Genetically Modified Foods

The Good, the Bad, and the Hungry

Adam Nash
BIO 101
November 7, 2019
What is a Genetically Modified Food?
• Selective breeding - crossbreeding strains for optimal traits. Norman Burlaug
in the 1960s created a strain of wheat that was high-yield and drought-
resistant, and ssubsequently saved millions in India from starvation.
• Genetically modified food (or GM food) is food produced from plants or
animals whose DNA has been altered through genetic engineering. These
genetically modified organisms are often called GMOs for short.
• Genetic engineering is the process of manipulating an organism’s genes
directly — by, for example, transplanting DNA from other organisms. It’s
different from the conventional method of selectively breeding plants and
animals to get desired traits. Genetically modified foods have been on the US
market since 1994, ever since the introduction of ”Flavr Savr” tomatoes that
had been engineered to ripen more slowly.
Why Genetic Modification?

• There’s no one type of genetically modified organism —

genetic engineering is a tool that can be used for a variety
of purposes. Most of the corn and soy grown in the United
States has been genetically modified to be resistant to
herbicides, so that it’s easier to spray fields with weed
killer. Other crops have been modified to withstand pests.
But genetic engineering could conceivably help create
crops that can survive drought, or help produce food
that’s more nutritious.
What Does Science Say About GMOs?

• There’s a broad scientific consensus that the genetically

modified foods currently on the market pose no more of a
health risk than regular foods. Still, GM foods are
controversial. Opponents argue that genetically modified
crops can lead to things like the increased use of
chemical herbicides, or cite problems with the fact that
GMOs are owned and patented by large companies. That
has led to debates over whether GMOs should be labeled
or tightly regulated.
How Do You Make a GMO?
• 1) First, the scientists need to find an organism that contains the trait they would like their corn to have. In our example,
they’ve identified a protein in Bt soil bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, is a common soil bacterium whose genome
contains genes for several proteins toxic to insects. For decades, Bt has been sprayed on fields as an organic pesticide;
several major pests of corn that are difficult and expensive to control with chemical insecticides are susceptible to Bt.) that
can kill pests like rootworm but isn’t harmful to mammals. (Farmers have been spraying their fields with Bt for decades, but
it can wash away easily.)

• 2) They then extract the DNA from the soil bacteria. Here’s a list of ways to extract DNA.

• 3) Now, the scientists don’t want the entire bacterial genome — they just want the specific gene that controls production of
the pest-killing Bt protein. So they use a process called gene cloning to isolate and make many copies of the Bt gene.

• 4) Next, the scientists may want to modify the Bt gene. This is done in a lab machine by tearing the gene apart with
enzymes and repairing certain regions. For example, the scientists might want to design the Bt gene so that only the green
leaves of corn produce the pest-killing protein.

• 5) The newly modified “transgene” is now ready to be inserted into corn DNA. There are a variety of ways to do this. One
method is to use agrobacterium, a type of bacteria that can naturally transfer the transgene to the nucleus of the plant cells.
There’s also the ”gene gun,” which essentially shoots very tiny gold particles coated with copies of the transgene into the
plant cells. This process often has to be repeated hundreds of times before the transgene is successfully integrated into the
corn’s DNA.

• 6) If and when the Bt gene has been successfully inserted into the corn cells, and a new plant with the trait is grown from
those cells, the genetic engineering is done. The new “transgenic” corn is now handed over to crop breeders so they can
breed it with other corn in more traditional ways to select for other desirable traits.
GM Food v. Selective Breeding..How Is GM Food
Different From “Regular Food?”
• It might help to distinguish genetic engineering from traditional techniques for producing food.

• Humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for tens of thousands of years to get
certain desired traits. Over time, for example, farmers (and scientists) have bred corn to become larger,
to hold more kernels on an ear, and to flourish in different climates. That process has certainly altered
corn’s genes. But it’s not usually considered “genetic engineering.”

