Sessoms 1

Robert Sessoms

Professor Doran

ENC 2135

3/1/17

Are Genetically Modified Organisms Good?

Despite providing nations the ability to grow crops in futile regions, stricter legislature

and further analysis on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) needs to be performed in the

marketplace. The issues that arise from GMOs are from the unpredictability in each crop, the

effect on humans, the environment, and how it negatively affects biodiversity in the environment

(Non-GMO Project). Genetically engineered (GE) genes help cure specific diseases in the

medical industry, but when introduced in the food industry that is when the use of genetically

engineered products come into question. Corporations and scientists both present the idea that

genetically modified organisms are needed for society to keep progressing from the rapid

increase in population growth. Mega-corporations lobby against the idea of labeling the food that

comes from the genetically modified organisms. Capital gain in the eyes of corporations leads to

a heavy opposition to pass laws that would regulate the flow of genetically modified organisms

in the market (Francis, Craig, & George, 2016). Genetically modified (GM) substances provide a

sustainable resource for futile countries without the proper climate for certain foods, but the

hidden dangers of GMOs far outweigh the positives.

The uncertainty of breeding GMOs is that each gene is dynamic (Schmidt 2005). Genes

are dynamic because they are not stable substances, each gene has its own characteristics. These

dynamic genes do not have the ability to produce an exact replicate in every gene transfer, the

desired gene is identified [does not always comes the certain way] in the native organism's
 Sessoms 2

genome, it can be cut out, transferred to the target plant, and pasted into its genome. (University

of Utah 2015). The inability to absolutely know that these genes are safe for consumption is the

question surrounding GMOs. These unstable genes can cause the consumers to obtain allergies to

different types of foods. To confirm that a transgenic protein is or is not an allergen is to test it

in large numbers of people. But of course, large-scale human testing isn't practical. (Schmidt

2005). Without multiple tests and examination of a large group no one really knows if genetically

engineered food will cause allergic reactions in different people. The unpredictability of genes is

what makes genetically modified food so dangerous for consumption. If society does not know

the inherent long-term side effects towards consumers that eat GM food how can we continue to

not research about them?

Breeding produces the opportunity for countries with increasing population and high

poverty rates to be provided nutritious foods for lower prices. According to Freedman's research,

genetically modified organisms indisputably help "produce higher yields, grow in dry and salty

land, withstand high and low temperatures, and tolerate insects, disease and herbicides." (2013).

The benefits of how genetically engineered food is helping countries in Africa and South

America is that it provides a stable source of food. The undeniable truth that genetically modified

food does allow countries to feed a current increasing population without needing the ideal

conditions. (Freedman 2013). Genetically modified organisms do provide countries with

nutritious crops and stable crop yields. The question that is not being asked in the discussion of

genetically modified organisms is Is it worth it to keep pushing GMOs to support countries

without knowing if the population will not become allergic to the food and become ill? The

production of how the food is being processed in futile climates can hurt the population

consuming the good. Research needs to be done towards GMOs, before it can be certain no
 Sessoms 3

effect will hurt different regions internationally. The first step that needs to be made in the

genetically engineered battle is making regulation and laws to have labeling of GMO foods in

the marketplace.

The major controversy in genetically modified food in stores is the topic of labeling the

genetically modified food. The biggest opposition seems to be biotechnology companies that do

not support the idea of labeling genetically modified products (Wohlers 2013). According to

Wohlers's study, genetically modified organisms dominate most of the produce in North

America, 60 to 80 percent of processed foods in a typical American grocery store contain

GMO (2013). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seems to set the precedent for not

creating any laws or regulations regarding genetically modified organisms. According to

Gostins study, the public has a desire to know about their food 93% of respondents approved of

GMO food labeling (2016). The public has a right to know what they are consuming, where the

food comes from, and get a first-hand perspective on everything that occurs while producing

genetically modified food. The little to no intervention from the FDA in genetically modified

food allows major corporations to produce food that could possibly be harmful to consumers.

The European Union (EU) unlike the U.S. has created strict laws as the genetically modified

food movement has accelerated in the last decade to protect consumers health with the unknown

side effects of GMOs (Wohlers 2013). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has all the ability

to establish stricter laws in the marketplace. The FDA has not adapted legislature on GMOs since

1992, the federal food safety regulations failed to cope with the growing sophistication of

biotechnology. (Ghoshray 2015). The lack of interest from the FDA to continue to set stringent

laws on genetically modified food makes the public begin to wonder why. . Does corporate

money run the food market in lobbying the government not to change the agricultural trend of
 Sessoms 4

the US and not to implement stricter laws? Companies do not even have the confidence to let

consumers know what they are buying. This has a lot to say about how GMOs should be labeled

and regulated from the minimal amount of effort shown by companies to ensure the safety of the

products they grow. The insufficient measures taken from the FDA has made the public question

if the FDA has their hands in corporate money instead of being concerned with consumers

health and livelihood.

