Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Meineke, Kyle
Hampel, Judy
English 1001
3/21/17
Do you know what you are eating every day? In 1996, Genetically Modified Food was
introduced into the United States food supply. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are plants,
animals or microorganisms where the genetic material has been altered. Carol Bartolotto from the
Huffington Post explains that Genetically Engineered Food (GE or GEF) is food that has DNA from
bacteria and viruses spliced into the seeds DNA to help the plants tolerate weed killers such as Round
Up (1). Currently in this country, soybeans, corn, canola, cotton, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, some
zucchini, yellow squash and alfalfa are grown from genetically engineered seeds. She writes that nine
out of ten people in this country think that these foods should be labeled by law, but biotech companies
and corporations are spending millions of dollars to prevent forced labeling. For over twenty years, the
people of the United States have been participating in the consumption of products that have been
genetically modified. Arguments have arisen on both sides about the safety of Genetically Modified
Foods. Some people have called for all engineered foods to be labeled and on the other side are
scientists and companies who fight vehemently against it. We will explore the concerns connected with
the GMO foods and why people feel it is significant enough for mandatory labeling.
Genetically Modified Organisms were designed many years ago to address growing concerns
from around the world. With the invention of these engineered plants, a growing body of people have
become concerned that the people of the United States have become unwilling guinea pigs in a
dangerous science experiment. Currently, over 60 other countries in the world require legal labeling of
genetically modified food. In the article by Consumer Reports Magazine, GMO Foods: What You
Need to Know, the author explains that, a joint commission of the World Health Organization and the
Meineke 2
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has established a protocol for evaluating the
safety of the GMOs, which it says has the potential to introduce toxins and new allergens, or increase
the levels of existing ones, or cause nutritional changes in foods and other unexpected effects. (1).
The author cited a survey that questioned 1004 participants. Of the 1004 people questioned, 92% of
them felt that engineered foods should be labeled. The article noted that various other ingredients such
as high fructose corn syrup, homogenized oils, etc. are all required to be noted on the labels so
Genetically engineered foods were started in the United States, but there are questions of the
safety of this food from all over the world. The world map shown below, represents what countries
have required labeling for GMO foods as noted in the green color and the tan color shows the countries
that do not require labeling. The number of countries which require labeling by law is 64, which
appears to be close to half of the world. If the safety concerns about this food are completely
unfounded, then why do so many countries believe that people have the right to be informed about the
Many scientists assure people that genetically engineered food is completely safe and beneficial
to everyone, so what is the problem? People feel that there are enough concerns connected to GM
foods that labeling should be required by law so that everyone can make informed choices. Some of
the concerns noted were herbicide use, health concerns, environmental studies, animal studies, and
questionable testing procedures. The opposition argues that the world would be facing a food shortage
without the engineered food, and the modifications being made are saving lives. They say that labeling
these foods will theoretically create a cross and skull bones on them, that people will be afraid of the
food. This fear will in turn cause companies not to use them in their products and in the long run, all
food costs will go up for everyone. In addition to that, they assert that we will not be able to feed a
growing population without the modifications that have been made to the plants we eat.
Herbicides are a chemical sprayed onto food crops to keep weeds from becoming overgrown
and killing the plants. Fewer weeds also keep the soil from having to be disturbed more than necessary
which is better for the growing seeds. When foods started to be engineered in laboratories, scientists
spliced a gene into the seeds so that the resulting plants would be resistant to glyphosate which is the
most widely used herbicide in the United States. This means that all food crops could be sprayed with
weed killer, and the food producing plants would not be affected. In the National Geographic
Magazine, Elizabeth Grossman explains how the use of the herbicide glyphosate, also known as
Round Up, has changed over the years. She writes, Introduced commercially by Monsanto in 1974,
glyphosate kills weeds by blocking proteins essential to plant growth. It is now used in more than 160
countries with more than 1.4 billion pounds applied per year. (1). At first this method worked well for
inhibiting weed growth, but problems soon followed. Fixing one problem led directly into the second
problem because of the heavy reliance on this herbicide. Philip Landrigan and Charles Benbrook
Meineke 4
argue, Not surprisingly, glyphosate-resistant weeds have emerged and are found today on nearly 100
million acres in 36 states. Fields must now be treated with multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D, a
component of the Agent Orange defoliant used in the Vietnam War. The widespread adoption of
herbicide-resistant crops has led to overreliance on herbicides and, in particular, on glyphosate5. In the
United States, glyphosate use has increased by a factor of more than 250 -- from 0.4 million kg in 1974
to 113 million kg in 2014. Global use has increased by a factor of more than 10. (693). The
widespread use of glyphosate has created resistant weeds, forcing farmers to use more much more
glyphosate on the crops as well as more dangerous herbicides to fix the problem that the genetic
engineering created. In an article written by Abbie Goldbas in the International Journal of Childbirth
Education, she reviewed an article and found that genetically modified soybeans have more chemical
residues including the herbicide Glyphosate a possible contributor to chronic diseases and female
hormonal imbalances. (22). This means that the increasing use of these chemicals is not only forcing
more chemicals to be used but also penetrating the food we eat. Crops which require increasing
amounts of herbicides to be used, translate into foods with higher amounts of herbicides.