• Genetic engineering, by contrast, involves the direct manipulation of DNA, and only really became
possible in the 1970s. It often takes two different forms: There’s ”cisgenesis,” which involves directly
swapping genes between two organisms that could otherwise breed — say, from wheat to wheat. Or
there’s ”transgenesis,” which involves taking well-characterized genes from a different species (say,
bacteria) and transplanting them into a crop (such as corn) to produce certain desired traits.

• Ultimately, genetic engineering tries to accomplish the same goals as traditional breeding — create
plants and animals with desired characteristics. But genetic engineering allows even more fine-tuning.
It can be faster than traditional breeding, and it allows engineers to transfer specific genes from one
species to another. In theory, that allows for a much greater array of traits.
Why Make GM Food?
• Some crops are genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides — such as Monsanto’s
Roundup Ready soybeans — so that it’s easier for farmers to spray fields with weed killer. By
contrast, Bt corn is modified with a bacterial gene in order to secrete a poison that kills pests such
as rootworm. That can reduce the need for chemical pesticides.

• There are other potential uses, too: golden rice has been artificially fortified with beta carotene, to
help alleviate vitamin deficiencies in countries like the Philippines. (So far, however, golden rice is
still in early phases and has met opposition from protesters.) And many researchers are looking
for ways to engineer crops that are resistant to drought.

• Genetic engineering isn’t any one thing — it can be used for a variety of purposes. In practice,
large biotech companies like Monsanto tend to focus much of their research efforts on traits like
herbicide resistance and pest tolerance for major cash crops like corn, soy, cotton, and canola.
Are GM Foods Safe to Eat?
• The mainstream view on safety: At this point, billions of people around the
world have been eating GM foods for decades without any noticeable ill
effects. And numerous scientific studies have concluded that the GM crops
currently on the market pose no more of a health risk than conventional
crops.

• Here’s what the American Association for the Advancement of Science

(AAAS) said in 2012: “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the
modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”

• Likewise, in 2010, the European Commission reviewed a decade’s worth of

independent research and concluded, “GMOs are not per se more risky than
e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”
• What that means: Traditional breeding techniques have long altered the genes of plants and animals.
That’s a messy process. The risk of random mutations and unexpected outcomes has always been
present. (To take one example, crop scientists have long used radiation on seeds to induce mutations
and improve the odds of getting desired traits.)

• So what most scientific advisory panels have concluded is that the risk of using genetic engineering to
alter genes isn’t any riskier than conventional breeding when it comes to food safety.

• The dissenters: A minority of scientists still insist, however, that more research is needed before GM
foods can be definitively considered safe. After all, genetic engineering isn’t exactly like traditional
breeding, and it may have downstream effects scientists haven’t fully studied.

• For example, in a dissent to that AAAS statement, 21 researchers argued that increased herbicide use
— which can occur with crops engineered to be resistant to Roundup — might have health effects we
don’t yet know about. (That said, many “conventional” crops also require plenty of pesticides. This
varies from crop to crop, and simply calling something “GMO” doesn’t necessarily tell you all you
need to know.)

• Allergies: Another common question has to do with allergies. Transplanting DNA from other organisms
into crops has the potential to introduce new allergens into foods. Companies tend to test for specific
allergens, but critics often argue that it’s impossible to test for all unknown allergens.

• One counterpoint, however, is that many traditional foods also carry some risk of allergies, including
foods imported from other countries, which receive far less screening. (See here for more on this
debate.)
Are GM Foods Good or Bad for the Environment?

• Unfortunately there’s no easy answer to this, since it often depends on the

crops and how they’re used.
• In some cases, GM crops can help farmers use fewer chemical insecticides.
In others, they might lead to greater herbicide use or pesticide resistance. On
balance, many scientific bodies are unconvinced that GM foods pose a
special environmental threat — so long as they’re used carefully.
• Here’s what the National Research Council concluded in 2010: “Generally,
GE crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non-GE
crops produced conventionally.” But the report cautioned, “Excessive reliance
on a single technology combined with a lack of diverse farming practices
could undermine the economic and environmental gains from these GE
crops.”
• Some GM crops allow fewer
pesticides: In some cases,
GM crops can benefit the
environment. Cotton that’s
engineered to be pest-
resistant can allow farmers to
use fewer chemical
pesticides. Likewise, the
growth of Bt corn in the
United States since 1996 has
allowed farmers to use fewer
insecticides in cornfields:
• Other GM crops can lead to more herbicides — with a caveat: The story is murkier for chemical
herbicides used on weeds. Many crops like soy, corn, cotton, and canola are now genetically
engineered to be resistant to Roundup, a weed killer. That has led toa clear increase in herbicide use in
the United States. But there’s a caveat here: the herbicide behind this increase, glyphosate, is less
toxic than some of its predecessors.

