1

Colin McPhillips
Biology 1030
Research Paper
12/8/2015

Danger and Deceit in Crop Genetic Modification

One of the most important questions of our time could be the following: do we know
what we are putting into our bodies when we sit down for a meal? And furthermore, despite
subjective biases attesting to the nutritional value of food on the market today, are the things we
eat objectively considered to be safe for our consumption? To attack these questions, we must
first distinguish between the two very broad categories of food our diets consist of: foods that are
derived from genetically modified crops, and those that are not. Lets begin with an
understanding of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. A GMO is defined by the European
Food Safety Authority as an organism in which the genetic material has been altered in a way
that does not occur naturally through fertilization and/or natural recombination. GMOs may be
plants, animals or micro-organisms, such as bacteria, parasites and fungi (Genetically
Modified Organisms). Scientists create GMOs by inserting into, removing from, or splicing
genes from a different (related or unrelated) organism within the experimental organism. There
are a number of desired effects of implementing this technology into agriculture, and several
claims to the benefits of doing so. However, there are many risks and hazards associated with
GMOs as well. Is this a necessary agricultural method for feeding the world or is it irrelevant?
The pro- vs. anti-GMO debate is one of the most contentious and divisive issues affecting
contemporary society, and it is of paramount importance we approach the subject with

skepticism before opening our arms to a new technology impacting such a vital part of our
livelihood.
First and foremost, one of the hallmark claims to the benefits of genetically modifying
food is that it allows crops to become tolerant of herbicides and to produce their own
insecticides, all while remaining safe to eat. In theory, these attributes sound great: plants will
produce special proteins that kill destructive pests but are harmless to humans, therefore
eliminating the need for harmful insecticides, and they will survive the application of herbicides
used to kill invasive weeds. In other words, higher crop yield without hazards. However, some
immediate critical thinking brings forth our first GMO red flag if GM crops are sprayed with
but resistant to weed-killing herbicides, wont residues from these toxic chemicals still remain
until they are eaten? The answer is yes, of course they do, and they are toxic to all the consumers
along the food chain. Roundup is the most common commercially used herbicide on GM crops,
the active ingredient in which is a substance called glyphosate. In GMO Myths and Truths, the
authors state that GM Roundup Ready crops do not break down glyphosate herbicide, but
absorb it into their tissues. Some of the glyphosate is broken down (metabolized) into a
substance called aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA). Both glyphosate and AMPA remain in
the plant and are eaten by people and animals ... [and] both are toxic (Fagan 204). To apply
these findings to real-world implications, this statement indicates that those herbicides sprayed
liberally onto crops will not just wash off when you rinse your vegetables in the sink they are
consumed and can have severely harmful effects on human health. The study continues,

Glyphosate and its main metabolite AMPA have been found to cause irreversible damage to
DNA in human cells in vitro and in mice in vivo. Such damage to DNA may increase the risk of
cancer and birth defects An epidemiological study of pesticide applicators in the USA found

that exposure to glyphosate herbicide was associated with higher incidence of multiple myeloma,
a type of blood cancer. Epidemiological studies conducted in Sweden found that exposure to
glyphosate herbicide was linked with a higher incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, another
type of blood cancer. (Fagan 207, 210). Clearly, there is good reason backed by scientific
evidence for avoiding ingestion of weed-killing chemicals. Yet, the alarming truth is a huge
portion of our country is unknowingly or indifferently consuming products contaminated with
these substances on a daily basis. Some 80 percent of all genetically modified foods grown
around the world are engineered for herbicide resistance. The natural translation of this statistic
is that the vast majority of GMOs on the market today are not designed merely to innocently
fend off insects, but rather to tolerate exposure to dangerous toxins and permit their passage from
farm to table. To make matters worse, the devastating effects Roundup can have on human health
is not limited to cancerous development. The GMO Myths and Truths authors reference a study
in which researchers from the Brazilian Society of Genetics tested human subjects in Ecuador to
compare those exposed to aerial application of herbicide to a control group of subjects who were
not. They state, Ecuadorian people exposed to aerial glyphosate herbicide spraying showed a
higher degree of DNA damage in blood cells than a control population The study also found
acute poisoning reactions to the glyphosate herbicide spraying, including intestinal pain and
vomiting, diarrhea, fever, heart palpitations, headaches, dizziness, numbness, insomnia, burning
eyes, blurred vision, difficulty in breathing, and skin rash (Fagan 208). Maladies you would not
want happening to you and your family, right? Unsurprisingly, the issue of chemical
contamination does not stop there. GMO proponents often claim that one benefit of using
Roundup is it acts as a viable alternative to more toxic herbicides available for commercial use,
and thus lowers the overall danger to humans and the environment of herbicide use. However, as

