Widner 1

Elyce Widner
Mary Parr
English 101
24 Nov. 2013
Genetically Modified Organisms
Food is a vital component in peoples lives. A nutritious diet is essential to make the
human body function as a whole. People often choose their food by taste instead of what
nutrients the food has to offer. In a world of preservatives and additives added to food, people
do not know what they are eating. Genetically modified foods are a major controversy in todays
world. Unless someone eats non-GMO labeled organically grown food, the chances of eating
something that has been genetically modified are very high. Genetically modified foods refer to
certain crops that are altered for humans to consume. These alterations are possible through
genetic engineering that can change a plant to make it more convenient for the producer and the
consumer. Genetically modified foods are sold in stores all around the world, particularly in the
United States where it is not required to label the food that has been altered. Genetically
modified foods are illegal in some countries because cultures consider this an unnatural way to
obtain nutrients and refuse to eat them (Fernandez 343). In other places, like the United States,
people are often unaware where their food comes from and decide to eat whatever is more
convenient in such a fast paced lifestyle.
Many people are interested and concerned in GMOs including major religious groups, the
Royal Family, foreign governments, and scientists (Whitman, 5). Genetically modified foods
can help end world hunger, yet many people do not know whether or not these foods are safe to
consume since it is a relatively new process. Genetically modified crops are more productive

Widner 2
and can yield product in even the harshest conditions while naturally grown crops need specific
climates to produce product (Daboub 16). The way these genetically engineered crops are
created raises questions about the effects on the environment (Daboub16). What do GMOs do to
the environment from the soil to the animals and insects? Genetically modified foods have
advantages of pest resistance, herbicide resistance, and enhanced nutrition. The disadvantages
are that of environmental hazards, human health risks, and an ethical dilemma. There is evidence
that genetically modified foods have advantages as well as disadvantages, but does the outcome
of one outweigh that of the other?
To better understand where GMOs originated, consumers need to understand how the
government regulation of GMOs influenced the production of modified foods. President Ronald
Reagans administration had initiated the removal of government involvement in many industries
(Daboub 18). In the late 1980s Monsanto randomly met up with the Vice President in
Washington D.C. to suggest that the government does get involved with biotechnology (18).
There was no such thing as GMOs during this meeting, yet these biotech companies wanted
more involvement with the government and additional help from the Environmental Protection
Agency (Daboub 18). The EPA manages risk assessment experiments on pesticides that have a
negative impact on human health and the environment (Whitman 9). The EPA oversees the
amount of pesticides that a farmer can spray on a crop in limited amounts that will not affect the
health or wildlife around the crop (9). However, the EPA has not established an acceptable limit
for genetically modified crops because the pesticide is not sprayed onto the crop but is an altered
gene within the plant (Whitman 9). Monsanto also argued with the world wide scientific
community stating that GMOs are made in similar ways to that of natural crossbreeding
techniques and that they do not pose any harmful side effects (Daboub 18). Biotech companies

Widner 3
stated that the government should get involved because these crops are different and should be a
reason for government concern (18). Monsanto pushed this request with the reasoning that the
public would feel more safe and comfortable about GMOs if the government decided to help
operate them (18). Others believe that Monsanto went to the government first to make sure that
competitors would not be able to afford the cost of production of GMOs. After this meeting, the
Department of Agriculture, the FDA, and the EPA created laws against creating new crops by
means of combining foreign genes into plant genes (Daboub 18). Inevitably, smaller biotech
corporations disappeared because they indeed could not afford the cost (18). As stated by
Anthony Daboub, When these regulations proved to be inconvenient to Monsanto Company,
the administration quickly rolled back the regulation in favor of self-policing (18). Monsanto
knew that many environmentalist groups would be against biotechnology (18). Monsanto
invited these groups to get involved in company meetings so that they may see the company in a
new light (Daboub 18). A few years later the Monsanto Companys new management had
stopped inviting environmentalists to their meetings because they decided there was not enough
scientific evidence to disprove the validity of their products (18). Once Monsanto stopped
inviting the public to their meetings, the head of the agricultural division used the ties they had in
Washington to evade new contracts (19). Then in 1992, the Vice President of Monsanto, Dan
Quayle, stated that they would hasten the process of introducing GMOs into the food chain and
remove governing obstacles (Daboub 19). This action lost support of many people that were
pro-GMO (19). These new policies by Mr. Quayle affected the authority of the FDA even
though FDA scientists believed that harmful consequences may be a result of genetic
engineering (Daboub 19). Government officials chose to ignore this complaint even though they
were in the same situation during the Reagan administration (19). These policies made it so that