• Pest resistance and the risk of overuse: The National Research Council also warned against improper
use of GM technology: Farmers who plant herbicide-resistant GM crops often use a limited range of
herbicides on their fields, which can give rise to herbicide-resistant “superweeds.” Similarly, there’s
evidence that overplanting of Bt corn has fostered a new breed of resistant insects in some fields.

• That said, many conventional crops also re quire herbicides, and those ”superweeds” can appear on
non-GM crop sites, too. In the end, the National Research Council wasn’t convinced that GM crops
were inherently riskier, so long as they were used properly.

• Other risks: It’s worth listing a few other environmental concerns, as well. The decline of the monarch
butterfly in North America has been linked to the increased use of herbicide spraying on herbicide-
tolerant crops. There’s also the risk that genetically engineered traits still in the testing phase could
escape into nature, as apparently occurred in May 2013, when a never-approved strain of GM wheat
made its way to an Oregon field.
How Widespread are GM Foods?
• In the United States, genetically modified crops have become very widespread.

• More than 93 percent of the corn and soy planted in the United States is genetically modified in
some way. Most of that ends up as animal feed, ethanol, or corn syrup — and corn syrup gets
into lots of foods. Cotton, sugar beets, and canola are also common genetically modified crops.
Roughly 60 to 70 percent of processed foods in grocery stores contain at least some genetically
modified ingredients.

• Animals are a slightly different story. There are currently no genetically modified animals that
have been approved for use as food in the United States, although there’s a type of GM salmon
that’s currently awaiting regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration.
Companies have also used genetic engineering to create certain enzymes and hormones for
cheese and milkproduction.

• Around the world, the vast majority of GM crops are grown in just five countries: the United
States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and India. In 2013, more than 12 percent of global farmland
(175 million hectares) was given over to GM crops, although growth appears to be slowing
How Are GM Foods Regulated?
• In the United States, genetically modified crops are regulated by three different agencies. The Department
of Agriculture regulates field testing of GM crops for research. The Environmental Protection Agency
regulates plants with pest-resistant properties. And the Food and Drug Administration regulates any GM
crops that are eaten by humans or animals.

• FDA oversight tends to get the most attention. There’s no specific law that regulates genetically modified
foods. Instead, back in 1997 the agency created a voluntary “consultation” process for companies that want
to sell new GM crops. The companies conduct a safety assessment that identifies the novel genetic traits
and determines whether any of the new material could be toxic or allergenic. FDA scientists can ask for
additional tests and data as needed. To date, some 96 crops have gone through this process.

• Critics tend to focus on the fact that this safety assessment is voluntary — there are no laws requiring
specific tests. Biotech companies often retort that it’s not that “voluntary” in practice. They end up carrying
out a large number of tests and give the FDA whatever data the agency asks for. (After all, the FDA does
have the authority to require pre-market review for any substances not generally recognized as safe.)