evolution has followed its course, many intrusive weeds threatening crop survival have become
resistant to Roundup as well, forcing farmers to use even more chemicals: GM Roundup Ready
crops have not only increased the use of glyphosate herbicides but have also increased the use of
other, potentially even more toxic herbicides, due to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.
Farmers can no longer control weeds with glyphosate alone and add other herbicides to their
spray mix (Fagan 214). These facts are at once alarming and worrisome. Not only do they
possess heavy and ominous implications about the safety of our food, but there is also research
that shows these things are not common knowledge throughout our country. One Rutgers
University study showed that more than half (53 percent) [of Americans] say they know very
little or nothing at all about genetically modified foods, and one in four (25 percent) say they
have never heard of them (Branson). The absence of transparency regarding the true nature of
these foods and their elusive dark side, perpetuated by the lack of federal mandates forcing
manufacturers to label GMO-containing products as such, should invoke immediate suspicion of
the wealthy and powerful lobby making claims to the validity of GM foods as healthy options.
Consumption of these foods is hazardous and should be avoided.
Another one of the heaviest assertions made by GMO supporters worldwide is that
genetic modification techniques are vital to increasing food production and can help combat food
shortages around the globe with higher crop yields. These claims are often based on the idea that
increased productivity of a certain crop is alterable by genetic engineering. However, in reaction
to these arguments, the GMO Myths and Truths authors assert that this is simply untrue and
increased crop yield cannot be directly and deliberately increased through genetic modification:
High yield is a complex genetic trait based on multiple gene functions and cannot be genetically
engineered into a crop Much depends on the agronomic practices used, such as conserving

and building soil fertility and structure (Fagan 230, 232). Claiming that genetic engineering
cannot inherently improve crop yield is a loaded statement, but it continues to be supported by
the evidence put forth. A pivotal study conducted by Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist
at the Union of Concerned Scientists and former biotechnology advisor to the EPA, found that
comparative data shows a failure of GMOs to meet expectations made on these claims. The
results of the study were that The intrinsic yields [the highest yield that can be achieved under
ideal growing conditions] of corn and soybeans rose during the twentieth century, but this was
not as a result of GM traits, but due to improvements brought about through traditional breeding
the best data (which were not included in previous widely cited reviews on yield) show that
transgenic herbicide-tolerant soybeans and corn have not increased operational yields [the yield
obtained under real-world field conditions, when environmental factors like pests and stress are a
factor], whether on a per-acre or national basis, compared to conventional methods (GurianSherman 2). Thus, it appears those claims to the increased productivity of GMOs by industry
backers are merely hype lacking supporting evidence. These findings are further supported by a
2002 report by the US Department of Agriculture which firmly stated that GE [genetically
engineered] crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential of a [crop]
variety (McBride 21). A newer 2014 USDA report concluded that Over the first 15 years of
commercial use, GE seeds have not been shown to increase yield potentials of the varieties. In
fact, the yields of herbicide-tolerant [HT] or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower
than the yields of conventional varieties if the varieties used to carry the HT or Bt genes are not
the highest yielding cultivars (Wechsler 12). As Fagan and his co-authors explain, this should
not be shocking information to us. The intended goal for nearly all GM crops is purely to exhibit
attributes of herbicide resistance and/or insecticide production, not to intentionally increase

