VanSted 1

Kara VanSted
Professor Tamara Webb
English 1010
April 28, 2016
The GMO Crops Debate
Not so long ago, my sister told me to boycott certain companies since they used GMOs
which were 'destroying the environment'. At the time, I knew very little about genetically
modified food, or their effect on the environment, so dismissed the notion until I could learn
more. Now that I am entering the world of science via Biotechnology, I have learned a great deal
more about genetically modified crops and what their potential is. Golden Rice is a perfect
example, this rice strain was created to help undeveloped countries with vitamin A and Iron
deficiency in order to reduce the health risks for the population. The scientists were able to
express the gene already in the rice plant to include these vitamins in the grain itself. (Potrykus)
Since rice is a staple crop for these countries, including these vitamins helped make sure the
population received the nutrients they were lacking in their standard diet. This lesson made me
want to support GMO crops on general principle since it is incredibly important to make sure
everyone gets the nutrients they need to be healthy and survive. However, we need to make sure
that this technology does not harm our environment. What are the environmental risks of
genetically modified crops?
Genetically modifying plants is not a new concept. Plant-breeders have been crossbreeding plants throughout human history in order to express specific traits we are looking for or
need. (Hibma) However, technology did come onto the scene until the early 1980s and received
FDA approval for the first generation of genetically modified crop seeds. These first seeds

VanSted 2
became commercially available in the mid-1990s, included insect-resistance and herbicidetolerance and were available for many farmers to plant. It has been a few decades since these
first generation GMO crops have been on the market, so we now have data to show what impact
they have actually had on the environment. Studies have shown that in many cases genetically
modified crops have had a positive impact allowing for less land use, less chemical use due to
the resistance included and less soil erosion due to less tilling of the land. (Agricultural
Biotechnology: The Promise And Prospects Of Genetically Modified Crops )
Even with this data available, there is still a heated debate on GMOs. Some of this debate
includes the possibility of health risks, but my focus is purely on the environmental risks. Health
risks are a concern however as new technologies arise, however cross-breeding has been in effect
throughout human agricultural history and it appears that many questions may have already been
answered. I do not want to discount this concern, but let us focus on the environment.
These past few years there have been movements to ban GMO foods from the market and
legislation attempting to force companies to label their GMO products due to public outcry. In
my experience, public outcry against science is rarely based on facts but on assumptions made by
a few. The public is unaware of certain aspects of genetically modified foods, such as many
GMO and non-GMO foods are indistinguishable from each other since many of our foods are
highly refined, purified and contain no protein or DNA. In order to be considered genetically
modified, the DNA or protein must be present. Misinformation has charged this debate for many
years. At Cornell University, a geneticist that specializes in plant-breeding gives us some ideas
on what is being done today that improve how crops grow. These improvements include the
ability for crops to grow in harsher environments, reduce crop failure and increase yields.
(Hibma). How is this done? They are able to turn on or off genes that enable the plants to resist

VanSted 3
viruses, make them more resistant to insects and allow for herbicide-tolerance which in turn
reduces the cost for the farmer and the chemicals required. Double-cropping is also available
with these GMO seeds, which allows for the same land use for an early and late planting and
increases production of food for our growing population. (Agricultural Biotechnology: The
Promise And Prospects Of Genetically Modified Crops ).
Although the question seems to have been answered on a few studies for the first
generation, technology does advance and new forms of these seeds are available at an increasing
rate. In the mid 1990s, the amount of GMO seeds planted was only 20% of the land use, however
by 2010 this increased a great deal for three out of the four staple crops. The staple crops in the
first generation were corn, cotton, soybean, and rapseed. By 2010, soybean land use for GMO
seeds increased to 70%, corn to 25%, cotton increased to 60%., but rapseed was still at 20% by
2010. (Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise And Prospects Of Genetically Modified Crops
) Why this is important to me is as a vegetarian, most of my protein nutrient comes from
soybean and we do not buy 'organic'. I find it relieving that I do not consider GMO crops in a
negative light, but I do see the concern this may cause to others. Most people are unaware of the
percentage of food that comes from genetically modified sources. I did not know until I did my
own research, so I do agree that this information should be available easily for consumers. If this
is done, the public can understand that not only have they been eating GMO food for decades, it
has not caused them any health risks by doing so. I think making this information available
easily to the public by labeling, with additional information showing how long it has been in use,
may be the best option for them to understand what GMO truly means. It may also help curb the
public outcry due to misinformation.

VanSted 4
A perfect example of how educating the public could be an answer, I turn to the article
Gmos: A Solution Or A Problem? Mark Lynas discusses how as an environmental activist, he
was against GMO crops, but changed his mind once he started truly understanding the scientific
evidence. His studies showed that after trillions of meals with GMO ingredients, there were no
substantiated health concerns with the consumption of GMO foods. They also showed that
dramatic reduction in the use of chemicals in farming, specifically with pesticides, and that these
crops helped reduce environmental risks with the reduction of soil tilling and carbon retention in
the soil. He also mentions Monsanto who make these GMO technologies available to farmers in
poorer countries at zero or much reduced cost.
Lynas does mention regulations not based on science that cause problems with GMO
seeds and crops to be available. In some countries, feeding the population can be problematic
since organic techniques cannot meet the requirements needed to feed the population. In one
example, he mentions disease causing the entire crop to perish leaving the family hungry which
could have been prevented with a GMO crop that would not be susceptible to these diseases.
In Anna Lapp's article Can Gmos Save The World?, she discusses a lot of this debate
strictly on the side of those against GMO crops and promotes the organic version as the way to
sustain food for the population. It is true that most organic farms require assistance in order to
use better practices to make their crops more available. When you go to any chain grocery store,
the organic section is usually pretty small. Although I do agree that organic crops must be kept
viable in order to maintain a control for data comparison on GMO crops, I must disagree with
her article that organic crops can produce what is needed for the growing population. Genetically
engineered crops have shown that they use less land due to double-cropping, which does not
appear to be a viable option for organic farms. Lapp does go into detail as well on the