• It’s worth noting that the European Union has had a much stricter regulatory policy in place since 2003.
There, all GM foods must be strictly evaluated on a case-by-case basis before they’re marketed. And even
after approval, individual EU countries can request to ban certain GM foods from their borders under a
“safeguard” clause. As a result, Europe tends to have far fewer genetically modified crops and foods.
Why the Debate Over Labelling GM Foods?
• Traditionally in the United States, companies have been able to decide for themselves whether to disclose that their
foods contain genetically modified ingredients. But that may soon change.
• In April 2014, the Vermont legislature passed the first state law to require labels on all foods with genetically
engineered ingredients. The law is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2016, although food companies are almost
certain to challenge it in court.
• It’s unclear whether Vermont alone can force US companies to start labeling GM foods — the state is tiny enough that
firms could simply stop selling any foods with canola oil, soy lecithin, dextrose, and so forth in Vermont altogether.
But in recent years, other states have also been mulling labeling laws.
• Maine and Connecticut, for instance, have passed GM labeling laws — but those are contingent on other states also
passing their own laws. Meanwhile, ballot initiatives have been introduced in bigger states like California, Washington,
Colorado, and Oregon to require labels on all GM foods. But those proposals have been voted down so far.
• Arguments for labeling: Those in favor of labeling laws, including organic food companies and food activists, argue
that people have a right to know what’s in their food. Some critics of GM foods, like Tom Philpott, have argued that
labeling laws could force transparency on an industry that tends to be dominated by just a few large corporations like
Monsanto and Dupont.
• Arguments against labeling: Those opposed to the laws, including various seed and biotechnology giants, argue that
the law could lead to higher prices at the grocery store or frivolous lawsuits against food companies.
• Meanwhile, some scientists argue that labeling laws could demonize genetically modified foods in a way that’s
disproportionate to the risks involved. UC Berkeley’s David Zilberman worried that labeling laws might “create a
stigma effect” that will hinder future research into using GM foods to improve nutrition or help ameliorate the effects
of climate change.
• Labeling around the world: Currently, some 64 countries require labeling of GM foods, including the UK, Japan,
Malaysia, New Zealand, and Australia.
How Do GM Foods Get Researched?
• The mainstream view in the published scientific literature is that genetically modified foods pose
no more of a risk to human health than conventional foods. But that raises a question: who is
conducting these studies?

• A good portion of the research on GM foods is funded by the companies developing these
products. But there’s also a lot of independent research, as well. For instance, the Genetic
Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA) has documented more than 1,000 scientific studies looking
into the safety of GM foods. Of those, independently funded studies make up about one-third of
the list.

• There’s also the question of research access. Companies like Monsanto typically license out their
products to universities for study. But in the past, some researchers have complained that they
can’t get access, or that permission gets pulled if they conduct a study the company doesn’t like.
In 2009, however, many companies responded by relaxing their restrictions on sharing seeds for
research, although it’s still unclear if that resolved all the outstanding issues.
Can GM Foods Be Patented (or Can Life Be Owned)?

• The answer is yes.

• In 1980, the US Supreme Court ruled in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that
genetically altered life can be patented.
• Anyone who buys GM seeds typically has to abide by certain
restrictions. For instance, farmers who buy soybeans that have been
modified to be resistant to Roundup herbicide sign an agreement
saying they will use the seeds for only one planting and won’t save the
seeds from the beans they grow for a second planting.
• The companies argue that patents are necessary to spur innovation.
Critics argue that the patent system has given seed companies
disproportionate market power over GM crops — the 10 biggest seed
companies now control roughly 73 percent of the industry.
Who Profits? (Spoiler Alert: The 1%)
• The global market for genetically modified crops was estimated at $14.8 billion in 2012.
• Studies differ on how this money is divvied up. One 2010 review estimated very roughly that
somewhere around one-third of the total economic benefit of GM crop technology goes to seed and
chemical companies. Another third accrues to US farmers. The remaining third is split between US
consumers and the rest of the world:
• Seed and chemical companies: Biotech companies have certainly profited from GM crops, not least
because seeds and genetic innovations can be patented. Monsanto, for instance, can sell both
Roundup herbicide and Roundup-resistant corn and soybeans to farmers, who must repurchase the
seeds every year.
• US farmers: Farmers typically have to pay more for genetically modified seeds. However, these new
crop varieties can save them time and money in the long run — by, for instance, reducing the need for
pesticides and soil tillage, or by reducing crop damage. There is some evidence that farmers who use
GM crops receive a discount on crop insurance.
• US consumers: In theory, GM crops should help reduce food prices if they cut costs for farmers or help
boost the food supply. So far, this effect appears to be modest: the National Research Council
estimated in 2010 that GM crops have lowered commodity prices by 2 percent.
• Developing countries: Estimates on the costs and benefits of GM foods in the developing world tend to
be hazy. One study by PG Economics estimated that GM crops raised incomes in developing countries
by $7 billion in 2010, but this is hardly the last word on the subject.
• The most common GM crop grown by small farmers in developing countries is Bt cotton engineered to
be pest-resistant. Studies have found that some farmers do benefit from these crops, but the results
tend to vary based on location and farm type.
Monsanto = Satan?