Widner 4
the FDA could only authorize testing of these products by the companies that manufactured them
(Daboub 19). These scientific results may cause bias, or falsified test results, yet the FDA has
not changed their position on GMOs since the early 1990s (Health Risks of GMFs 1811). The
FDA made statements earlier this year explaining that they still have not found any evidence to
conduct more extensive research on GMOs (Health Risks of GMFs 1811). This policy states
that GMO crops are to be regarded in the same manner as a natural crop even though Monsanto
said that these genetically modified crops are different (Health Risks of GMFs 1811).
Monsanto is the largest genetically modified seed bank in the world to date (Wohlers 75).
Genetically modified organisms are created by inserting a specific gene from a planet or
animal into the DNA of an unrelated organism (Maghav and Ardekani 109). Once injected this
genome may not go to the source that scientists want because most animal genes interact
dependently with surrounding genes (109). During the transcription phase of DNA replication,
the DNA may break up and the arrangement of the chromosomes realign and may potentially
cause allergies or health problems if consumed (Maghav and Ardekani 111). When biotech
companies, like Monsanto, perform their own scientific evaluations they only use chemical
analysis of some of the components that make up their GMO (112). Independent scientists
believe that this is a secure way for Monsanto to convince that their product is safe enough to go
into the food chain (112). In addition, when testing GM crops, they compare their data to
samples of control crops that are in other environments instead of the control crop right beside
the GM crop (Maghav and Ardekani 112). Crops in others areas may have different nutritional
values to be compared to a GM crop in a foreign environment (112). Independent scientists try
to warn consumers that the successful findings by Monsanto are not up to code compared to the
international scientific standards of a report (Maghav and Ardekani 114).

Widner 5
The world population is growing and is expected to need food production to rise by
seventy percent by 2050 (Ronald 16). Genetically modified crops offer the ability for certain
crops to grow in foreign environments and yield more products that are more nutrient dense
(Daboub 16). These properties are ideal because GM crops will be at lower cost and can grow
with a year round production (16). In many third world countries where hunger is an everyday
occurrence, genetically modified foods can establish a thriving food supply at a cheaper cost
with enhanced nutrients (Whitman 3). For instance, in some third world countries rice is the
main crop for a food source, but it does not contain many nutrients. Therefore many people
around the area suffer from vision impairment due to a Vitamin A deficiency (3). Researchers at
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology for Plant Sciences made genetically modified rice
called golden rice which contains Vitamin As precursor beta-carotene to help the deficiency
(Whitman 3). Genetically modified crops also have built in pesticides and herbicides (2). Many
farmers face the constant threat of insects and weeds that can destroy their crop (2). Genetically
modified crops will alleviate the need for farmers to constantly spray pesticides and herbicides
that can damage their crop and the environment (Whitman 2). Many people fear of the
environmental hazards that go along with these genetically modified crops. These genetically
modified crops can transfer their pesticides and herbicides resistance to surrounding areas in the
soil and in the wildlife. There was a study done that proved that the pollen from GM corn
migrated to milkweed plants that monarch caterpillars feed off of (5). These caterpillars ingested
the pesticides and died. The genetically modified crops with pesticide resistance cannot control
which insects to kill and therefore will end up harming the biodiversity of the ecosystem (5).
Many weeds in the crops can become cross-pollinated with the genetically modified crops
(Whitman 6). These weeds will develop the gene to be resistant to herbicides and will evolve

Widner 6
into super weeds (Whitman 6). Another way cross-pollination may be hazardous to the
environment is the case of Monsanto vs. Geertson Seed Farms (Grossman 216). Monsanto had a
genetically modified crop of Roundup Ready alfalfa that pollinated a natural alfalfa crop a few
fields away (Grossman 217). Monsanto claimed that these farmers obtained their genetically
modified strain from unknown sources and are seeking payment. This case went to the Court
where Margaret Grossman noted Justice Stevens stating that Monsantos crop
Can cause genetic contamination of other crops, planting in controlled settings had led to
contaminationherbicide-resistant crop that can transfer its genes to other organisms and
cannot effectively be monitored easily fits the criteria for when an EIS is required. That
is especially so when, as in this case, the environmental threat is novel.
There was a turn of events once this case reached the Supreme Court (221). The Supreme Court
decided to rule in Monsantos favor deciding that there were no risks involved and GMOs will
not affect the environment or human health (Grossman 221). Genetically modified crops will
throw off the cycle of the ecosystem and may do more damage than initially thought. The idea
of ending world hunger through genetically modified food is important, yet it is not ideal since
they would be indirectly destroying natural crops. What would happen if genetically modified
crops were the only crops on the planet? A consideration that must be taken into account is the
affect these foods have on human health.
The long-term effects on the human body of consuming these products have not been
studied since genetically modified foods are a relatively new process (Seralini et al. 596). Many
people fear eating these foods thinking they will cause cancer and other health problems since
the process of growing these foods is not natural. Other people believe that if they are eating
food that was created by gene regulation it puts them at risk of contracting a disease that cannot

