Hagen 1

Alisha Hagen
Devin Patten
English 1010
December 11th, 2014
GMOs: Should We Be Concerned?
Every day millions of people go to the grocery store and eat at restaurants, not knowing
that the food they are buying and eating could contain Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMOs). There is currently much debate over the potential health effects of consuming GMOs,
and people are often not given the option to buy products that do not contain these organisms, yet
if they were, the majority of Americans would not buy these products.
So what exactly is a Genetically Modified Organism? A (GMO) is an organism whose
genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Genetic modification
involves the mutation, insertion, or deletion of genes. Genetically engineered crops are crops that
are altered with inserted genetic material to exhibit a desired trait. Plants altered through natural
hybridization processes crossbreed plants within the same species. This process can happen
naturally through cross pollination, but gardeners, farmers, and horticulturists have created the
bulk of modern hybrids, often over the course of many years. The genes of genetically
engineered (GE) plants have been altered by the insertion of genes taken from unrelated plant
species, animal or bacterium that would not otherwise not occur naturally. (Seifert).
Apparently genetically modifying plants to create our desired traits is not a new concept.
According to Nina Federoff, former science and technology advisor to the Secretary of State,

Hagen 2

Humans began genetically modifying plants to provide food more than 10,000 years ago. For
the past hundred years or so plant breeders have used radiation and chemicals to speed up the
production of genetic changes. This was a genetic shotgun, producing lots of bad changes and a
very, very occasional good one. Yet plants modified by these techniques, the best and safest
weve ever invented, are the only ones we now call GM. Almost everyone believes weve never
fiddled with plant genes before, as if beefsteak tomatoes, elephant garlic and corn were somehow
products of unfettered nature. (Federoff)
GMOs have been mass produced with genetically modified seed since the 1980s, the
majority of which comes from Monsanto, producing what we are led to believe is the most cost
effective for farmers as it can produce larger quantities of crops because of the crop resistance to
pests and drought, and the best way to eliminate hunger and starvation in developing countries.
Monsanto and the other big ag-biotech companies have developed reliable, biologically insectresistant and herbicide-tolerant commodity crops that benefit people, farmers and the
environment, and are nutritionally identical to their non-GM counterparts. (Fedoroff).
The concept sounds great, although, it does not seem to be the best way if states are
attempting to pass laws requiring GMO foods to be labelled as most consumers do not feel that
GMO foods are safe for their family, and many European countries have banned GM foods and
seed. Currently, the United States is the leading producer in genetically engineered crop
production, and the numbers are staggering. 85% of all the corn grown in the United States is
Genetically Modified, 90% of soy, 88% of cotton, 90% of canola, 90% of sugar beets. There are
165 million acres of GMOs in the United States, and 420 million acres of GMOs worldwide.
(Seifert)

Hagen 3

At this time the only known benefit to growing GMOs is by eliminating starvation
worldwide, because they are resistant to insects and drought, large quantities can be produced.
This could benefit many developing countries around the world. The real issue with GMO
consumption is the potential health effects. While more research needs to be done, there is some
evidence showing the potential risk of consuming GMOs long term. According to Anita Bakshi,
Biologist at George Mason University, The concerns are that they may contain allergenic
substances due to introduction of new genes into crops. Another concern is that genetic
engineering often involves the use of antibiotic-resistance genes as "selectable markers" and this
could lead to production of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains that are resistant to available
antibiotics. This would create a serious public health problem. The genetically modified crops
might contain other toxic substances (such as enhanced amounts of heavy metals) and the crops
might not be "substantially equivalent" in genome, proteome, and metabolome compared with
unmodified crops. They may be less nutritious; for example, they might contain lower amounts
of phytoestrogens, which protect against heart disease and cancer. (Bakshi).
While concrete evidence of the health effects is hard to find, there are many scientists that
have done research on the health effects and received startling results. Scientist Gilles-Eric
Seralini researched the effect of GM maize, which is engineered to be resistant to Roundup
herbicide, on lab rats in three groups. He gave them the GM maize in controlled doses and
monitored them for an extended period of time. His findings concluded that there was an
escalation of kidney and liver toxicity in the rats, liver and kidney failure leading to premature
death in males, and most female rats died prematurely from mammary tumors and pituitary
dysfunction. Most of these incidences occurred by the 24th month of research. Seralini published
his research and was met with much dissatisfaction from scientists supported by big agribusiness

Hagen 4

like Monsanto, disagreeing with the way the study was conducted and the breed of rats used.
This may explain why 75% of our first criticisms arising within a week, among publishing
authors, come from plant biologists, some developing patents on GMOs, even if it was a
toxicological paper on mammals, and from Monsanto Company who owns both the NK603 GM
maize and R herbicide. (Seralini). Unfortunately, the study was promptly retracted.