• With Bayer’s recent $66 billion purchase of Monsanto, one

global company now controls over one quarter of the seeds in the
entire world, 60% of the proprietary GMO seeds in the world,
70% of the chemicals and pesticides used to grow food, and,
thanks to patents owned by these companies, 80% of genetically
modified corn and over 90% of genetically modified soybeans in
the United States, and 40% of the total seeds used in cropland in
the entire country, limiting options for consumers and having a
monopoly on costs and supply for people at every level of food
production and consumption world-wide
Yes, Monsanto = Satan (Solutions?)

• The government needs to objectively look at the consequences of patents of genetically

modified organisms and plants. Currently a patent for a genetically modified organism or
crop is viable for 20 years. This allows corporate entities to literally own life. However, aside
from a lack of regulation, with these GMOs being created by or bought up by singular entities
such as Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Purdue, and Smithfield, they have a monopoly on what is
grown and produced and are able to levy costs that ensure the profitability for their company,
and not the affordability for or safety of the consumer. The solution to this, besides
government officials that should be doing their job of “trust-busting” to ensure fair competition
and heightened safety practices, would be to end patents after 5 years instead. At the end of
that time, the government could allow, for example, the now-generic seed to be put into a
national seed bank that is subsidized by the government and will allow farmers to produce
crops on their own and not be beholden or modern-day slaves to corporate entities. This
would also ensure healthy food is available to the consumer at a lower cost due to an
increase in competition.
Are GM Foods Necessary to Feed the World?
• Climate change and growing global population has put us on the brink of major food insecurity
around the world. There’s no easy answer to this question. Proponents of GM foods point out
that the world’s population is expected to grow to 9.6 billion by 2050, and that humans will need
all the technology they can get their hands on to boost crop yields and feed everyone.

• Others, like the University of Minnesota’s Jon Foley, have pointed out that there are many other
ways to ensure there’s enough food for everyone — from curbing food waste to making sure
farmers in poor countries have access to fertilizer and modern agricultural methods.

• One related debate here is whether genetic engineering has actually been successful in boosting
crop yields. One 2010 study sponsored by biotech firms found that GM technology allowed
farmers to grow more food on a given plot of land by making it easier to control weeds. But not
everyone agrees. A 2009 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, titled “Failure to Yield,”
argued that improved conventional methods have been largely responsible for the increase in
corn and soy yields in the United States — not genetic engineering.
Where Do We Go From Here? Conclusions and
Remedies
• Conclusion 1. Weed problems in fields of HR crops will become more common as weeds evolve
resistance to glyphosate or weed communities less susceptible to glyphosate become established
in areas treated exclusively with that herbicide. Though problems of evolved resistance and weed
shifts are not unique to HR crops, their occurrence, which is documented, diminishes the
effectiveness of a weed-control practice that has minimal environmental impacts. Weed resistance
to glyphosate may cause farmers to return to tillage as a weed-management tool and to the use of
potentially more toxic herbicides. A number of new genetically engineered HR cultivars are
currently under development and may provide growers with other weed-management options
when fully commercialized. However, the sustainability of those new GM cultivars will also be a
function of how the traits are managed. If they are managed in the same fashion as the current
genetically engineered HR cultivars, the same problems of evolved herbicide resistance and weed
shifts may occur. Therefore, farmers of HR crops should incorporate more diverse management
practices, such as herbicide rotation, herbicide application sequences, and tank-mixes of more
than one herbicide; herbicides with different modes of action, methods of application, and
persistence; cultural and mechanical control practices; and equipment-cleaning and harvesting
practices that minimize the dispersal of HR weeds.

