Moore 1

Christopher Moore

Professor Stalbird

English 1201

March 20th, 2018

Should GMOs be embraced?

The issues which modern society has to face generally have no easy answers.

Implementing any plan of action on a global scale is both extremely costly and inefficient. This

is especially true when dealing with the issue of world hunger. The best way to deal with a lack

of food is simply to produce more food. However, the number of willing people to cultivate

produce, as well as the amount of available land is decreasing by the year. In order to combat

this, crops are being changed to increase their production. These are called genetically modified

organisms, or GMOs. Not only are genetically modified crops safe for consumers, but the

increased yield and viability of these crops allows for a reduction in price for consumers, and a

reduction in the number of impoverished citizens who are forced to go hungry across the world.

Research into genetically modified organisms needs to be supported and funded.

First, it is important to define what exactly a genetically modified organism is. “[T]he

term refers to plants in which a gene or genes from different species have been stably introduced

into a host genome using techniques of genetic transfer and where, in most cases, such

introduced genes have been shown to produce a gene product” (Amalia 1). All living things are

composed of cells. These cells use DNA to create the necessary proteins used in the processes

that allow for life to exist. The collection of this DNA is called a genome, and individual strands

of DNA that code for specific proteins are called genes. A genetically modified organism is any
 Moore 2

living thing whose genome has been artificially altered to produce different proteins. On a basic

level, these proteins allow for the cells to perform more complex functions, or perform their

functions more efficiently.

There are multiple processes by which organisms are genetically modified. “The two

most commonly employed are the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which is naturally able

to transfer DNA to plants, and the ‘gene gun’, which shoots microscopic particles coated with

DNA into the plant cell” (Key). Scientists use these two methods to insert the desired genes into

a cell, such that when it undergoes mitosis, or cell division, the new cell contains the desired

genes. Another method which is currently being developed in California is called CRISPR, or

clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. CRISPR is an enzyme originally found

in E.Coli, which is able to cut DNA strands as it comes into contact with them, based on DNA

strands it has previously come into contact with. In E.Coli, it functions as an immune system,

destroying foreign DNA, but when scientists introduce DNA strands to the enzyme, they can use

it to cut specific strands of DNA, and replace them with a desired trait.
 Moore 3

Infographic of GMO benefits. Digital Image. Purdue Agriculture. Web. 5 April 2018.

<ag.purdue.edu>

GMO crops are capable of producing significantly higher yields, increasing food supply.

They also allow for certain crops to survive in environments where they would not normally

thrive. The most prevalent use of GMO products in modern day society, however, is herbicide

and insecticide resistance. Companies engineer their seeds to produce crops that are not affected

by the herbicides and insecticides they produce, such that farmers can spray their crops to deal

with weeds and bugs that would damage their harvest.

Hunger and malnutrition are problems facing many countries, both rich and poor, across

the world. According to the World Hunger organization, over ten percent of American

households are “food insecure” meaning there is a possibility that the residents will go hungry

some nights. This is a problem that genetically modified organisms can directly address. “A

recent study of golden rice or rice genetically engineered to include beta-carotene concluded that

‘If all children in deprived areas were given enough vitamin A, up to 2.7 million deaths could be
 Moore 4

prevented each year’” (Nodoushani). In this case study, Nodoushani proposed that genetically

modified rice would be able to save millions of lives in just China alone, by directly reducing

malnutrition in children. This is just one way in which genetically modified organisms are

solving world problems like hunger and malnutrition

Another possibility of GMO crops is a resistance to heat or cold, allowing for crops to

grow in locations they are not native to. Specifically, this is used to produce tropical plants in

areas where temperatures are considered temperate. These lower temperatures would normally

prevent a large area of farmland from being used for the production of these crops, due to the

freezes that occur each night. However, due to a gene from fish, these plants have developed a

resistance to freezes, allowing them to survive in these temperate climates. This directly

increases the amount of available farm land, thus increasing the total production of food and

reducing crop prices.

