Explanatory Essay

EN 102

Explanatory Essay
Are genetically modified food beneficial or unsafe for us and our planet? Genetically modified foods are foods coming from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques; they are usually genetically modified crops, or fish. They were first produced in 1983 after scientists discovered that DNA can be transferred between organisms in 1946. They were well received by the public back then but now, there is a big question surrounding the ethic of genetically modified foods: Are genetically modified food beneficial or unsafe for us and our planet? In my opinion, the production of genetically modified food should be put to a hold until scientists decide to really work towards finding an efficient way to monitor them. The fact is that genetic engineering is not natural. It is a radical, revolutionary, and highly artificial approach to changing our foods. I am very concerned on the impact they have on the environment, a simple example will be the ever increasing adaption of insects and parasites against pesticides.
Once they are used on insects in crops, the insects immune systems adapt to the chemical composition of pesticides (gmo), and become resistant to it, as a result, manufacturers straighten the pesticides chemical concentrations, which will be efficient until the next adaption, it is a vicious cycle. An another aspect of it will be the making of genetically modified organisms, which are created by artificial laboratory techniques to cut and splice genes from different organisms to make new artificial genes. When these artificial genes are introduced into plants and animals’ cells they reprogram the functioning of those cells so as to change the characteristics of that plant or animal. If this is done with a food-producing organism, the qualities of the food will be altered. Once an artificial gene has been constructed in the test tube, it must be inserted into the food-producing organism. And this is a highly imprecise process whose results are extremely unpredictable and uncontrollable. Some believe that these foods are the greatest thing that has ever happened to humanity. They say that they will create another green revolution that will provide abundant food without harming the environment. Others believe that genetically engineered foods are unsafe and harmful not only to the environment but also to human beings. While still others believe that working towards monitoring genetically engineered food will guarantee their safeness until proved otherwise. Some people believe that GMOs are good for us, just like the Agricultural Biotechnology
Council which has released an article in favor of GMO’s saying that “Genetically Modified Foods
Provide safe and Healthy Choices for Consumers”. In that article, the ABC basically listed the benefits of GMOs starting by saying they could “potentially increase the health value of certain foods and protect fruits and vegetables from diseases that will lead to a larger supply of quality food from each harvest.” which is true, but what about the specific altered genes that are used? Are they all benefic? The answer is no, but for the purpose of the article, that aspect is carefully kept to the side… The article goes on saying that genetically modified crops are benefic to consumers. How?
Because they protect fruits and vegetables from diseases, as proven by a study where “recent trials have been successfully undertaken of GM potatoes with intrinsic resistance to devastating diseases such as blight.”, they are an healthier choice of oils and foods because they contain Omega-3 fatty acids, also it affirms that “a GM tomato supplemented with genes from snapdragon flowers (rich in an antioxidant called anthocyanin)” that “could have cancer-fighting properties”. The purpose of the article is clearly to convince the audience that GMOs are good for us, using assumptions rather than concrete facts, and purposefully omitting to mention the risks and hazards involved in gene manipulation. This was the least relevant article out of all of those I’ve researched about. Most of the time, people completely in favor of GMOs tend to be “money oriented”. However, some others believe that GMO’s are not completely safe, but aren’t completely dangerous either until proved otherwise. Conor Mead, a lecturer on ecology at the National University of Ireland, who thinks that because there are no scientific evidence that have specifically determined GMO’s as unsafe, they should not be banned but should be carefully monitored, says
“carefully monitored research on GM crops by public institutions is necessary. Without such research, a ban on GM crops is ill-considered.” He supports that GMO’s are not bad for us and might actually be more beneficial than organic food, “herbicide or pests, are exposed to far less chemical contamination than most of the food we eat” he says, “so clearly it is possible that GM food is not, in fact, bad for us at all.”, after a first attempt to clean GMO’s image, he continues with the environmental aspect, in which is argues that there are no difference between GM crops and organic food, and follows which the climatic advantages of GMO’s. Lastly, points out at scientists who according to him “lagged so far behind the private sector in following new opportunities.”, and encourages “our public science infrastructure” which “needs to take ownership of the issue”. All those affirmations are all lacking evidence, facts, as well as statistics which make them hard to really take into consideration.