Another concern that people have with Genetically Modified Food is the potential for health
risks. Pesticides have been linked to cancer, liver disease, and other health concerns. Authors Philip J,
Landrigan and Charles Benbrook write in their article, GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health, that
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate, the herbicide
most widely used on GM crops, as a, probable human carcinogen and classified a second herbicide,
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), as a possible human carcinogen. (693). The most used
herbicide in the entire United States and around the world has been listed as being a probable human
carcinogen, even though the creators of the chemical insist that it is safe. This is one reason why so
many countries require the modified foods to be labeled. One other health hazard is that with
the creation of plants that produce more food or larger plants is the introduction of toxins and allergens
into the food that did not exist before, or even increasing the amount of an allergen. Jeffrey Smith who
Meineke 5
writes for the Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, described disturbing trends with
genetically engineered soy crops. He wrote, Another study verified that GM soybeans contain an
IgE-binding allergenic protein not found in non-GM soy controls, and that one of eight subjects who
showed a skin-prick allergic reaction to GM soy had no reaction to non-GM soy. (Smith, 2007) With
the potential to add or increase existing allergens this information could be crucial for allergy sufferers.
Other researchers and scientists have conducted animal studies on Genetically Modified Foods
which raise concerns about the safety of the food based on the disturbing outcomes for the rats who
were fed only foods which had been engineered in a laboratory. The argument is that the evidence
speaks for the need to inform the consumer because of potential dangers. In the article, Genetically
Modified Organisms in United States Agriculture: Mandate for Food Labeling, the authors discuss
disturbing findings from rat studies of GM foods. Evidence for the toxicity of GMO foods has been
put forth in a randomized, controlled trial demonstrating that rats fed GMO feed have a two to three-
fold increased risk of developing lethal tumors, liver and kidney disorders, and death. (808). Rats
that were fed only GMO foods had increased tumor formation and mortality. With this testing, the rats
were fed grains that did not contain the pesticides which means that it was the actual genetic mutation
that caused the health issues. Further testing also noted infertility, birth defects, neurological problems,
and cancer. These findings indicate that further testing needs to be done and analyzed before these
Ecological worries are another issue that have been connected to Genetically Modified Foods.
With the significant amounts of herbicides used each year, how does this affect the environment? A
recent USGS study sampled waterways in 38 states and found glyphosate in many rivers, streams,
ditches, and wastewater treatment plant outfalls tested. (1). With this amount of water affected in our
environment, simply eating only non-engineered food may not guarantee that you are not exposed to
some of the potential hazards produced from the engineered foods. As well as in the waterways,
Meineke 6
Glyphosate also was found in about 70 percent of rainfall samples. It attaches pretty firmly to soil
particles that are swept off farm fields then stay in the atmosphere for a relatively long time until they
dissolve off into water. (1). These numbers raise serious safety questions about the widespread use of
the herbicide.
