seed crop is released for production by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and it
unwantedly cross pollinates, it could have vast negative effects on non-genetically engineered
crops, such as rendering all other seeds sterile. It is my hope that the FDA refuses the
application for release of this GE terminator gene.
The FDA is entrusted with the responsibility to oversee the safety of our food using the
standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” (Rulis, Levitt 22) To reach this standard, the
FDA relies on the petitioner to conduct tests on the safety of a new food and to provide the
data to the FDA. This is problematic because it sets up a reactive approach to safety instead of
a proactive approach. This means that often a problem is not discovered until after it has been
released to the public; therefore, many have started to question the effectiveness of the FDA.
One reason for this declining trust in the FDA comes from the practice of allowing qualified
health claims by manufacturers. These “qualified health claims for food have led to misleading
claims in advertising and other sources of consumer information.” (CSPI VII-8) An example of
this would be when manufacturers of olive oil suggest that consuming olive oil might reduce
the risk of heart disease. The FDA requires manufacturers of olive oil to carry the authorizing
language of:
Thorne 5
Limited and not conclusive scientific evidence suggests that eating about 2 tablespoons
(23 grams) of olive oil daily may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease due to the
monounsaturated fat in olive oil. To achieve this possible benefit, olive oil is to replace a
similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories you eat in a
day. One serving of this product contains [x] grams of olive oil. (CSPI VII-3, 4)
Some companies use partial qualified health claims on their packaging while others choose to
simply ignore the FDA. They do this because “each FDA authorization letter states it will not
take enforcement action against health claims that fail to meet the significant scientific
agreement standard required by law.” (CSPI VII-8) This lack of enforcement does not inspire
confidence in the FDA by consumers and emboldens manufactures to continue deliberate
misleading practices.
In 2007 in a response to a request by key health, medical and consumer groups, Congress
stated, “the FDA may have exceeded its statutory authority when the agency decided to begin
allowing the use of qualified health claims for conventional foods in 2003.” (CSPI VII-14) A
subsequent request was then made by the Appropriations Committees to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct an investigation of the FDA’s actions. That investigation
still has not been completed. “Pending completion of the GAO investigation, the Committees
urged the FDA not to use funds…to review requests for qualified health claims for conventional
foods or to issue letters permitting such claims through exercises of enforcement
discretion….”(CSPI VII-14) The FDA chose to ignore Congress and continues to authorize
qualified health claims.
Thorne 6
Another but even more troubling safety issue is with the FDA’s use of the GRAS (generally
recognized as safe) exemption for new food products. To qualify for a GRAS exemption, all a
company has to do is show a reasonable certainty of no harm “by either having a long history of
safe use in food by a sufficiently large population of eaters, or that, based on scientific
procedures there is a consensus among experts qualified by scientific training and experience
to judge such matters that the use of the ingredient is safe.” (Rulis, Levitt 26) This GRAS
exemption was used in getting GMO’s authorized for entering the marketplace. The companies
contended that genetic engineering had been used since the 1970’s and therefore that
technology was safe for use in foods and should qualify for a GRAS exemption because it had a
long history of being safe. Conversely, in their patent petition the company had to show how
the product was significantly different to qualify for a patent. This raises questions on if GMO’s
should have qualified for a GRAS exemption if when patented it was shown to be vastly
different. But what may be the biggest reason for consumer mistrust in the FDA may lie within
the people of the FDA itself.
Monsanto Corporation seems to have a considerable influence at the FDA with the recent
appointment of Michael Taylor, former Monsanto vice president, as the head of the FDA by
President Obama. Monsanto’s influence doesn’t stop there, other former employees such as:
Linda J. Fisher, Terry Medley and Margaret Miller have gone on to hold positions at the FDA.
(Murray, “The Amazing Revolving Door-Monsanto, FDA & EPA) Consumers are asking
themselves, with this conflict of interest in the FDA, how can they be relied upon to remain
unbiased? In an effort to ease this distrust proponents of the FDA say, “Today, the agency’s
procedures for premarket evaluation of food additive safety have evolved into a scientifically
Thorne 7
rigorous, sound and dependable system whose objective and independent evaluations by the
FDA scientists assure that new food additives are safe for their intended uses before they arrive
on the consumer’s plate.” (Rulis, Levitt 20) Consumers still remain skeptical and point to
labeling of products as the only way for them to judge if a product is safe to feed to their
families.