Finally, researches led me to an interesting opinion piece by senior associate editor at
MOTHER EARTH NEWS Robin Mather which discusses about the growing demand for
"regulation and labeling of GM products as evidence of dangerous side effects mounts." In her opinion, GMO’s are not safe and should be clearly labelled to increase public awareness. She explains how many factors play a role in protecting the circulation of GMO’s in our market. Some of the factors working in favor of GMO’s presence in our market are: the biotech industry itself, which “has convinced the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that GM crops are "not substantially different" from conventional varieties”, the passiveness of the FDA on the matter, which only “relies on the research conducted by the manufacturers of the products” and
“does no independent testing for human or animal safety”, and lastly the fact that “the main GMO producer, Monsanto, makes it nearly impossible for independent scientists to study GM seeds”. In her next view, she backs up her claim with evidences and examples on how dangerous GMO’s really are. Among many other examples she provides, she talks about researchers concerns on the effect of Bt crops (genetically modified crops that produce bacterial toxins, thereby killing the insects that could damage it) on human beings health and how harmful GMO’s are to the environment.
As an example, she quoted Professor Emeritus Joe Cummins who did some research on the matter and came to the conclusion that “there is evidence that Bt will impact directly on human health through damage to the ileum (the final portion of the small intestine, which joins it to the large intestine) ... [which] can produce chronic illnesses such as fecal incontinence and or flu-like upsets of the digestive system." Lastly, she responds to those in favor of GMO’s saying that “GM crops don't increase yields, don't reduce pesticide use and show no promise for feeding the world” but only benefits multi billions companies, whose investments are crucial for the government. It is by far the most interesting argument and also the most realistic view on the subject. In conclusion, it appears that labeling GMOs to help increase people’s awareness on what they put into their plate is the best choice . People should be more assertive, rather than just follow whatever they are told because saying that GMOs are good and present no risks is absolutely untrue. However, while seeking to monitor GMOs seems to be a good idea, those in favor of that option should keep in mind that because they mutate a lot, it is nearly impossible to keep tract of them once they leave the laboratory.
Multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically-engineered crops, and there is no hazard to it. This is why
Independent scientists should be allowed to research on GMOs, and provide trustful facts on them. Until people really take a stand, nothing will ever change.

Annotated Bibliography

Agricultural Biotechnology Council. "Genetically Modified Foods Provide Safe and Healthy
Choices for Consumers." Food Safety. Ed. Judeen Bartos. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. At Issue. Rpt. from "GM Crops and Consumers 2009." 2009. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

The agricultural biotechnology council, is an organization based in the UK, which fuses together plant science and genetic technologies to produce genetically modified (GM) crops, They work with diverse companies that use GM crops.
I was expecting even before reading the article, that it would be an opinion in favor of GMOs. One of the reason why I chose this opinion piece was because I thought it was interesting to have an opinion piece from a GM crops producing company. In that article, the ABC pleaded in favor of GMOs use and production by concentrating on the positive outcomes, which were sometimes exaggerated and untrue.
The purpose of the article was clearly to convince the audience that GM crops are good.

Mather, Robin. "The Threats from Genetically Modified Foods." Mother Earth News. Apr/May
2012: 42+. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 13 Nov 2012.
Robin Mather a third-generation journalist whose passion for food and its sources has taken her around the country and the world. She is now a senior associate editor at MOTHER
EARTH NEWS.
Because the author has made a lot of researches on the subject, and is passionate about food, her opinion piece is a good one to consider. GMOs should be labelled and independent scientists should have the right make their own study on them. This will provide reports that will be more reliable than the ones exclusively provided by the multibillion companies which use GMOs as their main source of profit. She talks about how come researches made on GMOs have shown that some of them are really not safe for us. Her work is well detailed and rich which evidence and examples. I intend to use this opinion as it is very similar to my own views on the matter.

Meade, Conor. "Genetically Modified Food Should Not Be Banned, but Carefully
Monitored." Genetically Engineered Foods. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. At
Issue. Rpt. from "Careful Stewardship of GM Crops Is Needed, Not a Ban." Irish Times 23 June 2007:
13. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

Conor Meade is a lecturer on ecology at the National University of Ireland, who is also a professional ecologist, and has spent a fair share of his life researching on foods and vegetables. His opinion piece is a very good one as it falls right in between the one in favor of GMOs pleading that they are good for us and the one against GMOs pleading that there should be more researches done on them. I intend to use his opinion as it is a smooth transition to be solution I think is best, which is that GMOs are unsafe and protected by multibillion corporation seeking only their own profits. In the article he wrote for the Irish Times, he argues that banning both the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops and saying that they represent an ecological risk is untrue. Even though he recognizes that are environmental and health concerns over GM food, because there are still no scientific evidence proving that, he chooses to disregard that aspect. He believes that monitored research on GM crops by public institutions is necessary, before banning them all together.