In addition to the resistance of climate conditions, genetic modifications can be made to

make plants resistant to herbicides and insecticides. The purpose of these chemicals are to

eliminate weeds and pests which would kill off produce. By making these GMOs resistant,

weeds are unable to grow in the farmland, while the crops are able to flourish. In addition, any

plant eating insects will die upon contact with the insecticide sprayed on the fields. This does,

however, have some negative side effects. Specifically, herbicides and can be blown into

neighboring fields and kill crops which are not resistant. Insecticides can be detrimental to native

insect populations, and are responsible for the destruction of several beneficial insect species.

This is not a problem with genetically modified organisms, though. Proper use and moderation of

insecticides and herbicides, these issues are resolved.

 Moore 5

Because of the artificial means of changing the genetic composition of these organisms,

several organizations have been created to discredit their benefits and exaggerate their

disadvantages. Such organizations label themselves as “green” or “eco-friendly”. These positive

terms are used to suggest that GMOs are the unnatural and unclean by comparison. These

companies seek to discredit the advantages of GMO crops, and push people towards their own

“all-natural” products. These groups claim that genetically modified organisms are unnatural,

produce dangerous allergens and toxins, and create monopolies in the seed market which hurt

farmers.

The debate that GMOs are unnatural comes from the idea that humans should not be

altering genetics. But to understand why GMOs are the next step in agricultural development, it

is important to understand its roots. Humans have been genetically modifying both crops and

livestock for ages. In fact, genetic modification is simply a product of life. Before humans could

artificially alter genetics, there were two main factors at work. The more natural one is called

“natural selection”. This is a process by which weaker genetics are slowly killed off, leaving

only the stronger traits. Early farmers noticed traits could be passed down from one generation to

another, creating “artificial selection”. By this process, livestock and crops with the most

beneficial traits to humans, not necessarily the best to their survival, were reproduced. By this

logic, these early crops were just as genetically modified as modern crops, only less efficiently.

The safety of genetic modification is often mentioned when discussing their

viability.“There are unavoidable safety problems in genetically modified organisms and their

products, whose development research and production application process may have harmful

effects on human body, ecology and property” (Songfei). Allergens and toxins are a legitimate

concern when talking about genetic modification. It is proposed that introducing new genes to an
 Moore 6

organism could have unintended consequences, such as the production of harmful proteins,

which become toxic to humans. Genetically modified organisms, “...if used appropriately, they

can relieve much human suffering, whether it be due to malnutrition or disease. But safety is the

issue. Research and regulation are paramount.” (Goldbas). Goldbas is suggesting that the

benefits of genetic modification outweigh the negatives. The dangers of GMO use can be

countered by proper research and testing. In this case, what is required is the ability for research

teams to properly test their products, and for proper labelling to be enforced, such that consumers

can make decisions for themselves. The possibility of toxins or allergens being produced is not a

reason to outlaw GMOs in their entirety.

The companies which produce genetically modified crops also produce herbicides and

insecticide that their crops are resistant to. This is particularly true of a company called

Monsanto, which produces an herbicide called Round-Up. These herbicides and insecticides

have a few major issues that need to be addressed before GMO use can be widespread.

Herbicides and insecticides can be spread by the wind into neighboring farms and ecosystems,

killing off unintended wildlife or crops. Insecticides in particular are responsible for the

destruction of several insect species. This is not a fault of GMO products themselves, however.

The companies which create these chemicals benefit from other farms being destroyed by their

herbicides. In a case against Monsanto, the corporation claimed “that pesticides constitute only a

minor portion of pollution and that nature can be self-polluting” (Kleinman). Kleinman continues

to discuss the ways that Monsanto has attempted to trick consumers into trusting their products.

Monsanto in particular is close to a seed “monopoly”, or a state of the economy where they are

the only available supplier of seeds. “Monsanto has grown by acquiring smaller seed technology
 Moore 7

companies over the last 20 years” (AFP). In these cases stronger regulations need to be placed on

the seed companies, not GMOs as a whole.

