McMeans 1

Dakota McMeans

English Comp. 1201: Research Paper

Professor Loudermilk

31 March 2020

Modified Opinions for Genetically Modified Organisms

GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, have been present to people for thousands of

years. Ever since humans start cultivated crops, there has been a desire for specific genes and

methods used to get those genes are the only thing that’s changed since then. At first, scientists

used a method of genetic engineering called artificial selection. Artificial selection is when two

organisms are purposefully bred in order to obtain a desired trait more frequently in the

following generations. This method would take many generations for the desired trait to appear

at an acceptable frequency for the scientist. Today, there is a more technical way of going about

genetic engineering. By using the natural biology of certain bacterial cells, scientists can take a

plasmid, or a circular section of DNA, from a bacterial cell and insert a desired gene into the

plasmid. The plasmid can then be inserted into the organism of interest and there’s a chance that

the plasmid will combine with the DNA and the cells will act on this new gene. This new method

of genetic engineering is what most people refer to when talking about GMOs. Many people

want to paint GMOs as bad for the environment because they are not naturally made. Most

people today believe that organic foods are better than GMO crops because they are all-natural.

Organic foods are simply foods that have been farmed without the use of artificial growth

hormones, fertilizers, or genetically modified organisms. Many people believe that using all-

natural ingredients is safer than using man-made chemicals in our foods, but as the image above

shows GM foods only maximize the good qualities of our crops (Coto 1). People all over the
 McMeans 2

world have developed an unexpected fear over these man-altered organisms, but for what

reason? Many people fear these GMOs, but the fears are not backed by any substantial evidence

or facts, so why are they so apparent in the world? The systematic approach governments take

against the use of GMOs is why so many people are hysterically defensive when GMOs are

introduced to the market. This fear is somewhat irrational, and the removal of GMOs will not

create safer or healthier foods but instead maintain inefficient ways of farming with no tangible

benefits.

GMOs in Europe have been a hot topic ever since they were first introduced to the food

market. Europe has been cruel to GMOs and passed harsh legislation against the commercial use

of them (DĆbrowska-Kłosińska). The law in the European Union controlling all GMOs says that

a new GMO can be rejected from

commercial use on as much grounds as

“it’s too risky” (Paarlberg). The anti-GMO

sentiment the EU has established denies

farmers all over Europe of an easier life

and keeps them trapped in outdated

farming methods. Even the GMOs that are

allowed in Europe are forced to be labeled in such a way that makes them seem dangerous to

consumers (Righelato). Despite all the negativity GMOs get, this has not affected the growth of

Europe in any drastic way as they were never at risk of running food shortages, so having GM

crops was unnecessary. However, there are other areas that the EU indirectly controls that have

taken a harder hit to the restriction of GMOs. Africa was once almost entirely colonized by Great

Britain. It has not been very long since most African countries have been considered
 McMeans 3

independent. With such new countries and governments still trying to develop, most Africans

still look to the EU for guidance on how to run their nations. A side effect of this European

control is the spread of fear of GMOs. Most of Africa has also put harsh stipulations against

GMOs and it hurts the farmers very badly (Paarlberg). The dry land and extreme seasons Africa

experiences make producing food hard and GMOs provide a solution to that issue, but the laws

of African governments prevent GMOs from helping African farmers from prospering, which is

harmful to the economy and potentially fatal to starving Africans.

The American Government has been much friendlier to GMOs than its European

counterparts. There are many more widespread uses of GMOs in America than there are in

Europe or Africa, but consumers of these products don’t appreciate these modified foods. There

are no official, peer-reviewed studies that prove GMOs are any more harmful than regular foods,

but most of the public does not want to admit that genetically modified foods can be safe.

Roughly 90% of scientists will agree with the stance that GMOs are safe, but only a mere third

of the American public agrees with that opinion (Brody). This misalignment between the

scientists and the public opinion can be blamed on the Media. Most people only get information

from daily news outlets, but a huge percentage of articles written are anti-GMO and that attitude

rubs off on the public. There are also many organizations like the NonGMO project that allows

GMOs to be put in a bad light and labels regular foods as organic in order to create a false sense

of superiority of GM foods (“Mission”). All this bad press on GMOs and wonderful spotlights on

regular foods make it very convincing to the public that genetically modifying food can be

unhealthy and detrimental to human health.

