Greensmith 1 Claire Greensmith LA101H April 13, 2012 GM Foods: To Eat or Not to Eat?

At first glance, they are indistinguishable. At first bite, no difference can be tasted. While no immediate differences between genetically modified products and their natural counterparts may be detected, the ongoing debate between genetically modified and organic agriculture is widespread. Since the FlavrSavr tomato, the first commercially grown genetically engineered food, was licensed for human consumption in 1994, agriculture and the food market in the United States have substantially changed. Genetically modified (GM) foods are derived from genetically modified organisms (GMO) whose DNA, through genetic engineering, has been changed to contain desired traits, such as improved shelf life. With plants engineered to have the desired traits, cultivators can easily spray insecticides and herbicides to kill off bugs and weeds while ensuring that their products will be ripe when delivered to their customers. Because of its beneficial production, the use of GM agriculture has increased drastically in less than two decades. In 1997, U.S. farmers cultivated 18 million acres of GM commodities. By 2010 the number of acres had increased to 66.8 million, the most of any nation in the world (6). But farmers would not be able to increase GM agriculture without being supplied by the biotech companies who created the GM seeds. Biotech companies, such as Monsanto, the worlds leading producer of GM seed and producer of the herbicide glyphosphate (also known as Roundup), benefit greatly from the patents they have on their GM seeds. To cultivate GM crops, farmers must buy

Greensmith 2 the seeds from the large biotech companies. And while this business transaction may seem mutually beneficial, the safety of the crops farmed using biotech companies seeds is contested. Whether deliberately or not, by purchasing genetically modified food products, consumers are possibly endangering their health, as there is not enough legitimate research to conclude the safety of genetically modified ingredients. Recent studies have suggested that consuming genetically modified foods may be deleterious towards ones health. One of the concerns about changing the DNA of crops cells is the creation of new allergens. In 2000, 28 people had mild to severe allergic reactions linked to Starlinks corn varieties, which had been genetically modified to contain a Bt toxin, a poison intended for insects. Genetic modification could theoretically create unintended changes in the plant [or its proteins], which could result in the expression of new allergens (2). New modifications mean more chances for new allergens and thus severe allergic reactions, such as what happened to those who ate Starlinks GM corn. But allergic reactions are not the only concern brought about by GM foods. In 2010, the Russian Academy of Sciences finished a study involving soybeans modified to have terminator technology fed to hamsters. Monsanto created terminator technology in seeds to leave plants sterile and to prevent unwanted crosspollination. In the Russian Academy of Sciences study, hamsters fed the GM soybeans modified to have terminator technology had poor weight gain and high infant morality rates. By the third generation, most of the rats were sterile and the offspring of those who were not had poor weight gain and were sterile (4). Soybeans are not the only GM crop to be suspected as harmful when consumed. An independent study by gynecologists at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Canada found that 28 out of 30

Greensmith 3 tested pregnant mothers had traces of Bt toxin, the same toxin that caused allergic reactions in 2000, in their blood. There were also traces of it in 24 out of 30 umbilical cords (8). In summary, this study showed the presence of pesticides associated with GM foods in maternal, fetal and even non-pregnant womens blood. A study from the International Journal of Biological Sciences found that all 3 varieties of Monsantos GM corn, which contained insecticide- and herbicide-absorbing genes, were toxic and negatively affected liver and kidney function in humans (3). Hence toxins from GM foods have been proven to have presence in humans when consumed and to have harmful effects. As a result, GM foods may cause harm to consumers, whether because of new allergens or negative effects on organs functions. Critics of the supposition that genetically modified foods are harmful claim that there is not enough evidence countering GM food safety, however this is due to the novelty of GM technology and the control biotech companies have over their patented seeds. The first commercially grown GM food, the FlavrSavr tomato, was not introduced until 1994. Less than 20 years later, today it is impossible to have concrete evidence of long-term effects of GM foods. Simply not enough time has passed. In order to have proof of harmful effects of GM foods over a long period of time, researchers need more time. Researchers at the University of Rouen, France estimate that it could take another 20 years until certain effects of GM food consumption to be exposed (4). But time is not the only thing needed to find evidence of harmful effects of GM foods; independent studies are needed as well. Biotech companies involvement in the research of their products leads to the questionability of studies results. Since biotech companies, such as Monsanto and