Genetically modified organisms do in fact produce higher crop yields, drought resistance,

and pest resistant plants. The underlying concern that consumers in society have is the idea that

genetically engineered food can cause health risks. Lynn J. Frewer, in a research journal on GMO

in the media describes how risk perception increaseds from media coverage broadcastingdealing

with genetically modified organisms. She states that "the impact on public perception of high

levels of media reporting [which creates more consumer opposition] regarding the risks

associated with genetically modified food" (701). The media coverage of genetically modified

food exemplifies consumers dissatisfaction for GMOs. The media advocates for questions about

what type of health risks are associated with genetically engineered foods. According to some

scientists, genetically modified food is harmful because "toxin and enzymes permeate the entire

plant" (Anyadiegwu 213). These toxin and enzymes are produced naturally from the plant, but

once these genes are transferred the toxin can be altered in the newly placed gene (Anyadiegwu

213). If the plants toxins and enzymes are rewired it can create health problems in the consumers

from the dynamic nature of the gene. The danger of transferred genes is the issue with

remodifying the dormant gene and changing its characteristics that could possibly harm humans.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have the

ability to perform different examinations of gene transfers. The FDA and USDA have full
 Sessoms 5

discretion to direct companies in allowing the public to realize what they are consuming.

Lawrence O. Gostin, in an academic journal for Georgetown University Law Center explains the

recent emergence of most crops getting genetically modified, " By 2012, GMO crops as a

percentage of total crop plantings were about 88% for corn, 94% for cotton, and 93% for

soybeans. Other GMO foods include tomatoes, potatoes, and squash." (2016). The major crops in

North America are genetically modified in some way. It is the responsibility of the FDA and

USDA to ensure that the majority of crops are not going to give people health problems or

allergies. The importance of not allowing GMOs to be sold in the market without knowing how

it will affect a consumers body.

Every law and legislature that is passed dealing with agriculture and food comes from the

jurisdiction of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or U.S. Department of Agriculture. The

absence of any government intervention in the genetically modified food market is puzzling.

The minimal mediation in the food market is characterized by "corporate lobbying that has

compelled the FDA to continue to evade responsibility." (Ghoshray 223). The right for the

consumers to know what is in their food and if it will affect them negatively is what the

government agency should investigate. Corporate lobbying from mega-corporations like

Monsantos and other biotech companies to influence the FDA and USDA is morally and

ethically wrong. The consumers suffer as a result in not knowing what they are paying for. The

FDA created the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) to oversee the pesticides used on a

crops, but neglect the environmental stress put on the environment in just focusing on food.

(Francis et al. 121). Leslie Francis, Robin Kundis Craig, & Erika George describes the FDAs

negligence towards enforcing new legislature and labeling of genetically engineered food.
 Sessoms 6

FDA is construing its authority over GM foods too narrowly, in three respects. First,

scientific scrutiny of these foods is not fully transparent and appears rife with conflicts of

interest, effectively reversing the FDCAs requirement that manufacturers prove that food

additives are safe. Second, FDA largely omits risks created in production processes from

food safety analyses, despite authority to do so granted under FSMA and despite

increasing consumer and scientific concern that at least some GM foods pose such risks.

Finally, FDA's limited construction of what makes information "material" for food

labeling purposes. (Francis et al. 133).

The FDA eludes from any responsibility to regulate the food market or construct a way to label

genetically modified food. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938 legally

binds companies to name the nutrient value and allergen used, but not how it is produced.

(Francis et al. 122). Allergens are food that comes allergic reactions to consumers. These

allergens include peanut, tree nuts, milk, egg, and wheat to just name a few. Instead of changing

the landscape of GMOs government agencies make excuses for not changing laws that have been

obsolete for decades. The FDA and USDA do not even care about altering legislation to conform

to the recent surge of GMOs in the last decade. Their negligence has something to be said about

GMOs, first companies know their products are substandard, and second understand their no

backlash to providing the public with quality. The government agencies should enforce the heavy

legislation on companies to stop making GMOs run dormant in the US. The lack of action by

government agencies has diminished farmers livelihood as well. and has negatively changed the

environment crippling already dwindling wildlife.

 Sessoms 7

The socioeconomic problems that arise from genetically modified food affect the future

of the farmer in American society. The inability to compete with mega-corporations that produce

higher crop yields, the crops that have greater immunity to insects, and they can survive in the

worst conditions. These abilities that the genetically modified food has vs. organic crops makes it

difficult for farmers to be in the same echelon as these corporations that produce the crops for

cheaper. Biotechnology companies use expensive seeds that average farmers cannot afford,

which is inevitably leading to the death of the farmer in the US. The production yield of a farmer

using nNon-GMO seeds is far less than the costly GMO seed. Biotechnology cCompanies that

specialize in the genetically modified seed sets restrictive patents. Ccompanies that make

GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even

when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. (Non-GMO Project 2015). The

livelihood of the farmer is already heavily burdened by competing with corporation producing

crops, but also having to fear legal action from companies. Genetically modified organism

negatively affect the farmers to succeed in agriculture if not wealthy enough to purchase GMO

seeds. from drift now leads the percentage of population of farmers decreasing annually.This

helps illustrate another reasons why GMOs are hurting society, rather than helping it, and we

need to change it, or limit it from the marketplace .

The environmental stress produced from genetically modified organisms hurt the current

habitat and of the creatures that live there. Monsantos is , one of the biggest corporations that

manufactures Ready Roundup crops.. Ready RoundupThese crops are immune to all different

types of weeds and insects, enhance the quality of the food product, and makes its own natural

herbicide. Lately, from the immunities of these crops there has been a rapid increase in adapted

insects and weeds. The issue that genetically modified organisms produce are Ggenetically
 Sessoms 8

modified crops are also responsible for the emergence of herbicide resistant super weeds and

super bugs, which can only be killed with more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (Non-GMO Project

2015). These super weeds and insect effect the environment by changing the biomes background

and contaminating the soil (Wohlers 2013). Finally, the idea of the environmental stress created

by genetically modified organisms display that there should be a limited use of GMOs.

Genetically modified organisms allows poverty