yield. Yet this argument that GM crops are more productive than conventional breeding methods
is frequently made by organizations, governments, and individuals across the globe who defend
GMOs in some fashion. The natural extension of this divisive, persistent issue is in the
arguments for and against the idea that GMOs are needed to adequately feed a growing world
population. Scientific experts around the world agree that the agricultural system currently in
place is productive enough to feed an estimated twelve to fourteen billion people, or roughly
double the planets current population. The problems of hunger and poverty lie in the uneven
dispersal of this available food due to wealth gaps, lack of agricultural access and resources, the
(some might argue unnecessary) diversion of too much food to livestock needs, and a large
quantity of wasted food not in the lack of GM crops. Fagan and his colleagues quote an
important message from New York Times op-ed writer Mark Bittman:
The world has long produced enough calories, around 2,700 per day per human, more
than enough to meet the United Nations projection of a population of nine billion in 2050,
up from the current seven billion. There are hungry people not because food is lacking,
but because not all of those calories go to feed humans (a third go to feed animals, nearly
5% are used to produce biofuels, and as much as a third is wasted, all along the food
chain) (Fagan 295).
Bittmans statements keenly encompass the essence of the issue: human civilization simply does
not need GMOs in order to solve the worlds hunger crisis. It is important to be skeptical of those
pushing GMOs despite definitive evidence showcasing their dangers and their superfluity we
mustnt dismiss the possibility that these proponents are likely being paid with a cut of the bigagriculture industrys colossal profits to help actively deceive the public into believing this
technology is the catalyst for a bright future, so as to fuel greater corporate profits. Instead of

false solutions like GMOs, what we desperately need is ways of more evenly distributing our
alternative food resources that are not proven to be toxic. Addressing the issue themselves, Fagan
and his colleagues further argue that genetic modification is only diverting peoples attention
away from the more important issues at stake. They write:
Even if a GM crop did appear that gave higher yields than non-GM crops, this would
not impact the problem of hunger. This is because the cause of hunger is not a lack of
food, but a lack of access to food. According to the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization, we already produce more than enough food to feed the worlds population
and could produce enough with existing agricultural methods to feed 12 billion people.
The problem is that the poor have no money to buy food and increasingly, no access to
land on which to grow it. Hunger is a social, political, and economic problem, which GM
technology cannot address. GM is a dangerous distraction from real solutions and claims
that GM can help feed the world can be viewed as exploitation of the suffering of the
hungry (Fagan 301).
As we can infer, it is widely agreed that GMOs are unnecessary and irrelevant to feeding the
world and contribute nothing but interference with the underlying problems in need of attention.
We have clearly seen that abundant evidence shows these genetically modified crops are
unfit for human or livestock consumption and are not products we should be feeding ourselves or
our families. One might wonder why there is such strong support for GM technology in the face
of such towering and defeating evidence. We never hear of protestors demanding the right to
keep GMOs on our grocery store shelves, or legitimate arguments bashing organic/traditional
foods, but rather the opposite concerned citizens demanding knowledge of what their food
contains, all the while feeling like GMOs are being pushed onto us as were guilt-tripped with

the idea that we owe it to the world to embrace the new technology. And while issues of lobbying
and corruption in legislation could comprise another paper entirely, it is important to consider the
possibility (and/or probability) of the sinister motives within the GMO industry. At face value, it
brings promises of hope for a better tomorrow through pillars of marketing-friendly terms like
scientific progress and feeding the world. But looking just a little closer into the real dangers
of GMOs, we find deception and lies everywhere in the name of huge profits. It will not be an
easy battle, but one we must fight through conscious, diligent consumer practices sharing
information and avoiding GMOs.

Works Cited

9
Branson, Ken. "Most Americans Pay Little Attention to Genetically Modified Foods, Survey Says."
Rutgers University. Rutgers Today, 1 Nov. 2013. Web. <http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/mostamericans-pay-little-attention-genetically-modified-foods-survey-says/20131101#.VmCg2_lViko>.

Fagan, John, Michael Antoniou, and Claire Robinson. GMO Myths and Truths. Rep. Earth Open Source,
2014. Web. <http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/GMO-Myths-and-Truthsedition2.pdf>.

"Genetically Modified Organisms." European Food Safety Authority. N.p., n.d. Web.
<http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/gmo>.

Gurian-Sherman, Doug. Failure to Yield. Rep. UCS Publications, Apr. 2009. Web.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-toyield.pdf>.

McBride, William D., and Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo. Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. Rep. no. AER810. US Department of Agriculture, May 2002. Web.
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/259028/aer810_1_.pdf>.

Wechsler, Seth, Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Mike Livingston, and Lorraine Mitchell. Genetically
Engineered Crops in the United States. Rep. no. ERR-162. US Department of Agriculture, Feb. 2014.
Web. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1282246/err162.pdf>.