How do the producers feel about all this negative backlash against GMOs? Well, in

America and Europe, there is an abundance of food and most people are actually overfed, so it is
 McMeans 4

not a matter of life and death when discussing GMOs. In Africa however, there are risks of

fatality because of the lack of food that can grow. These GMOs would be able to give African

farmers a way to grow crops and sell them in bulk to make a much more sustainable living and

improve the economy of Africa for everyone (Paarlberg). There is much conflict between

organic farmers and GMO farmers around the world. Typically, organic farms are invaded by

genetically modified seeds during the pollination season, and that causes these organic farmers to

lose certification and in turn lose sales due to bad press. In one instance, two Australian farmers

went to court over a GM crop blowing seeds over into a certified organic field and resulting in

loss of certification of that organic farmer (Paull). The case moved to the Western Australian

Supreme Court but was dismissed by the Judge saying that the organic farmer who was suing

showed signs of malicious intent and did not carry out his lawsuit in a timely manner, making his

explanations untrustworthy. This kind of conflict could be avoided if GM crops were more

widely accepted. Genetic modification of crops has been an occurrence for a long time. Through

a process called selective breeding, there have been multiple manipulations of genes to get the

desired crop that farmers could more easily grow and sell (Lynas 15). But many are against this

new method of genetically engineering our crops. Using a more advanced technique called gene-

splicing, moving specific genes and changing crops, is much more efficient and can happen over

one generation. Many are against this new method of creating GMOs, and it is likely due to a

misinformed public and too many assumptions (Lynas 18). The Government and hot topic court

cases tend to always shine these new GMOs in a bad light and it is devastating to the industry.

There are many producers who have embraced the new biotechnology that can change

crops, but large corporate greed turns a potentially revolutionary product into nothing more than

dollar signs. Monsanto is the most popular GMO producer in the US (Hoft). Monsanto has
 McMeans 5

pioneered a method of putting a patent on a living organism and one that can spread seeds all

over the country. These patented plants are dangerous to low-level farmers. If Monsanto finds

that there are patented seeds in the fields of competing farmers, they will file a lawsuit and win

undoubtedly because of their patent (Hoft). This kind of corporate manipulation has put a very

bad spotlight upon GMOs, associating them with cruel businesses that care more about money

than innovation. The media also frequently reports the Monsanto lawsuits that flush the smaller,

independent farmers out of the market because of an uncontrollable event of cross-pollination

(Null). There has been a villainization of GMOs, but much like the hot topic of gun ownership,

GMOs are only the tools being used maliciously. If GMOs were to be more accepted by

consumers, there would be less conflict between producers and their GMOs. Putting a stop to

patenting GMOs and ending the over glorification of organic foods would make a much safer

environment for GMOs to develop and help our ecosystems and economies.

The Consumerism side to GMOs involves less conflict over the pros and cons of GMOs

than the producers tend to exhibit, but rather show more of a single opinion. As stated earlier,

around 90% of scientists will admit GM foods are not any more dangerous than regular foods,

but most only one-third of the general public agrees with that stance. We can trace this

misconception back to multiple sources. The media plays a role, the legislation affects opinions,

and large GMO corporations instill a bad impression that follows the GMO conversation

wherever it goes. Individual critics of the GMOs tend to take a more hostile approach towards

the topic. In an article written by Helke Ferrie, she writes a very anti-GMO article with the claim

that genetically modified food is poor for one’s health. She uses language such as “paternalistic

BS” that conveys a very negative feeling about GMOs (Ferrie). “He [Canada’s Secretary

Minister of Health] opined that labeling milk and beef products as containing recombinant
 McMeans 6

bovine growth hormone would alarm the public unnecessarily because ordinary Canadians don’t

understand the underlying ‘safe’ science” (Ferrie). This quote from Ferrie’s article expresses her

main point of interest being that bureaucracies are not giving the people enough information

about GMOs. However, leaders of health departments realize that many people are against

GMOs with or without supporting evidence. So hiding that information helps the food industry

continue sales that have been proven to be safe.

Most people who speak against GMOs are filled with negative emotions for the topic.

There is little literature that supports the use of GMOs written by uncertified authors. Popular

documentaries shot on the topic of GMOs include The Idiot Cycle (Ferrie), The GMO Deception

(Krimsky), and The Peril on your Plate (Kadyrova). These kinds of documentaries speak against

GMOs by saying fields filled with GM crops are lifeless, and that there are no bugs of wildlife

interacting with the crops (Kadyrova). The possibility that GMOs cause allergies are also

brought up in the film and organic foods appear to be more nutritional and cause less allergic

reactions. Claims like these are common among the anti-GMO crowd, but evidence supporting

the claims is lacking luster. Most of them are mere assumptions based on a single event that has

occurred with an individual's health and this unfortunate affliction if blamed on GMOs

(Kadyrova). Consumers in the US generated businesses a total of $48 billion on organic foods

alone as organic foods become more popular and the GMO foods become more disliked by the

public (GM approval database).

