Krystall Fasel
English 102
Dr. Sonia Apgar Bergert
Research Essay
GMO Products and
The Worlds Response
Understanding
what a GMO product is and where it comes from can be very confusing to many
people. Americans have grown accustomed to looking at required labels on
groceries and consider the information to be all that is needed to know. While
it is important to know fat content, calories and sodium levels some people
rely on an ingredient list for allergens like peanuts or dairy. Other countries
around the world consider this practice to be ignorant as it is just as
important to know where your food comes from as it is to know what it contains.
From the Center for Sustainable Agriculture, “The EU has approved a measure
requiring companies to label genetically modified foods. Norway has also
required the labeling, and banned certain types, as well the release of GM
crops, animals and other organisms into the environment. Austria and Luxemburg
have banned the import of GM grain, and other countries are considering doing
so as well.” So what is a GMO product and why are other countries considering
them to be bad? Are they bad for you or the environment?
GMO
stands for Genetically Modified Organism. They are plants that are
bioengineered to take the gene from one plant or animal and genetically alter
it by adding the DNA from another living organism. These modified plants are
scientifically proven to be helpful to humanity as they are grown to be
stronger and contain more nutrients than their organic origins. Understanding
what a GMO product is and what it means to be a consumer can be very confusing.
My hope with this document is to convey the necessary information in making a
decision in personal consumption as well as making decisions when voting. These
altered, living organisms have the potential to change the obstacle of an ever
starving and suffering planet. The plants in question have been altered in such
a way that they can grow faster and stronger in many stressed circumstances.
These plants have a DNA structure that has been mixed with other DNA, often of
a completely different species, to help them withstand the struggles of disease
resistance, insects, deprived soil and temperature complications. There has not
been enough studies done to decipher the health and agricultural risks involved
with such manipulation of these living organisms. For many there are concerns with the
corporate powers that are in control of the genetically modified seeds. There
are agricultural concerns when these crops are grown in the open and can
potentially cross contaminate and alter the DNA of organically grown crops.
There are still many studies being done that have shown that the natural environment
changes with these crops being introduced as well as the health of animals that
consume them. Throughout the world since introduction of these crops, most
countries have either banned GMO products or require all products containing
GMO material to be labeled as such. The United States seems to fall behind with
any of these concerns. My research will be broken into four parts:
understanding the GMO product, foreign policy and how it differs from ours and
why, the necessity of labelling these products and corporate control.
Understanding the GMO Product
There
will be a few terms you will find in my research and I would like to explain
them to you before you continue on. First I should talk about Bacillus
Thuringiensis. A group at the University of San Diego work with understanding
the Bt proteins used in GMO crops. The Bt gene is a natural insecticide that
has been used for many years externally on crops to control insects without
using chemical pesticides. In 1996 bacillus thuringiensis was modified into
many crops to help the plants protect themselves without having to actually
spray insecticides on them. The procedure helped environmentally by not needing
dangerous toxins though there have been other concerns on the effects that
could potentially come out. Throughout
my research the Bt protein has been talked about as a concern. Secondly I would
like to explain The Green Revolution. The Green Revolution is talked about in
many other articles. This is an explanation of when and how it was all started.
In the 1960’s and 1970’s the modernization of genetically altered agriculture
was just becoming popular. Its products were doubling the production of many
crops including wheat, rice and corn. The thought was to produce more food per
capita though many objections came out when it seemed that the larger farms
were the only ones able to benefit from altered seeds.
In
understanding GMO products and restrictions I researched many different
resources including those for and against the product. The science behind GMO
products seems to suggest that these crops are just as healthy as their organic
ancestors. “Restrictions on Genetically
Modified Organisms” from the Library of Congress outlines and somewhat defines
the many different organizations that are in control of GMO crops and products.