Widner 7
be controlled by antibiotics (Maghav and Ardekani 110). Food is primarily digested in the small
intestine, and it is here that the body may absorb the antibiotic resistant genes (110). There have
been many independent European studies to prove that consuming GMOs is unsafe (Seralini et
al. 596). These studies involve an eight-month experiment feeding GM Roundup soy to a group
of rats while the control group was fed natural soy (596). Eric Seralini noted that these
experiments concluded
Transcription abnormalities, in the pancreas, and testes, and hypothesized that these
changes might be due to Roundup herbicide (Monsanto) toxic effects, similar to those
observed on mammalian cells, but the parameters measured in these longest toxicity tests
published on GMOs did not concern almost all organs and blood and urine chemistry, as
in the present experiment.
The liver and the kidneys of the rats that were fed GMOs were damaged during this study
(Seralini et al. 601). The scientists that conducted this experiment explain that Monsanto does
not detail their reports enough because these findings were available in only fourteen weeks of
the experiment (601). These scientists explain that to get a better understanding of the health
effects of GMOs more long-term experiments are required before these foods are circulated in
the food chain (Seralini et al. 601). In other studies, many scientists had the same results
(Maghav and Ardekani 111). These experiments used rats, cows, goats, pigs, and other animals
that had been eating genetically modified foods (111). The results of these experiments
concluded that the reproductive health of these animals were very hazardous, including
miscarriages, infertility, and death (111). The Biotech corporations say these findings are invalid
because they did not conduct them and that their experiments did not contain these devastating
results (Maghav and Ardekani 111). In India, the people that handle the genetically modified

Widner 8
crops have reported breakouts of skin allergies such as rashes or hives (111). Many people
across the United States and Europe are allergic to many kinds of foods such as peanuts. These
people are scared that when new genes are implanted into another plant that it may create a new
allergen similar to a peanut allergy (Whitman 7). Greek researchers have also come to the
conclusion that most of their studies on GMO consumption have resulted in toxic effects to the
animals (Daboub 17). The advantage of having a crop that is modified to be more nutrient dense
does not benefit the consumer whose health is at risk. If scientists studied the long-term health
dangers of consuming modified food and could prevent these problems, then society would
support genetically modified foods. Until then, genetically modified foods should be considered
unsafe for human consumption. Without proper labeling guidelines many consumers do not
realize most of what they are eating is genetically modified.
Many people feel that they have the right to know what they are eating (Whitman 10).
According to the agribusiness companies, such as Monsanto, they believe that labeling should be
voluntary (10). The only instance in which there is labeling on a genetically modified product is
if there is a risk of an allergy, but any additional labeling is not required (Wohlers 78). Pamela
Ronald points out, consumers have the right to know about potentially harmful ingredients, but
a right to know about the presence of harmless GE ingredients is tantamount to a right to know
that fruits contain sugars (20). This statement is very misleading. If biotech companies can
nutritionally enhance the amount of vitamins in a certain crop, such as golden rice it needs to
be labeled. For instance, if a person were to consume too much of the fat soluble vitamins then
the results can be just as harmful as a deficiency. The FDA has refused to require any additional
labeling because they fear the public will view GM foods as unsafe (Daboub 18). The FDA can
only look into foods that have additives and are not concerned with whole foods that are said to