VanSted 5
corporations that make GMO seeds possible and references Monsanto in great detail. Monsanto
does engineer GMO seeds and also creates the fertilizers and chemicals for these crops. Although
I can see how this would make one wonder about the integrity of the company, it cannot sway
the results of the independent studies that show GMO seeds have positive impact on the
environment. With less land use, less chemical use, higher yield, less soil erosion, and less water
use, the fact that these large companies generate the most GMO seeds does not necessarily make
them less trustworthy.
So what would happen if GMO products were banned in the United States? Brooks Hays'
article Study: Eliminating Gmos Would Hurt Environment, Economy. references a study done
by Purdue University that simulated a GMO ban in the United States, which resulted in lower
crop yields and a negative impact on the environment. The impact of the lower crop yield would
require farmers to use more land to produce crops needed to feed the population and would
increase prices of these foods for consumers. This land use increase would in turn increase
greenhouse gas emissions. This study, although a simulation, does prove the point that banning
GMO crops would have a severely negative impact not only on the environment, but on the
consumers as well.
There are some risks however that we have not discussed yet. The risks include the
spread of these GMO traits to the land outside of the farm and the unknown effects this would
have on the ecosystem in those areas. One point of concern is if the trait for a heartier yield finds
its way into a weed that makes it harder to control, or accidental transfer to organic farms.
Although it is unlikely to do this if the species are not close in relation, but it is not well
understood how the ecological effects of gene flows to other species. Additional risks include the
pests which the crops were modified to resist may in turn evolve to overcome these resistances,

VanSted 6
forcing stronger chemical use. (Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise And Prospects Of
Genetically Modified Crops). There is also the possibility of insects not intended to be effected
by these traits ingest them which forces their population to decrease, like bees or butterflies,
which are needed to pollinate other plants. Research needs to continue to ensure that if this is
happening, we need to include a trait that would not effect these insects.
The idea that GMO traits could spread to organic farms would be of considerable concern
for these farmers, since they would in turn lose their ability to mark their products as organic.
According to the USDA's website, only 100% non-GMO farms can include the 'organic' label on
their product (McEvoy). The only way to ensure that GMOs could not spread their traits would
be to introduce a synthetic gene that would make it impossible for it to do so. (Nunes-Alves) If
we did need to do that, I would assume it would be less likely that the public would be willing to
eat these crops since these would now be very much man-made and in no way a natural
occurrence. This does however answer the question on how we can ensure that these traits only
stay in the crops they are designed for. Informing the public would be the only way to know if
this could be something that would be acceptable, but testing on how this addition would effect
the health of those who ingest it would need to be thorough, so it could not happen quickly.
There is a lot of information on the Internet on genetically modified crops and a lot of
misinformation on what exactly this means. Studies have shown that these GMO crops are not
destroying the environment and in a lot of cases allow for more food to be available, cheaper
prices of products and increased nutrition. However, there are still concerns on technology
driving these changes, the rapid pace they are introduced and the lack of data on these new
additions, that I must conclude organic farms must be kept viable for comparison. It is incredibly
important that we allow for continued research to improve our food production as our population

VanSted 7
increases while ensuring that the environment, and our health, stay on the positive side of the
track.

VanSted 8
Works cited
"Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise And Prospects Of Genetically Modified Crops."
Journal Of Economic Perspectives 28.1 (2014): 99. Publisher Provided Full Text
Searching File. Web. 24 Mar. 2016.
"Gmos: A Solution Or A Problem?." Journal Of International Affairs 67.2 (2014): 131-139.
Military & Government Collection. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
Hays, Brooks. "Study: Eliminating Gmos Would Hurt Environment, Economy." UPI Newstrack
(Consumer Health) (2016): Points of View Reference Center. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
Hibma, John. "More Pros Than Cons." Countryside & Small Stock Journal 99.3 (2015): 98.
MasterFILE Complete. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
Lapp, Anna. "Can Gmos Save The World?." Amass 19.55 (2015): 8. MasterFILE Complete.
Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
McEvoy, Miles, National Organic Program Deputy Administrator. Organic 101: Can GMOs Be
Used in Organic Products? 2013. http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/05/17/organic-101-cangmos-be-used-in-organic-products/ Web. 21 Apr. 2016.
Nunes-Alves, Cludio. "Synthetic Biology: Gmos In Lockdown." Nature Reviews Microbiology
13.3 (2015): 125. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
Potrykus, Ingo. The 'Golden Rice' Tale. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology. Plant
2001: 93. JSTOR Journals. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.