From the Library of Congress:
Plant GMOs are
regulated by the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service under the Plant Protection Act. GMOs in food, drugs, and
biological products are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act. GMO
pesticides and microorganisms are regulated by the Environmental Protection
Agency pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and
the Toxic Substances Control Act. (Library of Congress, 2015)
Basically the U.S.D.A provides research to prove that there will be no risk
to agriculture, the F.D.A. determine allergens in crops that are considered
food, and the E.P.A. standardizes pesticide safety and the varying amounts
acceptable to be used on food products. When taking polls in the United States
a majority of people had no idea the amount of GMOs they were consuming and
were strongly in favor of labeling such items while scholarly opinion shows the
fact being that there is no evidence provided showing that there are any
dangers to consuming GMO products. It is also brought up that the United States
relies on the biotechnology industry and products for a large percent of profit
for the US economy. Many people believe that the profit from this industry is
the main reason the U.S. does not regulate GMO’s as many other countries
do. The science behind GMO’s is
explained very well in “The Politics of Golden Rice,” a thorough
investigation into the not-for-profit Golden Rice project. The golden rice is a
GMO rice that has been modified by adding vitamin A to its DNA to make a
healthier product for human consumption. The thought was to grow these crops in
countries devastated by famine to far better feed the communities in need. With
many of these countries opposed to the use of GMO rice, some have agreed with
many stipulations, such as glass green houses with filtered air and its own
water supply containing the plants in a controlled environment. This proved to
be harder than growing plants on a field as the plants could not grow under
such stressed circumstances and was extremely expensive to do. Small farmers
could not meet the requirements to grow such crops.
Identifying
the use of GMO products I looked into an article in National Geographic Magazine. Jennifer Acherman wrote, “Food: How
Altered?” that introduced the differences in modifying plant DNA. There has
been many instances where people breed and crossbreed different plants for
different outcomes. Most often these natural breeding processes produce plants
that grow somewhat differently than their original DNA seeds produced. With the
genetic engineering introduced in the 1970’s the plant’s DNA changes
unnaturally and significantly. These changes sound to be positive though there
are still many questions. There are many countries outside of the United States
that have banned many of these products even though they have many starving
citizens and could potentially benefit from such products. It is an interesting
subject that this idea of altering a plant’s DNA has been around for a long
time, however there is evidence of this anytime you go to a grocery store. It
is almost impossible to find even organic plants that at some point haven’t
been altered. If you consider an apple found in the wild it looks nothing like
an apple found on the produce isle.
Arjun
Walia lists the ten most common reasons for many countries to ban or consider
banning GMO products. The article “10 Scientific Studies Proving GMO’s can be
Harmful to Human Health,” begins by explaining that there has not been enough
research done on GMO’s to prove that it is completely safe for human
consumption. Some of the studies done go into detail on the negative effects of
GMOs in the human body. There have been cases of toxins being found in the
fetus of a woman’s body and in newborns with birth defects. The complexity of
DNA in the modified crops are showing up in the bloodstream of some of these
women tested. This also has been shown to create difficulty with the digestion
of gluten containing GMOs and linking celiac disease. There have also been
studies that link some of the chemicals used on bioengineered crops can have
cancer causing properties, mostly with human breast cancer cell growth. There
are many more health concerns including links to GMOs and autism or
Alzheimer’s. The chemicals used on these crops are much more dangerous than
organically grown plants which show no links to such health concerns. The main
concern here has come up many times, there is simply not enough research done
to determine that GMO products are safe.
Foreign Policy
There are many concerns around the
world that consider the bio engineering of crops used for human consumption
risky. These concerns consist of environmental, long term health and corporate
corruption. Sarah Lieberman and Tim Gray in the article. "Gmos And
The Developing World: A Precautionary Interpretation of Biotechnology,"
consider the differences between the United States and European Union when it
comes to GM food aid policies and agricultural biotechnology. The United
States, Canada and Argentina are the main suppliers for GM products. Where
China is the leading recipient of GM crops from the U.S. many other nations
have refused shipments of even food aid containing GM products. Lieberman and
Grey ask:
Why do the U.S. and the E.U.