There are large consumerism based organizations that lead the fight against GMOs. A

popular one in America is the NonGMO project as mentioned earlier. There are other more

worldwide organizations like Greenpeace that lead a fight in the legislative and judicial fields

surrounding GMOs (Lynas 253). Whenever a new strand of corn is introduced to the market, or a
 McMeans 7

new transgenic crop is developed, Greenpeace fights it. They believe in a totally transgenic free

world. Greenpeace points out that GMOs have failed on their promises of feeding the world, and

that the outcome was not at all what was expected. However, the failure of GMOs is not because

of a fundamental issue with genetic engineering, but rather due to public stigma against the

technology, and organizations like Greenpeace fighting against this technology as much as

possible (Lynas). There has only been one solid reason that can be backed by scientists to an

extent. The use of GMOs all over the world could lead to a serious decline in the genetic

diversity of plant life. If a single disease affecting that plant came along and there was not

enough genetic variability for the hope of keeping resistant strains of the crop, then the world

would face a massive loss of food in a very short amount of time (GM Approval Database). This

kind of disaster can be kept at bay by maintaining the biodiversity of plant life and introducing

multiple GMOs into the market and careful monitoring of any monopolizing strains. Other

reasons that these organizations stand for all come out of a place of fear or lack of information

(Lynas 256). These misconceptions about GMOs have to be addressed, and solid facts should be

replaced in order to change the negative mindsets surrounding GMOs.

Opposing views for the validity of GMOs would likely say that the use of GMOs in our

foods is too new, and the side effects of GMOs are not yet understood enough for them to be

considered safe. Ferrie again points out that “... people began to learn more about nutrition

through painful and deadly trial and error; it is probably only now that we really know what

healthy nutrition means — and it cannot include GMOs” (Ferrie). By this statement, she points

out the connection between the use of GMOs and the decline in human nutrition health, saying

that GMOs are the cause of the decline. Other arguments include the environmental damages

GMOs can cause. Many environmentalists and organic farmers say that GMOs kill wildlife
 McMeans 8

around farms because of the unnatural combination of genes. One man said that a field of corn

looked like “rows of soldiers, genetically identical and frightening” (Kadyrova). Some believe

that by altering the genes of an organism, humans are taking the role of God and altering with

greater powers. Author Ralph Nader says in his book The GMO Deception that GMOs have been

promising to end world hunger, but all a GMO can do is increase food supply. The supply of

food is already large enough to feed the entire human population and more, the problem is

corporate control of food making prices too high, and the real issue is lack of money over lack of

food (Krimsky 275). The original Green Revolution, which was the initial worldwide promise

that GMOs would cure world hunger, seems to have failed as world hunger is still very present.

Nader offers that a second revolution is necessary to defeat the real source of world hunger,

corporate greed. Anti-GMO organizations focus on the ecological damages that they claim

GMOs cause. GMOs typically come with the use of synthetic fertilizers that have unknown

effects on surrounding wildlife (Krimsky 249). Many pesticides like glyphosate are commonly

used with a popular GMO corn called “RoundUp” that has been patented by Monsanto. This

glyphosate is suspected to cause issues with the wildlife in the earth, and kill the pollinators like

bees and butterflies as well as the insects eating the crops (Hoft). These terrible side effects on

the environment and possible on human health are commonly talked about and are why so many

people can rally against GMOs. However, many of these issues may not be as valid as they

sound.

GMOs do pose a threat to the environment because they may reduce the biodiversity of

life in our ecosystems. However this is not the fault of the GMO, but rather because of the user

of the GMOs. If we can maintain a variety of different GMOs in the ecosystems that are easy to

grow but different in their own ways, then we can preserve the biodiversity and avoid biological
 McMeans 9

disasters. The health risks that GMOs pose are not strongly supported. There have been multiple

studies observing effects GMOs have on health and every single one that can be validated

through peer reviews has proven to be inconclusive. GMOs are not the problem when it comes to

health, it is the processing, the options, and the individuals’ poor diet choices that cause people

to become malnourished (Righelato). Educating people on nutrition would be more effective

than banning GMOs. The failed promise that GMOs can’t feed the world is really the fault of

anti-GMO organizations and European government control. Africa is the most underfed and

malnourished country in the world (Paarlberg). GMOs have been kept from them because of

fears that other countries and organizations have imposed upon them, but this revolutionary

technology could increase harvest in these dry countries, and having more local foods means the

prices will go down for food in that region allowing more people to buy food. Stating that using

GMOs is the same thing as playing God is an exaggerated comparison. If God was the creator of

all living organisms, then why did he design a system of hereditary DNA that can be changed

through generations, and if God did not want these genes to be changed, why allow a process as

such to be physically possible. The synthetic fertilizers that are far too commonly associated with

GMOs need to be stopped. Using harmful fertilizers is wrong, but GMOs can provide an

alternative to those deadly chemicals that can end up in rivers or deep in the earth (Lynas 269).