Consumers’ distrust of food manufacturers and in the FDA has led to an economic boom in
the organic industry. “Between 1997 and 2010, U.S. sales of organic foods increased from $3.6
to $26.7 billion.” (Smith-Spangler 348) Some of the reasons people choose organic foods are
for the reduced pesticide exposure, wanting to know where their food comes from and the
more humane treatment to livestock. Consumers also point to the lack of information on what
is in conventional foods and site the lack of safety provided by the FDA, making them feel that
they are being used as guinea pigs. (McLure 725) Complete and accurate labeling on products
may be their only defense.
Fig. 2. This cartoon illustrates Monsanto’s resistance to labeling. (Kelly Google Images)
This has started a public demand for requiring labeling of products containing GMO’s
because of the fundamental change in the make-up of GMO plants. The demand for labeling is
based on the freedom of choice and the peoples’ right to know. This choice allows the
Thorne 8
consumer to support the companies they believe are providing a safe, healthy and
environmentally friendly product. “Biotechnology supporters say labels will mislead consumers
into believing there is something harmful to human health about GM foods…there is no
evidence that crops developed with mutagenic techniques are inherently more harmful to
people or the environment than other crops.” (McLure 725, 26) But opponents say that
manufacturers are fighting labeling so they can avoid liability because of labeling practices
which often times are misleading or blatantly false. Changing the labeling requirements of the
FDA will also provide a way to track potential health hazards to consumers of new food
products such as allergenic, diabetic and carcinogenic problems. Companies like Monsanto
spend millions of dollars lobbying members of Congress so changes will only occur with public
outcry to the FDA and Congress to change their policies for the protection of the consumers.
With today’s foods becoming more of a product of science then a product of nature,
labeling on packaging becomes the consumer’s only source of information. GE foods may pose
health or environmental risks and as such should be labeled. Stacy Malkan, California Right to
Know Coalition, says “People have the right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed to our
children.” (qtd. McLure 719) With people not having the ability or access to growing their own
food, manufacturers should be required to label food containing GMO’s so that consumers can
make informed choices.
Thorne 9
Works Cited
“Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview. ”Food and Water Watch. 29 Sept 2011. Web. 15
Mar. 2013.
http://www.documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/GeneticallyEngineeredFood.Pdf
Kelly, Chris. Cartoon. Copyright 1999. Google Images. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.
McLure, Jason. “Genetically Modified Food: Should labels be required?” CQ Research 31 Aug.
2012: 717-40. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.library.cqpress.com.sinclair.ohionet.org/cqresearcher/document.php?id=c
qresrre2012083100&type=hitlist&num=2>
Murray, Rich. “The Amazing Revolving Door – Monsanto, FDA & EPA” 2002. Web. 28 Mar. 2013
http://www.rense.com
Rulis, Alan M., and Levitt, Joseph A. “FDA’s Food Ingredient Approval Process. Safety Assurance
Based on Scientific Assessment.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 53. (n.d.); 2031. ScienceDirect. Sinclair Library, Dayton, OH. Web. 13 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.journals.ohiolink.edu.sinclair.ohionet.org/ejc/pdf.cgi/Rulis_Alan_M.pdf?is
sn=02732300&issue=v53i0001&article=20-ffiap>
Silverglade, Bruce., and Ringer Heller, Irene. Food Labeling Chaos: The case for reform. March
2010. Center for Science In The Public Interest. 13 Mar. 2013.
http://www.CSPINET.org/new/pdf/food_labeling-chaos-report.pdf
Thorne 10
Smith-Spangler, Crystal, et al. “Are Organic Foods Safer Or Healthier Than Conventional
Alternatives?: A systematic review. “Annals Of Internal Medicine 157.5 (2012): 348-366.
MEDLINE with Full Text. Sinclair Library, Dayton, OH. Web. 13 Mar 2013.
<http://www.ehis.ebscohost.com.sinclair.ohionet.org/ehost/pdfviewer.pdfviewer?vid=3
&sid=93e46a33-4056-4971-a8b4-491b0556b73f%40sessionmgr10&hid=3>
The Furture of Food. Dir. Deborah Koons Garcia. Warner, Elektra, Alantic, Corp., 2004. Film.
Valdman. “Food for Thought.” Cartoon. Google Images. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.