currently differ over their interpretation of the precautionary principle (PP)
in relation to GMOs? As Jonathon Wiener and Michael Rogers (2002, 317) note,
the conventional answer to this question is that the E.U. endorses the PP and
‘proactively regulates uncertain risks’, while the U.S. ‘opposes the PP and
waits for evidence of harm before regulating’. (Lieberman and Grey, 2008)
There are many differences between
the U.S. and E.U. and how these opposing views are effecting other nations in
their decisions in using GM crops and products. Some concerns come in facts
surrounding the exports of agricultural produce creating jobs for millions of
Americans or just simply a way for America to export the surplus of GM products
and introduce GM crops to developing countries. In the article by Aileen Kwa, “Agriculture in
Developing Countries: Which way Forward?” many farmers in South America, Africa
and Asia are being forced into the new farming industrialization. These
practices are causing concern in the overuse of pesticides. Many farmers are
having to modernize their farm manufacturing for their own livelihood and
welfare of property. The controversial ‘miracle seed’ resulting from the ‘Green
Revolution’ was to benefit all farmers including poor or well off though it was
not to be so as developing countries could not sustain the necessary products needed
by imports to produce these crops. Aileen
Kwa questioned:
Did The Green Revolution reduce
hunger? Comparing the number of hungry people in the world in 1970 versus 1990
(spanning two decades of major Green Revolution advances), at first glance
seems to indicate significate progress…The number of chronically undernourished
fell from 942 million to 786 million…However, on closer examination… the number
of hungry in the world actually increased by more than 11%...the total food
available per person in fact increased. It seems that greater hunger was the
failure to address unequal access to food and food-producing resources.
These
concerns coming from around the world are causing others, including some in the
United States, to really question the use and need of GMO products. The United
States Department of Agriculture funded the project, “Revisiting GMOs: Are
There Differences in European Consumers’ Acceptance and Valuation for Cisgenically
vs Transgenically Bred Rice?” With such a large increase in global growth we
must find a way to feed more people. Rice is a staple for many cultures and it
seems that genetically altering the DNA of the rice will increase its
production rate even in times of flood or drought. “…Green Revolution
techniques, could have gone to feed people. These systems are resource wasteful
and rely on intensive external inputs, including water and land. The emerging
Gene Revolution (which is similarly input-intensive) promises to be as resource
wasteful. These systems take away the entitlements from those most in need, and
add to food insecurity and poverty in developing countries.”(Kwa, 2001). With
these obvious statistics it is almost impossible for small farmers to yield a
profit from crops when in competition with industrial farms that are taking up
the farm land and space and using bioengineered seeds, most of which are being
used as exports and not being used to feed the local community.
Walden
Bello and Foreign Policy In Focus consider one of the concerns for other
countries in, “Twenty-Six Countries Ban GMOs—Why Won’t the US?” They go in to prove
that many countries have banned GMOs based on the fact that there have not been
enough studies done to prove that the cross pollination of a GMO field would
not have adverse effects on natural crops being grown close in proximity. This
has also been a large distress for many farmers in the United States as well. There
are also concerns with the patented GMO seeds being in control of a single
corporation. Then once again brought up are health concerns of the Bt toxin
used in many of these crops showing up in in pregnant women. Among these many
concerns arise the worry of the toxic levels used in GMO farming that could
potentially hurt other living beings, such as the monarch butterfly, that has
shown to devastate their already dwindling numbers when close in proximity to
crops using genetically altered Bt seeds.
Labelling of GMO Products
Many
people across the world believe that included on the ingredient list of
products we buy at grocery stores, there should be added GMO ingredients.
Consumers usually want to know what they are buying and be allowed to make a decision
in consumption of such products containing GMO’s. The most common apposing
argument is that by labelling such products it is rendering the product insufficient
to organically grown products. “Cultures of GM’: Discourses of Risk and
Labelling of GMOs in the UK and EU” by Clare Herrick the questions are begging
to be answered. The controversy of what these crops could possibly do to human
health, agriculture and local farms are being looked at. People are observing facts
from around the world and wondering why the United States has not been labeling
possible GMO products. The labelling issue is both political and cultural
proving to be a very controversial and difficult situation. Again it is brought
up how the United States has the F.D.A., U.S.D.A., and E.P.A. in control of GMO
products and farming. These three consider GMOs to be safe until otherwise
proven. The E.U. controls G.M. crops through Novel Foods and Novel Food
Ingredients Regulation. The U.K. regulates G.M. crops and products through
D.E.F.R.A. (The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.) Both
the E.U. and U.K. believe that all risks need to be considered and assessed
before allowing them into the environment or public. One side of the argument
allows consumers to understand what they are purchasing while the other side
believes that the information will only confuse consumers. In some countries
such as the U.K. it is mandatory to label GM products or face fines. For many
it seems that labeling a GM product or having the ability to buy such products
are only for the moderately wealthy. Grocery stores opting to sell and
advertise that they only carry GMO free products are exclusive and much more
expensive.
