James Newman

Professor Alexa Doran

ENC2135

23 March 2017

The Genetically Modified World

Genetically modified organisms are not a recent phenomenon. In fact, humans have been

modifying organisms for a long time. When farmers would select and keep the better seeds for

next years crops and toss the weaker seeds out they were slowly domesticating the crop to

become stronger and more resistant to harsh weather and bugs. Ultimately, creating a breed of

crops that was genetically stronger over time since only the good seeds breed. This comes across

as innocuous, and of course, that is because what these farmers were doing was just improving

the strain of crop for better harvest, thus more and better food supply. However, modern science

has changed the old ways farmers modified crops. The agribusiness was once again

revolutionized in the year 1994 when genetically modified foods began to be available for

consumers. This type of modification was not like the farmers who took years to domesticate

their crops, rather, scientist could now enter into an organisms nucleus and change its genetic

make up without having to wait years to breed the perfect crop. This is a great advancement for

agricultural because now scientist could breed stronger and more sustainable crops and even

animals for consumption. However, this scientific breakthrough did not arrive without its

concerns, because although having the power to change the genetic make-up of organisms is a

grand scientific innovation, the use of this biotechnology can be dangerous to our environment

which is in turn problem for humans in the long run.

 As the country and the world are in toil due to the volatile and unstable political climate,

certain controversial issues take center stage in front of other topics that do not hold direct and

immediate effects on the general public. Not only is this occurrence playing out in the news, but

also has happened historically throughout times like these. And the one issue that comes to mind

plays perfectly into this story: Genetically Modified Organisms and the controversial debate that

surrounds the topic. Even though this is a hackneyed issue, public opinion remains highly

polarized no matter how informed an individual is. The consumer should be worried about what

not only he or she, but also his or her loved ones are consuming. The media and government are

heavily influenced by the dollar bill causing an enigma to the common man about what really is

going on with the colorful foods that line the aisles.

To start to comprehend all the misconceptions surrounding any controversial issue, a

basic understanding of definition needs to be established. Genetically modified foods, or

organisms as defined by The World Health Organization are organisms (i.e. plants, animals or

microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not

occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. (World Health Organization) Based on

this definition, humans have been genetically altering what they consume ever since the

agricultural revolution in the Fertile Crescent many ages ago. At the base level, to change a

tomato to a more vibrant color and produce less seeds is a simple genetic variation that can be

done by crossing the genes of other plants; which is not necessarily a problem. Unfortunately, the

consumerist society we live in and the massive levels of food excess the Western world

ostensibly needs, pushes a seemingly harmless processes to the extremes by creating an unsafe

environment for everyone.

 The mass consumerism and throw away culture Americans live in means larger farms,

more pesticides, more super weeds, and a plethora of other issues that create such a negative

connotation surrounding genetically modified foods. And no one knows this better than the chief

executive officer of the company in the middle of it all, Monsanto. This company has been under

fire since the beginning of it; all due to the accusations towards the company, from conspiracies

of making food everywhere a monopoly business, to the more realistic and evidence based

stories of company officials going after organic farms and shutting their organic companies

down. For the majority of the time of their existence Monsanto has only focused on their

relationship with those inside their company, however, the opponents against them have gotten

so widespread and poignant that the company now has no choice but to work on their public

relations. In Alescis article she interviews the executive chief of Monsanto: Grant

says Monsanto wants to do a better job of communicating with end consumers who want to

know more about the source of their food and how it's produced (Alesci). Chipotle, a popular

example, made a showy announcement last year, saying it would become the first restaurant

chain of their scale to go GMO-free. Another big name in food, Whole Foods joined in as well,

proclaiming itself the first national grocery chain "committed to providing GMO transparency.

The retailer also said it is working to stock more non-GMO items. With major household names

like Chipotle and Whole foods working so strongly against the topic it is hard to see anything

positive about GMOs. Of course Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant is not going down without a fight,

"the thing that drives [me] a little bit nuts, and is the frustrating piece in this, is it's such a

polarized debate and I don't think it should be," Grant said in an interview with CNNMoney at

the company's St Louis headquarters (Alesci). He has reason to be this concerned about public

perception, even mentions of modifications will send consumers running for the hills.
 The issue is that the public is not educated enough to make the most educated decisions

about what they think they know about genetically modified foods. The hard truth is that they are

not going anywhere. The population of not only America but also the world will never be

supported if everything we ate was raised organically. The answers to the problems do not lie in

going completely organic, it just is not possible. And the situation only gets worse when one

looks at third world countries who do not have the option to go a Whole Foods and pick their

dinner from the organic section. Those people are not even thinking about GMOs. This is bigger

than just a western problem, it's a whole world problem.

