Running Head: THE DANGERS OF GMOS Edgerly 1

GMOs are Endangering the Human Population Commented [KL1]: Clear thesis as your title

Sam Edgerly
Saginaw Valley State University
THE DANGERS OF GMOS Edgerly 2

Many individuals attempt to help fix the food crisis throughout the world. Many times,

these problems lead to the same solution every time. Not enough crops?, GMOs. Not bug

resistant?, GMOs. Not weather resistant?, GMOs. GMOs are genetically modified organisms

which are products changed to make the product more favorable. Scientists modify the genetic

makeup of products such as milk, fruit, and vegetables to make them change and adapt to a

relevant problem that product faces. This has become the norm in society today and people are

turning a blind eye to the GMO crisis. Research has shown that GMOs are causing negative

effects on plants, animals and most importantly humans. In addition, most of the effects of

GMOs on the human body are unknown, which is why they are so dangerous. GMOs should be

regulated very heavily and, in some cases, even banned permanently.

GMOs need to be taken off the market or banned due to health conditions they are

causing. They are causing a rise in cancer, allergies, and other large illnesses. Most of the Commented [KL2]: You need to include research to verify
these claims.
effects will not be known till until they come out in the future and it will be too late. To argue

against GMOs the opposing side of the GMO argument must be examined so one can see the Commented [KL3]: Let your readers know what the
opposite side is.
flaws in this type of thinking.

Looking simply on the surface this argument for GMOs would seem very favorable to

some readers. The first large point for arguing for GMOs would be increased crops which would

also mean more food meaning lessand fewer hungry people. Monsanto is the world's leading

company for the research and implementation of GMOs into more food products. In Martin S.

Gildea’s journal titled GMOs: Safe or Dangerous? (2018), Martin Gildea writes “ Monsanto Commented [KL4]: If it’s just an article, place in quotes,
not italics.
claims that their GM (genetically modified) soybean yield in 2009 increased from 7-11% Commented [KL5]: Use the last name in formal writing

specifically in the United States.”(2018, pg.1) This fact makes sense because the more resistance

you have to weather and bugs the less plants are actually going to die. This article discusses both
THE DANGERS OF GMOS Edgerly 3

sides of the argument and delves into how one really will not know the effects of GMOs until

they come out in the future. This article is an excellent intro to GMOs and begins the process of

the reader taking a side. This article was written for those simply wanting to know more about

GMOs. This is a very strong piece of this argument and it seems to take the headwind when

GMOs are argued for. Commented [KL6]: Explain a little more about how this
source supports your argument. It’s a little unclear.
In addition to this argument, individuals also argue that GMOs are also helpful because it

makes greenhouse emissions go down. The argument is that GMOs mean less fewer weeds

which means less fewer tractors in the fields emitting harmful gasses. The article titled The Commented [KL7]: Again, articles in quotes, not italics.

Possibilities Inside a Seed explains that “In 2015 alone, led to the equivalent of removing twelve Commented [KL8]: What led to it? Sounds like you’re
missing a word. Use [brackets] to modify a quote if
necessary.
million cars from the road.” (The Possibilities Inside a Seed, 2018). The article cited writes
Commented [KL9]: Use the author’s name instead
about five benefits to adding more GMOs into the food around the world. It touches on reducing Commented [KL10]: Again, I’m confused here. It seems
like you’re presenting the counterargument first. I’m not
greenhouse emissions, protecting the food supply, defining plants from disease, maintaining sure what your stance on this topic is.

biodiversity, and spreading propensity to growing nations. This article was written for those in

support of GMOs and for those on the edge about where they stand regarding GMOs. This

excerpt from article is appealing to readers because the greenhouse effect debate is so prevalent

today. This issue relates to everyone in society if indeed it is true. So, once the topic of the

environment is brought into the picture a reader is more apt to side for GMOs if it will help the

environment.

Now these two reasons sound very strong from the surface but however they are just not Commented [KL11]: Ok, I see where you’re heading, but
I’d suggest reorganizing your argument to present your side
first.
enough to support GMOs. For the argument of making more crops to produce more food for the

world, one must take a step back. From the outside this is very tempting. World hunger is a

huge issue and solving it would the best achievement of humankind, but at what cost are GMOs Commented [KL12]: Remain gender neutral

causing a raise in production of crops. Many people argue that GMOs pose health risks that
THE DANGERS OF GMOS Edgerly 4

cause diseases and birth defects. Further, in Robin Mather’s (2012) article titled The Threats Commented [KL13]: Place the year after the author in
APA
from Genetically Modified Foods, proclaims that many of these genetically modified crops are

“bred to include ‘“terminator technology,’” which prevents the seeds from producing viable

second-generation seed for saving.” (2012) This article discusses the dangers of GM food such

as milk and corn. It also delves into pesticides and the testing being done on GMOs. This article

is written for those who do not know about the dangers of GMOs and are simply blind to the

issues in our society. Now despite this terminator technology not being currently implemented,

the USDA voiced its approval on its implementation in the near future. This terminator

technology makes it so seeds are not left behind which means farmers need to buy more seed

when using genetically modified seeds. This is a rouse to make the GMO producers ultimately

make more money while posing to be helping the world solve hunger. In terms of GMOs

cutting down on greenhouse gasses that could he true, however more effort should be put into

making vehicles more fuel efficient instead of attempting to make GMOs cut down on

greenhouse gasses. Better tractors can be purchased to save fumes and organic chemicals can be

used to cut down on the weeds. This is going to be so much more valuable if more is invested

into cutting down greenhouse gasses in safe ways then continuing to produce GMOs that are not

fully tested.