Brian
Roe and Mario Teisl’s article “Genetically Modified Food Labeling: The Impact
of Message and Messenger on Consumer Perceptions of Labels and Products” detail
the fact that there are potential benefits to using these genetically modified
seeds though there still are claims of health and agricultural concern.
Manufacturers can voluntarily label products of GM content though they are not
required to. There is concern that because not enough testing has been done
labeling a product GMO could potentially make the product second-rate, again
this seems to be the main concern. Many farmers are being pressured into using
genetically altered seeds and are forced to buy patented seeds from companies
such as Monsanto or Syngenta. Personally, I would like to see GMO products
labelled as such. It is just as informative for me and important as buying
products containing wheat or gluten. I also understand the other side of the
issue as I would look at GMO content and consider it the same as when I check
for calories. Many consumers however would most likely take cost into
consideration as GMO products are much cheaper then organic.
The GMO Awareness
website is fighting hard to have manufactures label GMO products. The site
gives some history on failed propositions and ways to promote finally approving
one. These initiatives have been denied or rejected due to Monsanto and other
large corporations funding anti-labeling campaigns. Buying organic produce and
organic groceries is a sure way to stay clear of processed GMO foods. Many
companies that Americans are familiar with using GMO products are:
·
Bumble
Bee Foods
·
Campbell
Soup Company
·
Pepperidge
Farms
·
Coca-Cola
·
Dole
Packaged Foods Company
·
General
Mills
·
Hershey
Company
·
Kelloggs
This is just a very small list of
many in the grocery store. I find it interesting that most Americans have no
idea how many GMO’s they are consuming. When it is listed in such a way it
really comes clear how often we are exposing ourselves to bioengineered food.
Corporate Control
I
would like to introduce you to the companies that are talked about in much of
my research. I will bring into the conversation the companies controlling GMO’s
and the groups fighting them. Frank Carini in “Are GMO’s Safe?” Brings into perspective one of the leading
causes for GMO concerns being in the large corporations gaining control of the
world’s food supply. There are six main
companies that control this multibillion-dollar market of bioengineered
products:
·
Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri. USA.
·
DuPont in Wilmington, Delaware. USA.
·
Bayer of Leverkusen, Germany.
·
BASF of Florham Park, New Jersey. USA.
·
Syngenta of Basel, Switzerland.
·
Dow Chemical Co of Midland, Michigan. USA.
Many organic farmers feel that there is an unfair advantage
to these companies to patent and control many of these crops when the wind and
nature play an important role in seed pollination. The article also considers
scientific research as to why GMO’s are safe as well as concerns that contrast
the same information. Paul Barbot wrote
an article “Monsanto and Syngenta Tighten Stranglehold on Global Food Supply,”
these companies are chronicled throughout most of these articles as being in
control of the patented GMO seeds. There are political and monetary gain in
owning the rights to these altered organisms, taking over the needs of the
worlds food supply. This is just one of the reasons that other countries are
adverse towards allowing such products into their agricultural systems.
While
there are many saying that science has proven these seeds to be safe, there are
others that believe the problem with such companies is who is actually
benefiting from them. “The People Vs
Monsanto” is a cooperative statement from farmers, beekeepers, and campaigners
around the world showing the devastation of such a large corporations being in
control of a “seed”. There are many that have won the battle by proving
scientifically how much damage can be done with such a great power. These are
the groups and people that have succeeded in pushing back at Monsanto by using
science and the law to prove their point. In “The Farmer’s Friend” cover
story of New Internationalist, the
controversial Bt seeds are explored. These seeds are genetically altered to reduce
the need of insecticides. Again farmers are expected to use these seeds coming
from corporate companies and not being able to reproduce other crops with stock
of regrowth seeds. In the height of necessity many farms are producing these
crops that produce products that consumers are buying every day at the market.
The United States consumers are asking questions and wanting to know what it is
that they are buying.
Robert Paarlberg explains NGO
organizations and their effect on GMO crops. NGO organizations are
not-for-profit nongovernmental organizations. They tend to be more accepted by
society as they are not corporate-led with monetary agendas. In “A Dubious
Success: The NGO Campaign Against GMOs” the Greenpeace International and
Friends of the Earth International are European NGO groups that work with NGO
groups in the United States as well as Canada. Their most recent global
campaign it for the labeling of foods containing GMO products. For the parties
that are pro-GMO, using scientific proof that GMOs are perfectly safe has not
seemed to make much of a difference for many other countries that have refused
GMO crops or aid shipments containing GMO products. Many feel it to be unfair
that NGO organizations of rich countries would label a product unsafe causing
the rejection from poor cultures to receive aid.