Whether studies like this are retracted or not, there are still many groups that do not trust
GMOs and think they should be avoided for our safety. The Institute for Responsible
Technology (IRT), the world leader of education on GMOs, states: Numerous health problems
increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more
chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and
disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise.
Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors
groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially
our children who are most at risk. Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383
million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to
the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only
does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides.
Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.
(IRT).
ABC News conducted a survey to see how many American consumers were comfortable
with buying GMO products: With safety concerns widespread, Americans almost unanimously

Hagen 5

favor mandatory labels on genetically modified foods. And most say they'd use those labels to
avoid the food. Barely more than a third of the public believes that genetically modified foods
are safe to eat. Instead 52 percent believe such foods are unsafe, and an additional 13 percent are
unsure about them. That's broad doubt on the very basic issue of food safety. 93 percent says the
federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically modified,
or "bio-engineered" (this poll used both phrases). Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare.
Fifty-seven percent also say they'd be less likely to buy foods labeled as genetically modified.
That puts the food industry in a quandary: By meeting consumer demand for labeling, it would
be steering business away from its genetically modified products. (Langer)
Clearly Americans are not interested in eating food that is genetically modified, and agree
that it should be labeled so we can make the choice ourselves whether we want to eat it or avoid
it. Because GMOs are not labelled it makes it difficult to do research on the health effects of the
consumption of GMOs on people because it cannot be accurately traced. There have been
independent, peer-reviewed studies that suggest that there could be harmful effects to human
health caused by the use of GMOs and the chemical pesticides and herbicides that go along with
them, but again, there has not been enough research done and the jury is still out. Also, without
labeling GE foods, we cannot associate any health problems with people who ate them
because we do not know who ate them. Since the FDA has no way to track adverse health effects
in people consuming GE foods, and because there is no requirement that food containing GE
ingredients be labeled, there is no effective way to gather data on health problems that may be
happening. Until there are mandatory GMO labeling laws in place, the only way you can avoid
eating GMOs is to eat food labeled as organic and/or food that is labeled as Non-GMO.
Organic food prohibits the use of genetically modified ingredients in its production, and non

Hagen 6

GMO means that that product, although it may not be organic, does not include genetically
modified ingredients.
Financially, having all foods that contain GMOs labelled would come with an additional
price. According to Food Safety News, The median cost of labeling genetically modified
ingredients on grocery products would equate to an additional $2.30 per consumer each year.
One major controversy in the labeling debate hinges on whether or not mandatory labeling will
force food companies to pass extra costs on to the consumer. Opponents of labeling say the costs
would be high, while proponents say they would not. The main considerations factoring into the
estimates included the cost of repackaging food products to food producers, the cost of changing
placards in retail stores to signify raw foods that are genetically engineered, and how much of
that cost food producers and retailers would decide to bear themselves or pass on to consumers.
I believe that if this were to happen, most Americans would be fine with paying a small
amount more to be able to make that choice themselves. In order to effectively accomplish
labelling on all GMO products, there needs to be more education on the subject. Many people do
not understand what a genetically modified food is or that it may potentially harm their health.
Many also think that they cannot afford to avoid GMOs by eating all organic all the time, but in
reality it may be in their best interest to pay a little bit more for organic foods to avoid the long
term health problems and costs associated with genetically modified foods. If more people are
educated about GMOs, they will be better prepared to make the right choice and vote for
labelling on all GMOs when it appears on the ballot in their state. We may never be rid of
GMOs completely, but we should be allowed to make the choice not to consume them.

Hagen 7

Works Cited
GMO OMG. Dir. Jeremy Seifert. Perf. Dennis Kucinich. Compeller Pictures, 2013. Netflix.
Fedoroff, Nina. "Can We Trust Monsanto with Our Food?" Scientific American Global RSS.
Scientific American, 25 July 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
Bakshi, A. "Potential Adverse Health Effects of Genetically Modified Crops." National Center
for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, May-June 2003. Web. 13
Nov. 2014.
Novella, Steven. "The Seralini GMO Study Retraction and Response to Critics ScienceBased Medicine." The Seralini GMO Study Retraction and Response to Critics ScienceBased Medicine. Science-Based Medicine, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
"10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs." - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs. Institute for Responsible
Technology, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
Langer, Gary. "Poll: Skepticism of Genetically Modified Foods." ABC News. ABC News
Network, 19 June 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
Consumers Union: Labeling GMOs Would Cost Each Consumer $2.30 Annually | Food Safety
News." Food Safety News. Food Safety News, 7 Oct. 2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.