Singh1

Mervyn Singh
Jamie McBeth Smith
English 1010
November 30, 2015

Genetically Modified Organisms

GMOs (or genetically modified organisms) are living organisms whose
genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic
engineering, or GE. Scientists combine plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes to
get unstable combinations that do not occur in nature. This is done to gain a
desired trait or enhance one that currently exists. For example crops that are
resistant to insects and pesticides. Do to this type of engineering sometimes it has
negative effects on the environment, resulting in weeds and bugs that are mutated
and are even harder to kill than normal bugs. It is still a new science and new
things are learned everyday. 80 percent of processed food contains GMOs in it.
Should these products have labeling to indicate that it has been modified? Why
arent they labeled? Does it even matter?
When it comes to the issue of GMOs, one question that concerns many
today is labeling. On the one hand a commonly held position is that consumers
deserve to know what is in their food and if its safe. On the other hand, a counter
position is that it doesnt matter and we should trust the evidence that shows it is
safe. A more complex position argues that if labeling is done it will affect the
market shares and thereby also the continued research about this science. My

Singh2
own view is that GMOs are already in a lot of our food and dont seem to be
harming anyone however if there isnt any problem with GMOs then why not tell
the world through labeling.
GMOs have been shown to be extremely useful to humans. We have been
able to grow more food in less land and help feed more people. They are also
used in a variety of medicines that have helped many different conditions.
Technology and certain chemically balanced products are being used to sustain
humans health. Abbie Goldbas, and Napier, a scientist of GMOs, both concur
that there is no proven evidence that GMOs are harmful to humans. Napier
supports GMOs by saying that they contribute a lot to society. He says that
technology and certain chemically balanced products are being used to sustain
humans health. Both, however, say that it is still new to the world and there are
many unknowns about it. Goldbas is a little more worried about the unknowns
than Napier is. Neither of these authors consider an opinion by David Zilberman.
Zilberman, a profesor of agriculture and resource economics, says that " a
labeling requirement creates a stigma effect that will reduce the demand for GM
products and may reduce investment in new GM traits." Zilberman and Goldbas
both share in their view that this science demands continued research. All three of
these authors share that there are a lot of unknowns about GMOs.
Allison Young, a writer for a health magazine shows some insight on this
subject in her work. She goes through the process of her learning about GMOs
and her attitude change from being against them to seeing their benefits to society.
Her research also shows that there is no substantial evidence that GMOs are

Singh3
harmful to humans. "There is no immediate or modified change between the
modified crop and the traditionally bred counterpart." says Young. Zilberman
differs from Young in his opposition to labeling of GMO products. As an
economics professor, he states the act could destroy the industry. Young,
however, counters by saying that if there isn't anything to hide then why not show
it by labeling.
Young who no longer is anti GMOs realizes that "maybe there is
something that the scientists are not telling us nor do they want us to further
investigate the highly successful industry of GMO crops." Considering her main
audience is used to hearing things that may be unconventional and at times weird
due to her writing about new ways of being healthy, she makes a point about the
industry. Most of the information about GMOs comes from these large industries.
They are the ones who pay for the research and get to distribute as they wish. If
someone opposes them they could very easily take care of it. They have large
amounts of money and power. Paul Koberstein says that companies will go
though great means to slander the names of those who oppose their market shares.
What if the data that the other authors are giving is skewed because of
these corporations. It is a fact that that most of our data comes from large
companies conducting research. Maybe we arent getting the full story.
Koberstein has given many examples of scientists having their careers and even
images destroyed because they were trying to tell the world the truth. It is a
successful industry, which because of success can put out whatever information
they want. Zilberman's point also comes into play here. The major GMO

Singh4
corporations are doing the research. If labeling hurts their market shares it also
hurts research.
I'm not saying that GMO companies are liars and all they want to do is
make money but most of the data comes from them. I also don't want to diminish
the contributions that GMOs have made to the world. Environmental benefits.
Less chemicals, time, machinery, and land are needed for GMO crops and
animals, which can help reduce environmental pollution, greenhouse gas
emissions, and soil erosion. Enhanced productivity because of GMOs could allow
farmers to dedicate less real estate to crops. We have been able to enhance useful
characteristics in some organisms to use in medicines. Napier emphasizes this
point. His main points were all pro GMOs. He took a sample of size of about
900 people and surveyed them to see their opinions on GMOs. His studies
showed that many didn't hate GMOs they just wanted to know what was in their
food. An idea that is advocated for by Goldbas. All of the authors also seem to
think that it would be a good idea to label these products except for Zilberman.
Whose theory is that it would destroy the industry.
GMOs are in a lot of things that we consume. It is important to know
about them. I hadn't even thought about this until I started doing research for this
assignment. It is amazing the science that goes into creating new and effective
GMOs. The work on the medicinal front is especially great. Scientists believe
that this science will one day be used to cure deadly diseases. I believe that
GMOs are here to stay and that they will greatly benefit the world as they are
already doing. I also think that for those who are unsure about them that labeling

Singh5
would help them to be less nervous. I see the argument that Zilberman has made
and I think that it is possible that market shares could drop but I also see that this
is such an incredible science that it wouldn't drop for long. Just like Goldbas says
GMOs aren't evil. But if they aren't then why is it such a big deal to label them. I
think that labeling is necessary for this industry. I think it would ease the worries
of many and in turn be better for the science. Many more supporters would be
found amongst those who are uninformed just like Allison Young. That in turn
could be more people that want the industry to grow. Many scientific
breakthroughs will be coming forth from GMOs and the more people that
understand and support them the better off we will all be. The best way to do that
is through telling people what they want to know. Labeling in my opinion is the
best way to do this.

Singh6
Works Cited
Goldbas, Abbie. GMOs: What Are They? International Journal of Childbirth
Education July 1, 2014: 20-24.Web
Henry, C., Napier, L.T., Tucker, M., Whaley, S. Consumer attitudes towards GMOs: The
Ohio Experience, Journal of Food Science March 2004. Print
Koberstein, Paul. "The GMO Industry's War on Science." Editorial. <i>Progressive</i>
July-Aug. 2015: 48-51. Web.
Young, Allison. GMOs: Friend or Foe? The Answer is not as Clear as You Might
Think, www.fashionhealthmag.com
Zilberman,David, Why Labeling of GMOs is actually bad for people and the
environment, The Berkeley Blog, UC Berkeley,
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/why-labeling-of-gmos-is-actually-bad-for-peopleand-the-environment/