Conclusion
There are many sides to this controversial subject. While
the research done scientifically shows GMO crops are just as healthy, if not
more, then organic crops there are still many lingering questions. Many people
feel that not enough research has been done as there has been investigations
showing links to many ailments in the body caused by GMO’s. With so many
countries banning GMO crops, GMO products and even aid to assist in large scale
necessity there are obviously many more concerns then just health. With large
corporations such as Monsanto owning and monopolizing these almost required
seeds, it’s harder for small organic companies to keep up. Many farmers in
small countries just do not have the capabilities to grow genetically altered
seeds. There is also research that shows some of these farms are losing land
due to cross contamination altering their seeds and growing patented crops by
accident. I do feel that we could benefit by labelling products by what they
are. With many of today’s advancements it is important to teach our children
that checking labels is healthy. Knowing what you are consuming and doing so in
moderation helps in living a beneficial life. Taking into serious consideration
how other countries consider these modified crops as dangerous until proven
otherwise is a much healthier way to approach GMO products.
Works Cited
Ackerman,
Jennifer. “Food: How Altered?” National Geographic. Environment:
National Geographic, 2015. Web. 10 October 2015.
“Bacillus
Thuringiensis.” University of San Diego.
www.be.ucsd.edu/gmo. Web. 24 Oct. 2015
Barbot, Paul.
“Monsanto and Syngenta Tighten Stranglehold on Global Food Supply.” Truthout. OP-ED, 06 Oct. 2015. Web. 24
Oct. 2015.
Bello, Walden.
“Twenty-Six Countries Ban GMO’s – Why Won’t the US?” The Nation. Foreign Policy In Focus, 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 Oct.
2015.
Brian Roe, Mario
F. Teisl. “Genetically Modified Food Labeling: The Impacts of Message on
Consumer Perceptions of Labels and Products.” Food Policy 32.1 (2001): 49-66. Science
Diet. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
Carini, Frank. “Are
GMO’s Safe?” ecoRInews. ecoRInews, 22
Sep. 2014. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
Delwaide,
Anne-Cécile, et al. "Revisiting Gmos: Are There Differences In European
Consumers’ Acceptance And Valuation For Cisgenically Vs Transgenically Bred
Rice?." Plos ONE 10.5 (2015): 1-16. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.
Dubock, Adrian.
"The Politics Of Golden Rice." GM Crops & Food 5.3
(2014): 210-222. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
“GMO’s: Solution
or Problem?” EOI: Escuela De Organizocion
Industial. Guillermo Jose Latorre Merino, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Herrick, Clare B.
"‘Cultures Of GM’: Discourses Of Risk And Labelling Of Gmos In The UK And
EU." Area 37.3 (2005): 286-294. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.
“Honey Bee
Health.” Monsanto. Monsanto, 2015. Web. 13 October 2015.
Kwa, Aileen.
“Agriculture in Developing Countries: Which way forward?” focusweb.org.
Focus on the Global South, June 2001. Web. 13 October 2015.
Lieberman, Sarah,
and Tim Gray. "Gmos And The Developing World: A Precautionary
Interpretation Of Biotechnology." British
Journal Of Politics & International Relations 10.3 (2008): 395-411. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct.
2015.
Lobb, Richard L.
“Green Revolutin.” Encyclopedia of Food
and Culture. The Gale Group Inc., 2003. Web. 24 Oct. 2015.
“Maps of GMO-Free
Zones in Europe.” Map. GMO Free Europe.
GMO Free Europe, 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.
Paarlberg, Robert. "A Dubious
Success: The NGO Campaign Against Gmos." GM Crops & Food 5.3
(2014): 223-228.Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
"The Farmer's Friend. (Cover
Story)." New Internationalist 481 (2015): 23-27. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
"The People Vs Monsanto (And Other GM
Giants). (Cover Story)." New Internationalist 481 (2015):
24-25. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
“The war Against GMO Labeling.” GMO Awareness. GMO Awareness, 21 Aug.
2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Walia, Arjun. “10
Scientific Studies Proving GMO’s can be Harmful to Human Health.” Collective-Evolution. CE,
8 April 2014. Web. 13 October 2015.