• Recommendation 1. Federal and state government agencies, universities, farmer organizations,

and other relevant stakeholders should collaborate to document emerging weed-resistance
problems and to develop cost-effective resistance-management programs and practices that
preserve effective weed control in HR crops, while holding companies like Monsanto accountable
and removing the restrictions for their patents.
• Conclusion 2. Given that agriculture is the largest source of
surface water pollution, improvements in water quality resulting
from the complementary nature of herbicide-resistance
technology and conservation tillage may represent the largest
single environmental benefit of GM crops. However, the
infrastructure to track and analyze these effects is not in place.
• Recommendation 2. The U.S. Geological Survey, EPA,
Department of Agriculture, and the Department of the Interior
and companion federal and state environmental agencies
should receive the financial resources necessary to document
the water quality effects related to the adoption of GM crops.
• Conclusion 3. The environmental, economic, and social effects on adopters and nonadopters of
GM crops has changed over time, particularly because of changes in pest responses to GM crops,
the consolidation of the seed industry, and the incorporation of GM traits into most varieties of
corn, soybean, and cotton. However, empirical research into the environmental and economic
effects of changing market conditions and farmer practices have not kept pace. Furthermore, little
work has been conducted regarding the effects on livestock producers and non-adopters and on
the social impacts of GM crops. Issues in need of further investigation include the costs and
benefits of shifts in pest management for non-GM producers due to the adoption of GM crops, the
value of market opportunities afforded to organic farmers by defining their products as non-GM,
the economic impacts of GM-crop adoption on livestock producers, and the costs to farmers,
marketers, and processors of the presence of approved or unapproved GM traits and crops in
products intended for restricted markets. As more GM traits are developed and inserted into
existing GM crops or into other crops, understanding the impacts on all farmers will become even
more important to ensuring that genetic-engineering technology is used in a way that facilitates
environment, economic, and social sustainability in U.S. agriculture.
• Recommendation 3. Public and government research institutions should allocate sufficient
resources to reseach,monitor and assess the substantial environmental, economic, and social
effects of current and emerging agricultural biotechnology on U.S. farms so that technology
developers, policy makers, and farmers can make decisions that ensure genetic engineering is a
technology that contributes to sustainable agriculture, without being beholden to companies like
Monsanto, and while addressing the problems raised by climate change and population growth.
• Conclusion 4. Commercialized GM traits are targeted at pest control, and when
used properly, they have been effective at reducing pest problems with
economic and environmental benefits to farmers. However, genetic engineering
could be used in more crops, in novel ways beyond herbicide and insect
resistance, and for a greater diversity of purposes. With proper management,
genetic-engineering technology could help address food insecurity by reducing
yield losses through its introduction into other crops and with the development of
other yield protection traits like drought tolerance. Crop biotechnology could also
address “public goods” issues that will be undersupplied by the market acting
alone. Some firms are working on GM traits that address public goods issues.
However, industry has insufficient incentive to invest enough in research and
development for those purposes when firms cannot collect revenue from
innovations that generate net benefits beyond the farm. Therefore, the
development of these traits will require greater collaboration between the public
and private sectors because the benefits extend beyond farmers to the society in
general. The implementation of a targeted and tailored regulatory approach to
GM-trait development and access that meets human and environmental safety
standards while minimizing unnecessary expenses and profiteering by private
corporations will aid this agenda
• Recommendation 4. Public and private research institutions should be eligible for
government support to develop GE crops that can deliver valuable public goods but have
insufficient market potential to justify private investment. Intellectual property patented in
the course of developing major crops should continue to be made available for such
public goods purposes to the extent possible. Furthermore, support should be focused
on expanding the purview of genetic-engineering technology in both the private and
public sectors to address public goods issues. Examples of GM-crop developments that
could deliver such public goods include but are not limited to

