DunhamCarson1

KhalilDunhamCarson

RobinKramer

CAS137H

November1st,2015

DoYouKnowWhatYouAreEating?

It is not too late to save our planet. There are approximately 7.349 billionhumanbeings
here on earth and 320 million of us actually live right here in America where our nation have
the fastest and highest growing rate of food over consumption and the extended use of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) compared to the rest of theworld!Thisnewwaveof
genetically modified organisms and mass producing has been linked to allergic reactions,
diabetes, fertility issues, obesity, and a plethora of other health related issues that currently
trickle into a majorityofourhouseholdsacrossournation.However,inordertofullyunderstand
the usage of genetically modified organisms and overconsumption, you must understand the
historyastowhywesuccumbtotheseconditions.
But first, what are genetic modified organisms? It is modify food that has altered DNA
through genetic engineering (Robert Kiener). These type of foods contains chemicals that have
been processed in a lab to develop genes that introduce specific traits

such aspestresistance

to the organism (Tom Price). The food resemble characteristics that are not authentic to a

natural organism. This usage of science creates unstable combinations of a plant, bacteria, and
viral genes that donotoccurinnatureorthroughnaturalmating.Therefore,iffoodresourcesare
low, then genetic engineering is considered vital since it can potentially increase
food
production. However, according to a skeptic name Rissler, a highly attuned researcher, he

DunhamCarson2

recognizes that the world currently is producing more than enough food to feed everybody. In
fact, producing more food could actually worsen economic conditions for U.S farmers (David
Hosansky). Although geneticengineeringcanpossiblyincreasefoodproduction,isitadetriment
to society if it is going to lead to overproduction? If there is too much food, then the economy
will decline, especially for the farmers. Therefore, the shift of natural foods to modified
organismsaffectsthewayhowhumanslivesincetherearesomanyobscuritiesaboutthistopic.
For instance, if we were to go backtoearlyhumansocietywhereour primitiveancestors
had inefficient methods of collecting resources, we will realize how far humans advance in our
modern day of living. One mayagreeupontheideathateventhenfoodhasalwaysbeenabasic
necessity for human survival. Those whothrivedwereoftenthosewhodevelopedhigherrates of
food consumption for mental and physical health, therefore providing an active case of
reproduction and advancement for their individual families. The evolution ofresourcegathering
is also how a family or community flourished and perhaps reigned supreme. Is that why the
desire tohavemorefoodisequivalenttoourancestorspriorities?Sincefoodisa basicnecessity
for humans, is that why it should not matter if our food is natural or modified? Why should it
matter on what type of food we eat if the genetic modified organisms have been consumed by
millionsofpeopleintheU.S.fornearlytwodecades(JasonMcLure).
Despite food aiding to our survival, people still deserve to know what type of food that
they are eating. According to Stacy Malan, a spokeswoman for California to Know, a coalition
that has spearheaded the ballot measure, People have a right toknowwhats inthe foodweeat
and feed to our children(Jason McLure). It is important to know what the food consists of
because our body digests and breaks down the food. If the food is modified, then the altered

DunhamCarson3

ingredients could trigger a severe reaction (David Hosansky). The response can be an allergic
reaction where our body can notbreakdownthefoodproperly.Whenever thisoccurs,thenthere
will always be side effects demonstrating the food did not correspond cohesively with the body
correctly. Because of themodifiedorganismtriggeringresponsesthatcanbefatalorsevere,then
it isvitaltounderstandthetypeoffoodsweareconsuming.Wearesupposedtobeconscientious
with the food weeat,butin reality,wecompletelyavoidwhatisbestforusandgoafter whatwe
wantinstead.
Today, advertising and marketing professionals tend to imposeuponourhumaninstincts
of wanting more by promoting fast food chains to go bigger and better.Suggestingthatifweas
human beings weretoeat tooursatisfactionthenwewillbeabletoconquerthe worldwithafull
mind and stomach! It was not until the director Morgan Spurlocks
Super Size Me film
documentary went in depth about the massive fastfood chain McDonalds. McDonalds started
to phase out its supersize fries and drinks in its more than 13,000 U.S restaurants. They
eventually stopped selling supersize items altogether by the endof2004duetothedrivingforce
to menu simplification, according to spokesman Walt Riker. Aside from removing this
program from their menu, our U.S. citizens had a taste of what it is like to be given more food
for less the value. Believe it or not, U.S. citizens eat ten to twelve times more meat than the
average person from any other part of the world! There is a superfluous amount of food that
America has causing Americans to want more since they can have it. In reality, this mindset
leads to health problems like obesity and heart failure. If we simplify the amount of food we
have instead of increasing production, then probably weight problems would not be soheavyin
America. However, obesity will steady incline if we continue to modifyourfoods.Eventhough