One of the final problems in assessing the safety of this engineered food is about the testing
procedures that are used. In a newspaper article written by Anna Medaris Miller titled Are GMOs
Really That Harmful to Eat, the author reviewed a book by Druker on GMO foods. In the book,
Drucker wrote that the FDA had not followed their own rules when approving Genetically Modified
Foods. He wrote that, Our law was set up to be precautionary, so that you and your families are not
subjected to new foods with questionable additives until those additives have been demonstrated safe to
a reasonable certainty of no harm. There's not a single genetic re-engineered food that has met those
criteria that's not a correct situation. (1). The FDA was created in this country to protect people
from foods and drugs that may cause potential harm. As they have not determined a need to ban these
foods, it seems that at the least there should be a requirement to inform people. A second concern
regarding a conflict of interest is that most of the testing being conducted which finds no safety
concerns is being conducted by the biotech companies that produce and sell the seeds. In an article by
Marek Cuhra he reviewed many different safety studies of GMO crops and found, Thus, the literature
review indicates that there are relatively few representative studies available for regulatory evaluation
of scientific evidence on herbicide-tolerant crop quality and safety. Furthermore, it is found that most
available studies are presented as reports from compositional analyses and animal feeding studies, and
predominantly performed either by biotech industry companies (with potentially conflicting interests in
research outcome) or by subcontractors working for the biotech industry companies. (8). Safety
testing on something as important as the food we eat should be conducted by people outside of the
should not have to be labeled. There are differing views on the need to label Genetically Engineered
Foods. Some scientists believe that legally having to label GE and GM foods will scare away
consumers and create a belief that the food is harmful. The scientists who feel this way believe the
food to be harmless and in many cases, more beneficial than the unaltered food. Lawrence Gostin
explains that, Potential benefits of genetically modified crops include development of disease and
drought resistance crops, decreased use of pesticides, more nutritious and tastier food, and food with
longer shelf life. The benefits of GMO products are important in highly developed countries like the
United States, but in lower-income countries whose people experience food insecuritysometimes
famineit can be a matter of life or death. (2345). In cases like these, GM and GE foods can be
helpful in the fight for the cure for world hunger, and can even help people receive the nutrients and
vitamins they need to survive. On the surface, of course this looks like a good thing. The problem is
that the studies do not condone blind support for these crops. Besides health, animal and
environmental concerns is one large concern that no one can answer the question of what the long-term
effects will be from a lifetime of eating these foods when they have existed for such a short time.
Fixing some problems, but creating whole new ones is not a true benefit.
In a journal article by Gurau and Ranchhod, the authors describe that the benefits of genetically
engineered foods are dependent on the way the society views the food. As many in the United States
have labeled it Frankenfood, they argue that the methods of rearranging the genes between organisms
have been occurring for many years and that the techniques in the laboratory are simply a way to speed
up the process. (25). They argue that it is merely a continuation of ancient breeding practices and that
it is the only viable solution available. Gurau and Ranchhod give an extensive analysis of how
different people of different cultures view Genetically Engineered Foods. They conclude by noting that
these foods at the least offer a hope of huge potential. Over the course of this paper, I have explored
the question of whether Genetically Modified Foods should be required by law to be labeled. I do see
Meineke 8
the potential benefits that these foods have in a world where many go hungry. The argument that I
have presented though, is that GMO foods should be labeled. I have never argued that these foods
should be banned completely, but a consumer should have a right to know what they are purchasing.
There are enough safety questions surrounding the invention and use of these foods that consumers
should be given the choice to be aware of what they are eating if they choose.
One simple question that people ask is, Dont I have the right to know what I am buying and
eating? Other ingredients that have been considered questionable such as trans fats and High Fructose
Corn Syrup are required to be labeled. All possible allergens are also required to be labeled so if
modified foods may introduce new allergens into the food it seems logical that consumers should be
made aware of the fact that what he or she is eating has been genetically modified. The reason we
should be concerned about this topic is the fact that so many foods these days have GMOs in them, and
without investigating every item you want to buy to make sure it does, or doesnt have GMOs in them,
we are not able to make an informed decision about our purchases. Those food choices could
potentially be affecting your health and the environment right now. What I hope you as the reader get
out of this, is that you have been enlightened that there is more to your food than a simple choice of
what sounds good. There are enough questionable circumstances around GM food that everyone
should stay informed about the possible risks. One of the ways you can make educated choices is if
Consumer Reports Magazine. GMO Foods: What you Need To know. N,P., 26 Feb. 2015.
Goldbas, Abbie, M.S. Ed J.D. "GMOs: What are they?" International Journal of Childbirth
Cuhra, Marek. "Review of GMO safety assessment studies: glyphosate residues in Roundup Ready
Smith, Jeffrey. "POINT OF VIEW: Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe? Evidence that Links GM
Foods to Allergic Responses Mounts | GEN Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News -
Landrigan, Philip J., and Charles Benbrook. "GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health." The New
Grossman, Elizabeth. "What Do We Really Know About Roundup Weed Killer?" National Geo
States Agriculture: Mandate for Food Labeling." Food and Nutrition Sciences 04.08 (2013):
807-11.
Works Cited
States Agriculture: Mandate for Food Labeling." Food and Nutrition Sciences 04.08 (2013):
807-11.
Countries that require labels on GMO foods. Digital image. Natural News. justlabelit.org, 20 June
2013.
Medaris, Anna. "Are GMOs Really That Harmful to Eat? | Wellness | US News." Health.usnews. N.p.,
29 Apr. 2015.
Gostin LO. Genetically Modified Food Labeling: A Right to Know?. JAMA. 2016;316(22):2345-
2346. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17476
Guru, Clin, and Ashok Ranchhod. "The futures of genetically-modified foods: Global threat or pana