• plants that reduce pollution of off-farm waterways through improved use of nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizers.
• plants that fix their own nitrogen and reduce pollution caused by fertilizer application.
• plants that improve feedstocks for renewable energy (the most effiicient is switchgrass,
whereas corn ethanol is a net producerof CO2 emissions, causes greater health issues,
and is subsidized ridiculously in our country, 80% of corn production goes to ethanol,
whereas switchgrass can be used as forage, can grow anywhere, and has a higher rate
of energy yield when compared to corn, and is carbon-neutral, to being a carbon-sink.
• plants with reduced water requirements that slow the depletion of regional water
resources.
• plants with improved nutritional quality that deliver health benefits.
• plants resilient to changing climate conditions.
• Conclusion 5: Farm subsides mainly go to megacorpotations and
the rich, and megacorporations with monopolies on life are so big
that they control huge percentages of the GM crops and fertilizers
in the world (the patented GM strains) and profit off of them
unfairly and hurts small farms and other consumers who want
variety (such as heirloom foods) or open access to the genetic
strains.
• Recommendation 5: Stop electing rich, old, white, conservative,
Republican men. Break up the corporations. End patents are a
couple of years. Tax the hell out of the corporations. Elect
Elizabeth Warren. Make Jay Inslee and scientists the heads of
the EPA, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, the
FDA, and the USDA. End “Big Corn.”
In Summation

• #okboomer
References
• National Research Council, 2010. The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12804/the-impact-of-
genetically-engineered-crops-on-farm-sustainability-in-the-united-states
• European Council, 2010. A decade of EU-funded GMO research. http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
• Johnson, Nathaniel, 2014. Genetic engineering: Do the differences make a difference? https://grist.org/food/genetic-engineering-do-the-differences-make-a-difference/
• Gohd, Chelsea, 2019. A Review of 6,000 Studies Over Two Decades Delivers Its Verdict on GMO Corn. https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-6000-studies-over-two-
decades-delivers-its-verdict-on-GMO-corn-safety
• Reichel, Chloe, 2018. Playing with your food: New research on GMOs. Harvard Shorenstein Center on Public Policy. https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/food-
agriculture/gmo-corn-genetic-engineering-agriculture-environment/
• Pelligrino, Elisa, 2018. Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2
• Delaney, Brian, 2017. Food and Feed Safety of Genetically Engineered Food Crops. https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/162/2/361/4675348
• Meghari, Behrohk, 2012. Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558185/
• Mustonen-Park, Heidi, 2018. “Biotechnology Companies’ Monopoly: Potentially Harming the Diversity and the Sustainability of Agriculture.” Helsinki Metropolia University of
Applied Sciences. April 2018.
• Zhao, Chuang, 2018. “Temperature increase reduces global yields.” National Academy of Sciences, 114 (35) 9326-9331. August, 2018.
DOI:http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701762114
• Berners-Lee, M., 2018. Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. Elementa: Science
of the Anthropocene, 6(1), p.52. July, 2018. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.310
• Lu, Chaoqun, 2018. “Increasing carbon footprint of grain crop production in the US Western Corn Belt.” Environmental Research Letters, IOP Publishing. Volume 13, Number
12. November 27, 2018.
• Vidal, John, 2018. “Who should feed the world: real people or faceless multinationals?” Retrieved March 3, 2019 from
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/05/feed-the-world-real-people-faceless-multinationals-monsanto-bayer
• Bekkerman, Anton, 2018. “Where the Money Goes: The Distribution of Crop Insurance and Other Farm Subsidy Payments,” American Enterprise Institute, January 2018, p. 3.
• McFadden, Jonathan, 2017. “The Evolving Distribution of Payments from Commodity, Conservation, and Federal Crop Insurance Programs,” U.S. Department of Agriculture,
November 2017, p. iv.
• Coleman, Richard, 2016. “The Rich Get Richer: 50 Billionaires Got Federal Farm Subsidies,” Environmental Working Group, April 18, 2016.
• O’Neil, Colin,2016. “Are Billionaires Getting Crop Insurance Subsidies? We Still Don’t Know,” Environmental Working Group, April 28, 2016.
• Iowa Corn, 2019. “Corn Production and Use.” Iowa Corn Organization, 2019. Retrieved on March 3, 2019 from https://www.iowacorn.org/corn-production/
The End

• Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.