DunhamCarson4

evidence states genetic modified organisms creates health problems, are there at least some
positives to this altered type of food? There is no way the government is going to continue to
regulate this type of food if it is completely treacherous to our country. Therefore, what are the
benefitstothisnewlytypeoffood?
Genetic modified organisms actually benefits the farmers significantly. For example, a
job as a farmer isextremelyrough.Farmersrelyheavilyonweather tomaketheircropsflourish.
If there is ever bad weather, then the crops could possibly be endanger.However,ifthefarmers
apply genetic engineering to these crops and organisms, then the crops will thrive despiteharsh
conditions. Or, if there is a pestinoneofthefarmerscrops,thenitcanruinall ofthem.Thus,if
the crops are genetically modified, then the crops are more productive, pestresistant and
environmentally friendly than conventional crops(Jason McLure). If the crops are able to be
produced more efficiently, the farmers will be able to make more money due to the success of
well produced crops. In addition, the farmers also benefits since this usage of technologies
increase the profitability of industrial farming(Jason McLure). If the farmers are producing
more, the farmers will make more money. However, this actually leads to overproduction since
the farmers want to make their money, but do not realize that itaffects theconsumptionratefor
Americans. The farmers are only doing their job, but are they the problem to why genetic
modified organismsareusedsoheavily?Farmerswereconfinedandforcedtousethismethodof
growing crops since they did not fully have a choice to. During a protest near the White House
on January 10th, 2013, Demonstrators argued that the Food and Drug Administration does not
adequately protect farmers who prefer not to grow genetically modified crops (Robert Kiener).
Therefore, the farmers that desire to grow their cropsnaturallywillnotreceivethesameamount

DunhamCarson5

of support as a farmer growing modified crops. Why wouldfarmersattempttogrownaturallyif

the government does not support them? This indicates that more farmers are inclined to grow
geneticallymodifiedorganismsnotbecausetheywantto,itisbecausetheyhaveto.
Theproblemwiththeshiftoffoods isthatgeneticmodifiedorganismsbecamesopopular
that it is going to beimpossibletoeradicateitoutofAmerica.Instead,theonlypossiblesolution
is to put labels on all foods that contains gmos. It is impossible to reach consensus on such an
obscure topic due to both sides having an opinion. For example, one of the person with an
opposing view is named Marler. Marler is a food safety lawyer that declares, Theres an
emotional argument against GMOs, but I havent seen any scientific literature that they are
dangerous (Peter Katel). It is impossible to prove a point without valid evidence. That is why
the lawyer is not persuaded too heavily with the evidence he has been given. However, the
lawyer did add that he was more focused on pathogens than trying to see if GMOs were
dangerous. Therefore, he could be completely oblivious to the fact of how dangerous GMOs
really are. Even if they are not dangerous, we as a country can not take a chance or risk other
peopleslives.Therefore,therehastobeasolutiontothisproblem.
By adding a label to the altered food, the people will be fully aware of what they are
eating. For example, someoftheadvocateswantthegovernmenttoaddressthenationsobesity
and dietrelatedhealthproblemsbyimprovingitsoversightoffoodactivitiesandrequirelabels
on genetically modified foods (Robert Kiener). If the government has more of an oversight of
the food, the this can limit overproduction. If this limits overproduction, then this will fix some
of the opele will extreme health problemsTherefore,thegovernmenthasagreaterresponsibility
of aiding and protecting the people, even through the usageoffood.Also,anotherreasonwhyit

DunhamCarson6

is a necessity to tell people what they areeatingisbecausetheycanthinktheyareeatingnatural

the entire time, and actually be misinformed. For instance, consumer advocates sited strong
evidence demonstrating that consumers in 12 focus groups overwhelmingly favored labeling
and felt outragewhentheylearnedhowmanysupermarket productsalreadycontaingenetically
modified products ( David Hosansky). Thisillustrates that thepublicisnotentirelyinformedor
awared of genetic modified foods. The people have a right toknowwhattheyareeatingsothey
should besuppliedwiththatinformation.Thisinformationiseasilyprovidedonlabelsindicating
whether or not the food is altered or modified. A downside to labeling is that food industry
representatives worry that labels might scare away consumers who do not know about
biotechnology( David Hosansky). Despite losing consumers, this is not considered a huge
downfall since if people still want that product, then they canstillconsumeduetoushavingthe
freedom to. However, it is more important to maintain honesty with the public instead of being
secretive in order to make a profit. If the food industry to busy focusing on the money aspect
over the consumers interest, then it is unlikely for the company to flourish. Therefore, it
logically makes sense for the labels to be added to these type of foods to prevent a sense of
distraughtbetweentheconsumersandthefoodindustry.
In conclusion, the major shift fromnatural foodsto modifiedfoodsaffectsourhealthdue
to overproduction of food. There needs to be more awareness of this issue of altered and
modified foods since a lot of people are unaware of what genetic modified foods are. The only
way how to inform or educate more people is if we add labels to these type of foods.There are
labeling advocates that want any GM food to be labeled, as more than 40 countriesdo(Jason
McLure). If more countries are starting to implement GM labeling, then America should join

DunhamCarson7

these other 40 countries. You have a choice to make a difference in this world. What are you
goingtodotosaveit?

DunhamCarson8

McLure, Jason. "Should Labels Be Required."

CQPRESS
. Volume 22 Issue 30, 31 Aug. 2012.
Web.
Kiener, Robert. Should Government Regulate Unhealthy Foods.
CQPRESS
. Volume 24 Issue
350,3Oct.2014.Web.
Katel, Peter. Would New Legislation MAke the Food Supply Safer.
CQPRESS
. Volume 20
Issue24,17Dec2010.Web.
Hosansky, David. Should They Be More Stringently Regulated.
CQPRESS
. Volume 11 Issue
12,12Mar2001.Web.