Monsanto in particular has been surrounded by controversy for years. The company

controls a large majority of the agricultural market. The problem with these seed companies is a

trait of all living things called hybridization. By this process, reproducing plants can share

genetics, meaning that genetic modifications can be passed on to wild plants. In particular, these

genetic modifications are often patented by the seed companies, and cause legal trouble for

farmers who find that their crops have developed these genetic traits. Another property of

Monsanto’s crops is that they do not reproduce their own seeds, forcing farmers to continually

buy new seeds for each farming season.

These are problems inherent to capitalistic ideology. To say that the benefits of genetic

modification should be ignored due to corporations that look to abuse them is wasting a massive

boon to society. “How is it that “huge companies” can be so readily suspected of “messing about

with nature and taking risks with you and me,” in a regulated market in which consumer

approval is a sine qua non?” (Scott). Scott is suggesting that these companies can be controlled

through the purchases that consumers make. “Most vocal supporters of RR wheat admitted that

seed companies pursue their own interests and do not produce the type of traits that farmers find

most useful” (Eaton). While this would have worked before Monsanto became the monopolistic

behemoth that it is today, it is no longer viable, as Monsanto has little to no competition in its

market. Government intervention is needed to restore the right of consumer choice to the market,

such that these anti-consumer practices can be held in check.

As Mark Lynas writes in his article, “the truth is that there is no more of a debate on the

safety of GE crops than on reality of climate change”. The benefits of yield, viability, and
 Moore 8

resistance heavily outweigh the negatives, and solve difficult problems like hunger and

malnutrition. The issues of toxins and allergens, as well as the companies that produce GMOs

being anti-consumerist are not properties of GMOs, and should be handled separately through

proper research and government control.

 Moore 9

Works Cited

Amalia, Anca. “Genetically Modified Organisms.” Research Journal of Agricultural

Science , vol. 49, no. 4, 2017, pp. 308–313, Academic Search Complete Accessed

February 28th, 2018

Eaton, Emily. “Let the Market Decide? Canadian Farmers Fight the Logic of Market

Choice in GM Wheat.” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, vol.

10, no. 1, Mar. 2011, pp. 107–130, Academic Search Complete, Accessed February 28th,

2018

Goldbas, Abbie. “GMOs: What are they?... Genetically Modified Organisms.”

International Journal of Childbirth Education, vol. 29, no. 3, July 2014, pp. 20–24,

Accessed February 28th, 2018

Key, Suzie, et al. “Genetically modified plants and human health.” Journal of the Royal

Society of Medicine, The Royal Society of Medicine, 1 June 2008,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/. Accessed February 28th, 2018

Kleinman, Daniel Lee, and Jack Kloppenburg. “Aiming for the Discursive High Ground:

Monsanto and the Biotechnology Controversy.” Sociological Forum, vol. 6, no. 3, Sept.

1991, pp. 427–427, Accessed February 28th, 2018

Afp. “Latest Monsanto GMO seeds raises worries of monopoly.” Daily Mail Online,

Associated Newspapers, 14 Dec. 2017, www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-

5178029/Latest-Monsanto-GMO-seeds-raises-worries-monopoly.html. Accessed

February 28th, 2018

 Moore 10

Lynas, Mark. “GMO safety debate is over.” Cornell Alliance for Science, 24 May 2016,

allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-safety-debate-over. Accessed

February 28th, 2018

Nodoushani, Omid, et al. “Genetically Engineered Food and Genetically Modified

Organisms.” Competition Forum, vol. 13, no. 1, 2015, pp. 136–136, Accessed February

28th, 2018

Scott, Ian M. “Green symbolism in the genetic modification debate.” Journal of

Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, vol. 13, no. 3, ser. 4, 2000, pp. 293–311. 4,

Accessed February 28th, 2018

Songfei, Chen. “Research on Safety Hazard Control of Genetically Modified Organisms

Based on Compensation Laws.” Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, vol. 23, no. 4,

2017, pp. 38–43, Accessed February 28th, 2018