Here is a report I wrote on genetically modified food:

Did you know that some foods in your local grocery stores and restaurants have been genetically engineered? That means, without consumer consent, the DNA in the food that you have been eating may have been changed by bioengineers for the benefit and profit of the producers. Genetically modified foods have both advantages and disadvantages, however the hazards appear to outweigh the benefits.

Genetically engineered foods are those that had genes from other species put into their DNA sequences (Genetically 1). The purpose of genetic engineering is to create organisms, like food plants, with desirable features. This process has traditionally been done by selective breeding, a method that takes generations and might not always produce the result that was hoped for (Whitman 1). Genetic engineering is more precise, efficient, and quicker than breeding. Instead of cross breeding and hoping for the desired trait to show up in the offspring, bioengineers alter the organism’s DNA, which contains the directions for the traits that the organism will express.

Technically, desirable traits can be taken from one species and put into another, even if those two species are very different. For example, a gene from a fish that lives in cold water may be put into a tomato to make it tolerant of cold weather and resistant to frost. How do scientists get a gene from one organism to another? Bioengineers use vectors to bring the foreign DNA into an organism’s cells (Teitel 8). A virus is usually used as a vector, since a virus can break into cells’ DNA. To keep track of the genetically engineered cells, scientists make them resistant to antibiotics. (Teitel 9). That way, when antibiotics are put into a group of cells, only the genetically modified cells survive. Critics worry that the viruses may merge with viruses already in the host and worsen them. This could lead to serious health problems. Genetically engineering food is a controversial issue, which affects all of us.

There are many reasons why scientists and farmers are interested in developing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Producer benefits include: plants that are pest resistant, herbicide tolerant, disease tolerant, cold tolerant, drought tolerant, and salinity tolerant. These advantages will result in an increase in food production and profit. “What is clear is that agriculture giants…have made huge commitments to developing genetically engineered crops that will help to answer humanity’s ever growing need for food.” (EDC’s 262).

Farmers use tons of chemical pesticides yearly to kill off insect pests (Whitman 2). The loss of crops due to insects results in a decrease in profit for farmers, and an increase in the need for pesticides. Pesticides have health hazards and pollute the environment. If plants are genetically modified to be resistant to pests, the dependence on pesticides could possibly be reduced.

Herbicides are used to kill off weeds that are soaking up nutrients from the soil and making it harder for crops to grow. They also pollute the environment and are costly for the farmers to buy. If plants are genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides, then farmers can simply use one strong herbicide to kill off all the weeds instead of using many weaker ones that do not harm the sensitive crops.

Crops that are genetically engineered to be disease resistant can be immune to bacteria, viruses, and fungi (Whitman 2). The seedlings from genetically modified, cold-tolerant plants will not die from frost as they usually would. If plants can be made drought and salinity tolerant, then they can be grown in previously infertile locations.

Consumer benefits are often claimed to be: foods that would have more nutrition, longer shelf life, better taste, lower prices, and more desirable traits such as less fat (Genetically 1-2). Third world countries that live off of staples like rice can grow genetically engineered staples that could have potentially more nutrition. In that way, their simple diets could perhaps become healthier. Lower food costs would become possible due to the higher yields that could be grown, since the crops would be resistant to bugs, herbicides, and unfavorable environmental conditions.

Contrary to what the bioengineers tell us about how genetically modified foods will help the environment, there are actually many disadvantages and potential dangers for the environment. Possible environmental hazards include: the possibility of coevolution with pests, cross pollination with weeds or regular crops, extinction of the original species, decreased plant diversity, and new pest and viral problems.

Powerful herbicides are currently made to kill everything except GMO crops (Pitchford 20). Therefore, these herbicides are very toxic to the environment. In addition, the new gene arrangements in plants could lead to new toxins and allergies for plants, animals, and humans.

“This evolution of two interacting species in which change in one species results in change in the other species is called coevolution” (EDC’s 296). Since pests depend on crops as a food source, they may adapt and coevolve so that they can eat the new genetically engineered crops. That is a problem that may not have been brought under consideration by the bioengineers.

Another problem is that pollen from genetically modified crops can drift to another farm and bring the foreign genes into the crops there. Some bioengineers have put patents on certain genes, which makes these uncontrollable incidents even more problematic (Whitman 5). GMOs may also crossbreed with weeds. If the new herbicide-resistant plants cross pollinate with weeds, then the weeds will also become herbicide resistant, creating a new problem. In addition, genetically modified pollen can be harmful to good insects as well as bad. Corn pollen kills monarch butterfly caterpillars (Whitman 4). The new toxins in the plants can also kill many species of insects. Even worse yet, the antibiotic resistance in GMO DNA could spread to disease-causing bacteria. If that occurred, then people will no longer be able to use antibiotics to heal from the diseases (Teitel 39-40).

As the new GMO crops go through the process of natural selection, they might survive better than the original crops, thus leading to the extinction of the original crops. This is undesirable, because if GMOs do turn out to be problematic in the long run, then it would be too late to go back.