Also, every tangible object in our universe is composed of some sort of chemical structure at a

certain level, so the term chemical fertilizer should not be used in such a negative manner

because it applies to every kind of fertilizer a farmer can use. Genetic Modification is such a

great tool that people should take advantage of, and finding the real issues that surround GMOs

is important and GMOs shouldn’t take the blame for all new issues around food.
 McMeans 10

There is still a heavy amount of conflict surrounding GMOs and they are still widely

discouraged by the public despite having no supporting evidence. The irrational fear people have

for genetically engineered organisms is a combination of public misconceptions, corporate

mistreatment, and government inflicted hysteria. GMOs could help the parts of the world where

farming is hard, and food is scarce, but there are fears against this technology that block farmers

from getting to use it. Genetic engineering allows food to be cheaper all over the world by

making the cost of production decrease as well as increase harvest sizes. Organic foods are

overly praised by the public based on widespread misconceptions of them. Being organic

provides no real difference than genetically altered counterparts. Having both options should be

encouraged, but claiming organic is healthier does not help the issue. Genetic engineering has

been a part of human history ever since humans started farming. New technologies shouldn’t be

dismissed because there are unknown aspects to it. Approaching new ideas and technology with

caution, and also excitement is important for allowing the advancement of humankind to

continue.
 McMeans 11

Works Cited

Brody, Jane E. “Are G.M.O. Foods Safe?” The New York Times, The New York Times,

23 Apr. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html.

Coto, Stephanie, and Stephanie Coto. “GMO vs. ORGANIC! The Truth (with Pictures).”

HOME, 21 Oct. 2019, www.weareheretoinspire.com/gmo-vs-organic/.

“GM Approval Database.” GM Approval Database | GMO Database | GM Crop

Approvals - ISAAA.org, www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/.

Hoft, Micheal, director. GMO Documentary on Monsanto and Genetically Modified

Food Full Documentary. Youtube, HTTV, 2006, https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=Vksu59sE1-E.
 McMeans 12

Kadyrova, Natalya, director. The Peril on Your Plate: Genetic Engineering and

Chemical Agriculture, What’s in Your Food? Youtube, RT Documentaries, 23 May 2018,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCmZJtztAvI&pbjreload=10.

Krimsky, Sheldon, and Jeremy Gruber. The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know

about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our

Environment at Risk. Skyhorse Publishing, 2016.

Lynas, Mark. Seeds of Science: Why We Got It so Wrong on Gmos. Bloomsbury Sigma,

2020.

“Mission.” Non, www.nongmoproject.org/about/mission/.

Null, Gary, director. Seeds of Death. Seeds of Death: Unveiling The Lies of GMO's Full

Documentary HD, Gary Null, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biQU9RnnGoM

DĆbrowska-Kłosińska, Patrycja. “Towards More Experimentalism in the Eu Governance

on Gmo Risks?: Regulatory Experience, Responsive Reforms and Remaining Problems.”

Conference Papers -- American Political Science Association, Jan. 2010, pp. 1–21.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.

Righelato, Renton. “Food Labels Should State the Benefits of GMOs.” Nature, vol. 419,

no. 6905, Sept. 2002, p. 337. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1038/419337d.

Ferrie, Helke. “Evidence Grows of Harmful Effects of GMOs on Human Health.” CCPA

Monitor, vol. 18, no. 5, Oct. 2011, pp. 12–13. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=67073800&site=ehost-live
 McMeans 13

Paarlberg, Robert. “GMO Foods and Crops: Africa’s Choice.” New Biotechnology, vol.

27, no. 5, Nov. 2010, pp. 609–613. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2010.07.005.

Paull, John. “Gmos and Organic Agriculture: Six Lessons from Australia.” Agriculture &

Forestry / Poljoprivreda i Sumarstvo, vol. 61, no. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 7–14. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.17707/AgricultForest.61.1.01.