Bradley Beakes

Bio 1010; Sec. 01

July 22nd, 2016
GMOs: Risk, Reward, and Recurrence
Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, are organisms whose genes
have been altered to express a desired trait. These include the manipulation
of a broad range of organisms including plants and animals and are most
commonly seen in our day-to-day life in the form of crops and foods. These
GM products range from cotton, corn, and soybeans, and will embody the
majority topic of this essay. The benefits and detriments of GMOs are
heatedly contested. Proponents of GM products state that certain genetically
modified organisms can create a larger crop yield, increase nutritional value,
and lessen a negative environmental impact. Opponents of GMOs believe
that GM products can be harmful to both the consumer and the environment,
and that the methods in which to obtain a GM product may incur unknown
repercussions. In this essay I will analyze the viewpoint of both groups and
explain my opinion after researching their findings and thoughts.
Opposition of GMOs stem from the concern that these modified foods
can have negative impacts on our health and environment. Opinions range
from ethical and emotional responses to a dryer desire for more long-term
data effects of GMs. These opinions can also represent a broader, less
discernable concern, based on the further recognition that the risks as
known to science exclude the important category of un- known and
unanticipated effects. (Wynne, 455). These concerns are widely expressed

among the public, including those in the field of science such as Stephen
MacDonald, PhD, saying, "I don't think they are dangerous per se, but I don't
trust the data that says they are entirely safe either. (Siegel/Verity, 3). The
opinions of the opposition to GM products, although more qualified that
quantified, have also been supported with scientific evidence. In 1999,
researchers of Cornell University found that after sprinkling a GM strain of
corn (Bt corn) on milkweed plants that it was found to be, highly toxic to
monarch butterfly larvae (Greif/Merz 273). The study showed that most of
the larvae ended up dying from the exposure while only a smaller group
survived after a low level exposure. These findings demonstrate that Bt
pollen can indeed have harmful effects on desirable insects. (Greif/Merz,
273). Additionally, these products have been known to have a negative
health impact on humans. In a recent effort to increase the nutritional value
of soybeans by genetically inserting a protein storing property of Brazil nuts,
these beans were quickly, found to be allergenic, and the product was
dropped. (Greif/Merz, 271).
Aside from the evidence provided by critics of GMs it has been
extensively studied that these effects in and of themselves are not unique to
being genetically modified and is stated that, while some GM products carry
potential hazards, these are no different than the ones present in non-GM
products. (Greif/Merz, 272). Proponents of GMOs argue that the grievances
of their opposition are far outweighed by the benefits they have the potential
of presenting. In response to an expanding global population and demand for

more resources farmers have strived to find more efficient means of

productivity, including GMOs. For instance, plants such as corn are
vulnerable to harmful pest insects. In response a strain of GM corn has been,
engineered to express genes encoding one of the toxins Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt), that kills insects pests, (Greif/Merz, 269). In effect, these
GM plants are imbedded with an internal resistance to pests and lessen the
harmful impact of chemical pesticides more commonly used as a solution to
this issue in the 1950s. Current data found in India display, the cultivation
of Bt cotton significantly reduces pesticide use while increasing yields by 80
percent. (Greif/Merz, 270). GMs can also offer substantial nutritional
benefits as found in the enhancement of plant oils, otherwise potentially
toxic, new GM strains of oilseed rape are now available that contain higher
levels of desirable fatty acids. (Greif/Merz, 270 & 271).
In conclusion it is my opinion that the benefits of GMOs are vastly more
beneficial than the risks proposed by GMO opponents. The lessening of
chemical pesticides as well as the ability to fortify the nutritional elements of
GM plants is profound and worthy of further investment. That being said, I
can sympathize with the responses presented by the opponents; although
there have been increasing calls by the public for the FDA to require the
labeling of GM-containing food products, neither the FDA nor Congress has
taken action. (Greif/Merz 277). Despite the FDA stating that, the mode of
production of a new strain of food is not relevant- only the safety of the end
product matters. Labeling is required only if the product differs substantially

from the traditional food, (Greif/Merz 277), the transparency of the food we
consume, to me, should be a right. I understand that for the general
population that labeling a product GMO may vilify the manufacturer
providing it, but it is my position that instead of being fearful of calling a
spade a spade that we should double our efforts to provide a more inclusive
conversation about the facts of GMOs and their effects on our society.

Reference Page

1. Wynne, Brian, Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and

Ethics on GMOs, Science as Culture, 10:4, 445-481, DOI:
10.1080/09505430120093586, 2001

2. Siegel, Kate & Verity, Suzanne. What You Need to Know About GMOs.
WebMD.com. 2016

3. Greif, Karen & Merz, Jon F. Current Controversies in the Biological

Sciences. 1st ed. Hong Kong: SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd., 2007