The other side of the argument is the side that disproves the use of GMOs. If one were to Commented [KL14]: But aren’t you arguing against
GMOs? As a reader, I’m still confused.
compare the two sides of this argument one would see one large difference between the two

sides. The side disapproving of GMOs seems to care about the world's health whereas the other

side in support of GMOs seems to only care about money and making more profit. That is the

first point of an argument against GMOs. The fact that many of these GMOs are not truly tested

in all circumstances. The long-term effects are not tested and like something such as vaping, the
THE DANGERS OF GMOS Edgerly 5

world will not know the consequences until they show up one day and begin to harm

others. One example is injecting cows with rBST which makes the insulin levels go up. Dr.

Samuel Epstein from the school of public health at the University of Illinois “has warned for

more than 20 years that high levels of IGF-1 raise the risk of cancer, especially breast, colon and

prostate cancer. He has said that rBST milk is “super-charged with high levels of abnormally Commented [KL15]: If you have a quote within a quote,
use single quote marks instead.
potent IGF-1, up to 10 times the levels in natural milk and over 10 times more potent.””(Mather,

2012) This statistic is very alarming because cancer is one of the biggest health concerns in this

world and these so called safe GMOs could be a large cause of cancer. Among these are

countless health concerns that could cause diseases and deformities to children at birth.

In addition to cancer, another large factor in this side of the argument is that GMOs are

causing more allergies to arise in individuals. GMOs were introduced in 1996 and the article

titled The Fight Against GMOs reveals “Within nine years, the incidence of people in the US

with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled—from 7% to 13%. Visits to the emergency

room due to allergies doubled from 1997 to 2002. And overall food related illnesses doubled

from 1994 to 2001” (The Fight Against GMOs, 2011). This was a study done by the Centers for

Disease Control. This article goes into specifically what GMOs are causing such as allergies,

autism, and others. This article is written specifically to sway those to change their views for the

health of society. This fact about rising illnesses is very alarming and it is one that those in

support of GMOs do not want the public to see. GMOs are causing a surge in medical problems

and most of those are not going to be found until it is too late.

In addition to these problems, the pesticide crisis also needs to be touched on. Plants are

modified by “inserting them with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly

doses of toxic herbicide” (The Fight Against GMOs, 2011). This excerpt means that plants are
THE DANGERS OF GMOS Edgerly 6

purposely changed to withstand a larger amount of pesticide which in themselves are very toxic

to the human body many times. These companies are keeping the bugs away at the expense of

human health. The main overall point to this argument against GMOs is human health and that

should be the number one worry for every single human being.

Now those in support of banning GMOs really have one goal in mind which is human

health and an overall better world. Those in support of GMOs have good intentions in mind but

most of the large corporations in charge of GMOs are doing this for profit and not for the benefit

of the hunger crisis. GMOs have unprecedented consequences that the supporting side does not

want the public to know. Those in support of GMOs seem to blindly follow this argument purely

because it seems to be feeding more of the world which is false. GMOs are causing countless

allergies, diseases, and defects to those who are being fed these food products. The biotech

companies are creating this illusion to the public that GMOs are dramatically changing the world

for the better when in fact they are harming the world. The biotech companies and research

companies, such as Monsanto, are only working for their own shareholders and those invested

into the company. The whole GMO industry is working for the wrong reasons. The side Commented [KL16]: This paragraph might work better
earlier in your paper.
opposed to GMOs is often seen as selfish for not wanting to produce more produce when in fact

it's the opposite. These supporters are truly looking out for the world’s health and are looking

forward to the future. The side for GMOs seems to only look at the present and this fact will be

the whole industries’ downfall.

If one were to step back and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of both sides the winner

would be clear. Those in support of GMOs follow for quantity of crops which means more food,

but this comes at a large cost to human health. GMOs are causing more harm to society then

actually benefiting society. The health effects need to be examined and shown to the public
THE DANGERS OF GMOS Edgerly 7

because some individuals do not know anything about this world crisis. GMOs need to be

banned altogether or strictly regulated for the sake of humanity. GMOs are causing irreversible

health complications for future generations and that is enough to conclude that they need to be

taken off the market all around the world.

THE DANGERS OF GMOS Edgerly 8

References

Gildea, M. S. (2018). GMOs: Safe or Dangerous? Nutritional Perspectives: Journal of the

Council on Nutrition, 41(3), 29–32. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131589001&site=eds

-live

Mather, R. (2012, April). The Threats from Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved October 15,

2019, from https://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/sustainable-

farming/genetically-modified-foods-zm0z12amzmat.

Modern Agriculture. (2018, October 18). The Possibility Inside a Seed. Retrieved October 15,

2019, from https://modernag.org/innovation/gmo-solutions-benefit-environment/

Share Guide. (2011). The Fight Against GMOs. Retrieved October 17, 2019, from

http://www.shareguide.com/GMOs.html

Grade: A-