1

Sarina Dellinger
Professor Voltz
UWRIT 1102
11 November 2015
Impact of Genetically Modified Food
Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, are a relatively new concept in the
agricultural as well as the biotechnology field. Many consumers are unaware of GM foods and
how they are engrained within the food we consume. There are thousands of topics within the
realm of GMOs the FDA, feeding the mass production of meat sources, the environmental
impact of it all that it makes it extremely hard to find a topic to condense into a single topic,
six-page paper. However, this paper is designed to give background information as to what type
of research has went into the environmental and health impacts of genetically modified food and
the prevalence of these types of foods in the United States.
Most of the time when one begins to research genetically modified food the mass factory
farms in America are almost unavoidable. The farms go hand-in-hand with the GM crops,
excessive pesticide use, as well as subsidies and other government policies. Farmers feed cattle
and other farm animals corn in order to increase their bulk before slaughter. With the increased
production of cattle, there is an increased need for the production of corn. The prevalence of GM
food has been exacerbated by the United States Governments policies permitting the widespread
growth of and labeling-free sale of genetically modified crops. The United States alone was
growing 68 percent of the worlds total GM crops in 2001 (Ahmed 7). GM crops were first
introduced on the market in the mid-1990s. The prevalence grew rapidly from 4 million acres in
1996 to 282 million acres in 2007 (Blatt 89). The reason why genetic engineering was developed

2
was by agrobiochemical companies [so that they] could own their own seed supply and control
the means and method of food production, ultimately producing a profit for themselves (Blatt
89). This is evident especially with the company Monsanto which engineered Roundup Ready
corn in which a gene was inserted to give the plant resistance to the harsh chemical glyphosate
which is found in Roundup (GMO OMG). Currently GM foods are not labeled in the United
States. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled that GM products are substantially
equivalent to conventional products and therefore need not be labeled (Blatt 96).
The three most prominent GM food crops sold in markets are soybeans, corn, and canola.
In 2006, 89 percent of the soybean crop was GM, 75 of the canola was GM, and 61 percent of
the corn was GM (Blatt 99). This seed transformation is not only happening in the United States,
worldwide in 2014, biotech crops were planted on 448 million acres worldwide (Global Status
of Commercialized Biotech Crops). The United States however dominated the statistics with
73.1 million acres of planted biotech crops in 2014, the highest number of acres of any country
in the world (Global Status of Commercialized Biotech Crops). This extreme prevalence of
GM crops in America can be attributed to the governments blind eye toward the regulation of
genetically modified food. However, with an $11-billion-dollar business to protect the
petrochemical and biotech industries can definitely afford to lobby the government. In 2014
Monsanto spent $4,120,000 reported dollars lobbying (Monsanto Co). Another popular
chemical company, DuPont, spent a reported $9,278,950 in 2014 (Monsanto Co). Even
without lobbying, government officials intertwined with Monsanto have a distinct connection to
the United States government. Monsantos vice president for public policy is now the FDAs
deputy commissioner for foods (FDA). The most recent former National Institute of Food and
Agricultures president was Roger Beachy, a former Director of Monsantos Danforth Center.

3
There are numerous examples of where people from Monsanto have smoothly transitioned into a
position of power within the FDA and its branches.
In the most conclusive study I could find, Dr.Gilles-Eric Serilini and his associates
performed a two year study on the chronic toxicity of Monsantos NK603 GM maize (What
were the studys findings?). This is the same maize that was used in Monsantos own ninety-day
trial and the researchers also used the same breed of rats, Sprague-Dawley (What were the
studys findings?). The researchers divided 200 rats into three groups of equal sexes which
received different doses of Monsanto products. One group received R-tolerant NK603 GM maize
feed with no Roundup sprayed on it, another group received R-tolerant NK603 GM maize
treated with Roundup, and the final group did not receive any GM maize feed, but received
Roundup in their drinking water at .1 ppb (What were the studys findings?). During the fourth
and fifth month of the study the first sign of anything going awry within the rats appeared. This
exceeds the time frame of the Monsanto study, three months, which was done by the company
and published in 2004, the same year the maize was authorized in European Union (What
were the studys findings?). In actuality the European Food Safety Authority declared that the
differences found in the rats from the study were of no biological significance and the GM
maize was safe based on Monsantos research. In the fourteenth month, ten to thirty percent of
females had developed mammary tumors. Then by the twentieth month of the study, fifty to
eighty percent of females had three or more tumors. The equivalence of the rats two-year life is
about thirty to forty years of human life. The take away point from the study is that the negative
results only began to appear from the study after the three-month period, where coincidentally
the Monsanto study ended. Even if criticisms arise about the validity of Seralinis study, should
this not raise a red flag about the use of Roundup and GM foods?

4
The United States policy on GM foods is very lax when compared to other countries
regulations and laws regarding the growing and consumption of GM products. After the
devastating earthquake in Haiti, Monsanto offered to send 475 tons of their GM seeds to Haitian
farmers (GMO OMG). The farmers and other members of society refused this seed and even
went as far as to burn the seeds that came into the country (GMO OMG). The Haitian farmers are
very connected to the earth in all they do and they deemed the seeds too unnatural to be grown
for consumption or contaminate their soil or plant breeds. The European Union has a policy of
mandatory labeling for all foodstuffs containing GM products above a 1 percent threshold
(Ahmed 18). In 1993, Norway passed a law that in order for a GM product to be put on the
market it had to be proven to have no health or mental health risks, contribute to sustainable
development, beneficial to society, and ethical (GMO OMG). With this strict regulation there are
virtually no GM products consumed in Norway. It should be no surprise then that ninety-eight
percent of edible GMOs are produced in the countries where labeling is not required (GMO
OMG).
The effect of GM seeds and the pesticides sprayed voluminously on them is still
unknown, as well as the environmental effects stemming from the use of both of these. A
problem already evident from the use of GM seeds is the cross pollination between organic crop
fields and the GM crop fields. Virtually all of the seed corn, canola, and soy in America is
contaminated (Blatt 106). The contamination can come from pollination, as well as grain
elevators and the shared use of combines or other equipment (Blatt 106). American industrial
farming uses close to one billion pounds of pesticides and this figure comes from a book
published in 2004 (Cook 163). DDT was banned in 1972, but in 2002, according to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, DDT residues are still found in freshwater fish in 97 percent of sites

5
reviewed and that in over half of all sites examined, EPA safety levels for chlordane, DDT,
dieldrin, and heptachlor epoxide were exceeded (Cook 165). Beyond even just the impact of
GM foods, people should also be concerned of the extensive use of dangerous toxic chemicals
and their impact on the environment for the next generation.
Despite all the facts and figures of modern day industrial farming, consumers are
increasingly more open minded to spending a little extra to use organic products. However, the
availability of these types of foods is not exactly extensive in the everyday grocery store and
farmers markets may not be accessible to all consumers. A study done by Whole Foods found
that 76 percent [of shoppers] would increase their organic purchases if supermarkets offered
more items (Cook 249). If there is such a demand for organic foods, then why have large
grocery stores not taken advantage of this? It may be due to the fact that farmers produce the
crops that yield the most product so they will be able to make the most money. This type of over
production is influenced by government subsidies that are set in place. The only way that the
government views labeling GMOs, subsidizing farmers, and the agriculture business as a whole
will change is if enough voters care enough to inform elected officials of the changes needing to
be made. Agribusiness officials can contribute money, but the only way for officials to be elected
is through the votes of the people (Cook 268). These businesses are lobbying for changes that
benefit them and their profits, we should lobby for changes to benefit ourselves and the
environments well being.