One of the big fights in legislative houses all over the country is the argument to label all

foods that go through the Food and Drug Administration as genetically modified or organic.

Some of the positives things that come from this is that it incentivizes organic farms, but all for

the wrong reasons. A food could be labeled, but this does nothing to educate the consumer and

add to the little education if any he or she has. One of the articles cited titled Labels for GMOs

are a Bad Idea mentions that instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory

GMFs labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger

people's health. Val Giddings of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, explains

that all genetically improved food in markets is required to carry a label to inform consumers if

the food itself has been affected in any way in terms of health, safety, and nutrition. Putting a

label is pointless if we already have the most important info. Additionally, Giddings talks of an

attempt to mandate the labeling of GM foods was tried in 2012, but the American Medical

Association House of Delegates rejected it, saying that there is no scientific justification for

special labeling of GMFs because its without value unless its accompanied by consumer

education. To sum up, all labeling does is create unnecessary stigmas about genetic modification
and to put it simply there should be a real effort to educate consumers on what theyre putting in

their bodies rather than putting a sticker on food.

The extremists on the end of the argument want to ban genetically modified foods all

together, but as mentioned earlier this just is not realistic. An example of innovation in the

genetic modification world is edible vaccines that hold great promise as a cost-effective, easy-to-

store, and sociocultural acceptable vaccine delivery system, especially for the poor developing

countries. Evidently, this is only possible with mass production and nothing else but genetically

modified foods (Noussair, The Economic Journal). A ban stops researchers from being able to

improve the health of many people in third world countries, many GMOs could be used as a

replacement for vaccination, an option bills proposed by extremist prohibits legislators from

producing.

To make legislative decisions, one has to look at the whole picture and today

biotechnology must be included in that picture. It is important to make sure the citizens are well

informed because, 43% of participants in a study done by Lynn Frewer at the Scientific Direct

Journal had never heard of biotechnology and definitely did not know about what biotechnology

entails for the agricultural industry. Before consumers were educated they demanded high

compensation to risk their health to consume GMOs (Grunert), but once they learned about

many of the benefits that biotechnology and GMOs bring especially to third world countries, that

compensation dropped significantly. If the Western World continually fights against genetically

modified foods it will only spell disaster on the developing world. An example of this is a point

made by Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu as stated You can never win a war against

terror as long as there are conditions in the world that make people desperate such as hunger. In

addition, fighting desperation through hunger is one of the best routes to fighting the war on
terror. On the recruitment level, misery such as hunger makes millions easy targets for recruiters

from terrorist groups. This is because terrorist groups offer individuals food to be recruited

(Potrykus, Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology). The role the west plays in this is

without the support of the consumerist economy; the motivation to continue outreach and

research will be halted and will only send food deprived countries into turmoil.

Even though there is no way to get rid of genetic modification and the entire population

of the globe rely on GMOs, they are far from perfect and going organic is not the answer. GMO

farms will lose access to subsidies and farmers will refuse to switch to organic if labeling and

organic farms is forced upon farmers. A study from The Sciences Journal crunched data from 44

studies and 55 crops and found that organic farming is 22-35% more profitable than GM farming

mostly because they cost more. However, they also found that even if costs were the exact same

for GM and organic foods, organic would still be more profitable due to the money saved on

chemicals/fertilizers. So, why is are organic farms so unpopular? Well, it is very difficult to

convert to organic farming. It takes farmers 4 years before they can make any profits and as a

result very few farmers switch to organic. The farmers do not need subsidies they need it to be

easier to switch over, in which right now they don't get any subsidies till they fully switch which

takes four long years. Farmers have to purchase exponentially more expensive pesticides,

however, in addition to reduced efficiency compared to synthetic pesticides, organic pesticides

have an even larger negative impact on biological organisms and a worse environmental impact

on biodiversity.

The answer to the debate on genetically modified foods is an extremely complicated one

with too many aspects and angles and sides to count. It is going to take more than just one bill to

really change the issues surrounding genetically modified foods and even more time and effort to
educated the consumer on the topic. At the end of the day it needs to be done, there are too many

things in the American society that are not explicitly stated to the citizens and to start to unravel

the red tape, what they are eating is a pretty good start.