Greensmith 4 Syngenta, have patents on their seeds, they are allowed to control who studies their seeds and how these seeds are studied. In 2009, 26 university entomologists wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting restricted access to seeds, writing, No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many questions involving these crops (7). With the right to control how their patented seeds are studied, biotech companies have the ability to prevent studies that could discredit the safety of their products. Thus, as critics say that there is not enough evidence to suggest that GM agriculture is harmful, this is due to a lack of available time for study as well as the questionable control biotech companies have over the research of their products. To increase consumer awareness about the products they purchase, the U.S. government should require genetically modified foods to be labeled. It is estimated that about 80% of packaged foods sold in the U.S. contain GM ingredients (1). Without labels on foods purchased at grocery stores, it is likely that the average citizen may not be able to recognize which products do or do not contain GM ingredients. Requiring GM foods to be labeled would allow consumers to make more informed decisions when at their local grocery store, giving them the opportunity to avoid purchasing potentially harmful foods. Currently, in order for a food product to be certified as organic, agricultural products, synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation and genetic engineering may not be used in the cultivation process (10). Products that have a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic seal are 95% or more organic. Without this label, it may be less obvious for consumers to determine whether or not the product is somehow genetically modified. Just as the USDA has label for certified organic food, so products containing GM ingredients should have a label indicating that their ingredients have been

Greensmith 5 genetically modified. This government-implemented labeling system would require all food products in the United States containing GM ingredients to be labeled, whether in the title of the food or in the list of ingredients. Requiring labels on GM foods is a practical and reasonable way to raise consumer awareness, as can be seen in Australia and New Zealand. In December of 2001, it became mandatory in Australia and New Zealand for GM foods to be identified on food labels to assist consumers to purchase or avoid GM foods, depending on [the consumers] own views and beliefs (5). Foods in which GM varieties or alterations are present require the label to be in the name or next to the specific ingredient in the ingredients list. Rather than completely banning GM products form being able to compete in the market, Food Standards of Australia and New Zealand is simply informing consumers, allowing them to make more informed decisions when buying food. The same benefits of a labeling system would exist in the United States as well. Instead of being unaware of foods content, consumers would be informed have the power to decide whether or not they want to buy GM food products. Since GM foodstuffs would not be banned from the market, those indifferent about consuming GM foods will be able to continue to do so. Hence GM companies will still be able to compete in the market while consumers with their buying power, with the help of the labeling policy, will be able to convey their views of GM foods in the market. If Americans do not want to eat GM foods, the market will reflect this and thus encourage companies to produce more organic food. In this way informed consumers, because of the labeling system, would have more control. For these reasons, this is a reasonable policy to implement while further research regarding GMOs safety can be gathered.

Greensmith 6 The government should not only implement a labeling system but should also fund research studies focusing on the long-term effects of GM seeds. The government should not rely upon funds from biotech companies; instead the government should organize its budget to account for money spent on researching newly engineered agriculture. Currently, out of the $142.2 billion of the U.S. budget spent on research and development, only $2.3 billion, less than 1%, is distributed to the USDA (9). Responsible for its citizens welfare, the government should fund research of GM foods to determine its safety. Biotech companies may protest at their patented seeds are being studied without their supervision; yet, the governments responsibility lies with the welfare of its people before the patents of companies. Thus, with the government-instituted labeling system and research projects, the consumers will be able to make more informed decisions while the government continues to gather research about GM foods long-term effects. American consumers may be unintentionally buying and consuming potentially harmful foods containing genetically modified agriculture. To safeguard its citizens, the U.S. government should implement a system in which products containing GM ingredients are labeled, and fund research projects independent from the companies that create the GM seeds. The food market pivoted in 1994 with the introduction of the FlavrSvr tomato. Genetically engineered food is still a new technology and needs to be researched, but without risking the health of Americans while doing so. By having a labeling system and continuing independent research, the government would be empowering its citizens and providing crucial information for the future of food.

Greensmith 7 Works Cited 1. Barclay, Eliza. Activists Say Americans Support Labeling Genetically Modified Food. National Public Radio. 27 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. 2. Bucchini, Luca. Goldman, Lynn. Starlink Corn: A Risk Analysis. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Jan. 2002. Web. 10 Apr. 2012 3. De Vendmois, Jel; Roullier, Franois; Cellier, Dominique; Sralini, Gilles-Eric. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. International Journal of Biological Sciences. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. 4. Dorokhov, Dmitry. Cultivation and Utilization of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Soybean GTS 40-3-2. The Black Sea Biotechnology Association. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. 5. Genetically Modified (GM) Foods. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. 11 Apr. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012. 6. Global Distribution of Genetically Modified Crops. Charts Bin. 2011. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. 7. Pollack, Andrew. Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies are Thwarting Research. The New York Times. Feb. 2009. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. 8. Poulter, Sean. GM Food Toxins Found in the Blood of 93% of Unborn Babies. Mail Online. 20 May 2011. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. 9. R&D Budget and Policy Program. Advancing Science, Serving Society. 13 Mar. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012. 10. What is Organic? United States Department of Agriculture; Agriculture Marketing Service. 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.