Another unfortunate aspect of genetic engineering is that it encourages uniform crops. Farmers have traditionally practiced selective seed saving. Now, some plants have been modified to kill their own seeds (Teitel 32). This benefits the big seed companies because farmers have to buy new seeds each year instead of saving their own seeds. In addition, GMO seeds are genetically uniform hybrids. Since they are all the same, this process will surely weaken plant diversity, which is important for the survival of crops. For example, let’s say some of the individual plants in a crop are tolerant of the cold, but the climate they are grown in is generally hot. If an unexpected weather change occurs which makes conditions unusually cold that year, then most plants in that crop would die off, but the few cold resistant ones would survive. Seeds could be collected from those plants, so that the farmers do not completely loose their whole crop. Yet, if all the plants were genetically uniform and were all pest resistant but not cold tolerant, then they would all die off and leave the farmer with nothing that unusually cold winter. This example demonstrates the importance of diversity within a plant population.

Lastly, new GMO crops could attract new pests and viral problems that were previously unheard of. The plants might no longer have their old pests preying on them, but they could attract new ones that might benefit from the changes. Then the farmers would have to take care of the new viruses and pests somehow. It would be the same as our current farming problems, except the new plants would have new problems, including possible new human health hazards.

There are many potential dangers to consuming genetically engineered food that have barely been looked into by the bioengineers or the companies investing in GMOs. These include new or unexpected allergic reactions, unwanted side effects, and other overlooked health risks for consumers. It is important to seriously consider the potential harm of eating food that is unnatural.

A major concern is that GMOs look exactly like normal plants, and they are not labeled, so consumers do not know when they are eating them. Foods currently being genetically modified include tomatoes, potatoes, squash, corn, soybeans, and canola oil (Genetically 2; Whitman 3-4). A vegetarian concern is that people will not be aware whether or not they are eating animal genes in their vegetables.

Flavr Savr tomatoes were the first GMOs to be sold in markets. The FDA approved them in 1994 (Teitel 21-22). These tomatoes had flounder fish genes in them to help increase their shelf life. When they first appeared in the markets, they were labeled genetically modified. Consumers were worried when they read these labels, and did not want to buy the GMO tomatoes. It was for this reason that they quickly stopped labeling GMO foods, and have not dared to label them again. (Teitel 21-22).

If the food companies cared about market signals, (in terms of economics),
they would have realized that the consumers did not want foreign genes in their food since they were unwilling to buy them. Yet, they are just going after profit for their own benefit, so they continue to sell unlabeled GMO food today (Teitel 7, 23). “…the prevalence of GM foods in U.S. grocery stores is more widespread than is commonly thought…[GM] food additives in the modern American diet virtually ensures that all U.S. consumers have been exposed to GM food products.” (Whitman 3).

An important health risk is the fact that allergies may unexpectedly be provoked. If you are allergic to the organism from which a gene was taken, then you will have allergic reactions when you consume the GMO food that contains those foreign genes (Teitel 37). Since GMO foods are not labeled, consumers will have no idea whether or not they are eating something that they will react to. GMO foods are already sold to the public. “There has been no adequate testing, however, to ensure complete safety” (Genetically 2-3).

Genetic engineering is a trial and error process. Tampering with genes on an organism’s DNA sequence could result in unexpected, hazardous side effects. The new genes could end up in the wrong place and have undesired and unexpected results. Scientists may try thousands of times before achieving the desired outcome (Teitel 11). Some of the viral-resistant GMO plants actually showed more vulnerability to creating new strong viruses (Teitel 24-25). “From a basic genetics perspective, GM [genetic modification] possesses an unpredictable component that is far greater than the intended change” (qtd. In Teitel 11).

One argument that supports genetically engineered food is that the increased crop yield could help third world countries. On the contrary, twenty African countries have agreed that genetic engineering would not help them. A representative from Ethiopia said bioengineering is “neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial” (qtd. In Pitchford 20). They believe that it would ruin natural diversity (Pitchford 20).

Genetically engineered foods seem to mostly benefit the producers and large companies. Mansanto is a company that particularly invests a great deal in GMOs. Some of the company’s GMOs have been approved without being properly tested for human safety (Teitel 36). “Selling first and asking questions later…seems to be business as usual” (Teitel 24). Since they get away with making GMOs that could have hazardous health effects, who knows what could happen to people when they eat this food. Unfortunately, the FDA approved GMO foods as “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) in 1992 (Smith 1).

"The process of creating the GM crop can produce all sorts of side effects, and the plants contain proteins that have never before been in the food supply. In the US, new types of food substances are normally classified as food additives, which must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies. If approved, the label of food products containing the additive must list it as an ingredient.
"There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the
FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency. " (Smith 2-3)

Genetic Engineering is controversial for the reasons discussed in this paper. A safe alternative is to buy organic foods. Certified organics are naturally grown, are not genetically modified, and are pesticide free, since organic farmers introduce natural predators instead of using pesticides. Best of all, when buying these foods, you know what you are eating. Genetically engineered foods tend to be controlled by large, greedy companies. However, the choice of what you buy and what you eat, is yours.


Bibliography

EDC’s Center for Science Education and Production Team. Insights in Biology second edition. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 2007.

“Genetically Engineered Foods.” New York Times. 24 Jan. 2009.

Pitchford, Paul. Healing with Whole Foods. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2002.

Smith, Jeffrey. “AN FDA-CREATED HEALTH CRISIS CIRCLES THE GLOBE”. NewsWithViews.com. October 2007.<http://holisticradical.wordpress.com/2008/03/12g
enetically-modified-foods-and-crops-good-for-monsanto-bad-for-the-entire-world/>.

Teitel, Martin, PH.D., and Kimberly A. Wilson. Genetically Engineered Food: changing the nature of nature. Rochester: Park Street Press, 2001.

Whitman, Deborah B. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?”. Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. April 2000. <http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php>.