Widner 9
be GRAS (generally recognized as safe) (Daboub 10). Monsanto claims that there is no reason
to label their products because their food is no different than a naturally produced food (Daboub
21). In Europe there is a major stance against GMOs (Daboub 17). Europeans have always seen
food as a sense of its diverse culture (Fernandez 343). Since the late 90s up until 2003, the
European Union did not import any genetically modified organisms for fear of human health and
environmental issues (Fernandez 337). It was not until the United States, Canada, and
Argentina decided to act against this stating that it is a breach of the World Trade Organization
(337). Europeans have taken surveys, voiced their opinion, and even protested against the
production and selling of GMOs in their country (Daboub 17). France, Italy, and Greece have all
remained vigilant in not contaminating their countries with Monsantos crops (Daboub 17).
Major supermarket retailers in Europe have decided that they will not sell genetically modified
foods (Health Risks of GMFs 1811). Italy has remained committed in its stance against GMOs
until proper research has been obtained to ensure that the health of their people and their
environment remains unaltered by GMOs (Fernandez 341). In India, many activists have set fire
to genetically modified crops to protest because they feel that they are human test subjects
(Health Risks of GMFs 1811). More and more places in Europe and Japan are opening places
that only sell and advertise GMO-free foods (Ronald 17). In many Japanese supermarkets there
are sections that advertise GMOs and non-GMOs with the majority of people purchasing the
non-GMOs (Whitman 8). America is slowly waking up to the dangers that exist in GMOs.
Many people such as political leaders are standing up against GMOs with new legislations
(Wohlers 78). Other people in the US are starting to take matters into their own hands and have
started campaigns (79). These campaigns invoke the sense of responsibility to the public and to
spread awareness of what is happening to the food system. One of these includes the label it

Widner 10
yourself campaign where people put stickers on genetically modified products in supermarkets
(Wohlers 79). Another one of these is the March against Monsanto, which involves almost the
entire nation, to seek action against the state legislation and to intimidate in numbers. Currently
the only state that requires labeling is Alaska, but more states are considering taking action
(Wohlers 79). Many consumer advocates do not advise the labeling of GM foods because it
would make the cost of these seeds and foods rise (Whitman 7). They believe that if these costs
are raised that many third world countries will not be able to afford them (Whitman 7).
Genetically modified foods may be more nutrient dense to help out third world countries, yet
people have more diverse food options to obtain nutrients where the majority of GM foods are
sold. These genetically modified foods should require labeling to ensure the safety of human
health and to help the consumer create a more balanced diet if they choose to eat GMFs.
Genetically modified foods have many advantages to help the human population, but not
worth the cost of hurting the environment and human health. People need to take into
consideration what they are eating and the effects that their diet has on their bodies. Genetically
modified foods may seem initially helpful, but without the proper research on the effects of
human health they should not be put in circulation. Genetically modified crops could impact the
world positively if they were studied more efficiently to not cause harm to the environment and
people. Also, if Monsanto would be more open about what they are trying to obtain, then the
public may react more positively. Unfortunately, the disadvantages heavily outweigh that of the
advantages. With the advancements in technology one can only hope that genetically modified
foods will one day be beneficial to ending global hunger without hurting the world and its
people.

Widner 11
Works Cited
Daboub, Anothony J., et al. The Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods: A
Corporate Ethical and Social Responsibility Challenge. Journal Of Legal, Ethical
and Regulatory Issues 15.2 (2012): 9-24. Business Source Complete. Web. 14
Nov. 2013
Fernandez, Ruby R., student author. Monsanto And The Requirement For Real Risks
In GM Food Regulation. Loyola Of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law
Review 28.2 (2006): 335-350. Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W.
Wilson). Web. 17 Nov. 2013
Grossman, Margaret Rosso. Monsanto Co. V. Geertson Seed Farms: US Supreme
Court Decides GM Alfalfa Case. European Food & Feed Law Review 5.4 (2010):
216-221. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Nov. 2013
Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. The Lancet 353.9167 (1999): 1811.
Business Source Complete. Web. 17 Nov. 2013
Maghavi, Behrokh Mohajer, and Ali M. Ardekani. Genetically Modified Foods and
Social Concerns. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology 3.3 (2011): 109-177.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2013
Ronald, Pamela. The Truth About GMOs. (Cover Story). Boston Review 38.5
(2013): 16-32. Humanities Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
Seralini, Gilles-Eric, Dominique Cellier, and Joel Spiroux de Vendomois. New
Analysis Of A Rat Feeding Study With A Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs
Of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Archives Of Enviromental Contaminiation And
Toxicology 52.4 (2007): 596-602. MEDLINE Complete. Web. 17 Nov. 2013
Whitman, Debrah B. Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? CSA
Discovery Guidelines (2000): 1-12. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
Wohlers, Anton E. Labeling Of Genetically Modified Food. Politics & The Life
Sciences 23.1 (2013): 73-84. Academic Search Alumni Edition. Web. 17 Nov.
2013