Genetically Modified Organism Or Gigantic Monetary Obligation?
Elijah A. Ruffin
Research Paper
Since the creation of Genetically Modified Foods in the 1950s, there has been increasing controversy over scientific, environmental, social, and the ethical issues surrounding them. The history of Genetically Modified foods shows that the initial purpose was to extend shelf life, improve flavor, and increase resiliency against degradation and rotting. According to Margaret McLean, a profound researcher of GMO’s, the first products to be genetically modified were tomatoes. These tomatoes were developed in 1994 and were given the name “Flavr Savr Tomatoes” because of the enhanced flavor and long lasting shelf life. Initially consumers reacted positively to the idea of genetically modified foods. (McLean). However the process of genetic modification was not very well perceived by UK consumers, as agreed upon by Bryan Endres, the author of “GMO: Genetically Modified Organism or Gigantic Monetary Obligation? The Liability Schemes for GMO Damage in the United States and the European Union.” This sparked the initial controversy about whether or not genetically …show more content…
modified foods were safe, which ultimately raises the question of whether produce companies should be permitted to genetically modify our foods. (Endres, 453) Genetically modified foods put the environment and the wellbeing of humans at risk, and they raise ethical challenges as to whether we should be genetically altering nature. Therefore I believe that produce companies should not be permitted to genetically modify our foods.
Since the creation of genetically modified foods, their purposes and uses have dramatically evolved. Margaret McLean, a director and professor on medical ethics, science, and biotechnology at Santa Clara University reports that the main purposes for modern day genetic modification are to speed up the process of growing crops and to transfer genes from one organism to another to obtain a desired characteristic. Genetically modified foods have dramatically evolved since the first creation of “Flavr Savr Tomatoes.” Since then, crops such as soybeans, corn, and bananas have been genetically altered to withstand pesticide spraying, have a higher resistance to insects, and ripen at a slower pace. Nowadays 80% of soybeans and 40% of all corn grown in the US are genetically modified and 75% of all processed food in the US contains genetically modified ingredients (McLean).
Because of the rapidly increasing amount of genetically modified foods sold in the US, the threat to the health and wellbeing of all Americans is substantial. As Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review author Bryan Endres points out, one of the most prominent health risks associated with genetically modified foods is the possible transfer of antibiotic resistant genes. When genes are switched around through genetic modifications, the genetic configuration of different foods becomes more complex. Ultimately this could result in genes with an antibiotic resistance, making it nearly impossible to develop new medicines capable of treating specific illnesses. This is because of the complexity of the newly generated gene configurations within genetically modified crops. “Citing fears of potential allergic reactions and antibiotic resistance, the British Medical Association called for a ban on the release of GMOs into the environment” (Endres 457).
Allergic responses are very prevalent with genetically modified foods.
Director of bioethics at Santa Clara University and author of “The Future of Food: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues in Genetically Modified Foods” Margaret McLean, acknowledges, “There is the potential that allergy-producing genes will be inserted into unrelated foodstuffs. Since GM foods are not labeled, a person could suffer a potentially fatal allergic reaction.” For example, genetically modified tomatoes are more likely to cause an allergic response than naturally grown tomatoes because they are engineered with external genes. Most tomatoes have been genetically altered to contain a gene from flounder fish that keeps them from freezing in cold temperatures. This exchange of genes has the potential to cause someone who is allergic to fish to have an allergic response to tomatoes as well.
(McLean)
In an article entitled “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods” the authors reported that effects on digestion were noticed with the consumption of genetically modified foods. Stomach erosion and necrosis were reported in rats fed with “Flavr-Savr Tomatoes” (Artemis 169). Genetically modified soybeans were also seen to cause moderate inflammation in the intestines of salmon (Artemis 169). These outcomes noted in other animals can be interpreted to show that there are dangerous effects on the digestive system from the consumption of genetically modified crops.
Dr. Oz, a cardiac surgeon, author, and daytime host of his own health television show insists “Researchers fear that the health risks may include: exposure to allergens, antibiotic resistance, endocrine disruption, reproductive disorders, and accelerated aging”(Genetically Modified Foods: Get the Facts).
In addition to the numerous risks and potential dangers associated with genetically modified crops, there are also many ethical issues because these crops are being unnaturally created. Valeria Jefferson, author of “The Ethical Dilemma Of Genetically Modified Food,” in the Journal of Environmental Health points out, “Opponents argue that government agencies are violating their religious and consumer rights…”(Jefferson 34) Many consumers see the process of genetic modification as immoral because of the religious reasons. The fact that God didn’t create crops to be genetically modified is a religious issue that reinforces the belief that crops should not be genetically altered.
Another central concern of whether or not produce companies should be allowed to genetically modify our foods is the environment. The environment can be tremendously effected due to genetic pollution. Genetic pollution can result from a release of genetically modified bacteria. The risk of contaminating the environment through genetic modification is significantly greater than any other ecological threat. This is because genetic pollution is uncontrollable, irreversible, and permanent. In the end this poses a major threat to biodiversity and to the bio-integrity of the entire life community (Fox, 1999).
With all the potential health and environmental risks linked to genetically modified foods, it 's imperative that produce companies provide consumers with food that is healthy, ethically produced, and doesn’t have the potential to harm the environment. Many people hold the belief that genetically modified crops have the potential to end world hunger. However, the truth is that world hunger is caused by poverty and the inability to buy food, not by lack of supply. As Peter Rosset, director of Food First, reminds us, "People do not have Vitamin A deficiency because rice contains too little Vitamin A, but because their diet has been reduced to rice and almost nothing else" (Robbins).
Also, in the process of using genetically modified food to end world hunger, it is likely that a catastrophic issue of genetic pollution could be created. This is a risk that would be irreversible and virtually uncontrollable. Another common belief is that genetically modified crops reduce the amount of pesticides needed and consequently makes food less expensive. Valeria Jefferson, an author in the Journal Of Environmental Health, addresses this belief by stating, “ The question becomes whether the damage that has been perpetuated upon the environment through the use of pesticides and harmful chemicals causes more damage to the environment than the narrowing of the germ plasma through the development of genetically modified foods”(34). Although genetically modified crops are engineered to be resistant to weeds, this leads to the formation of “super weeds” and “super bugs” which are weeds and insects that have evolved to become resilient against normal pesticides. Author of “Ten Reasons Why GM Won’t Feed The World” Mark Anslow confirms that farmers are forced to use new pesticides and a variety of other chemicals to treat the problem of “super weeds” and “super bugs”. Eventually the price of stronger pesticides and chemicals costs farmers more money than it would to naturally produce crops. According to a report by the Soil Association in 2003, the estimated cost to the US economy for genetically modified crops was at around $12 billion since 1999 (Anslow). Additional misconceptions associated with genetically modified foods include the idea that genetically modified foods have been heavily tested and haven’t been proven to cause any harm. This idea is completely false. Also verified by Dr. Oz, these tests have only been performed on animals, therefore the safety of genetically modified crops on humans cannot be guaranteed. There have been no long-term studies to track the effects of genetically modified foods on humans. (“Genetically Modified Foods: Get the Facts”) The controversy behind the production of genetically modified foods is primarily composed of environmental, health, and ethical issues. The misconceptions of genetically modified foods such as environmental safety, and potential benefits make it hard for consumers to see the imminent risks associated with the production and consumption of genetically modified foods. There is also a responsibility for the producers to be more transparent in disclosing the composition of the ingredients in their products and whether they have been genetically modified. In lieu of banning all genetically modified foods, the least that producers can do to protect consumers would be to label all products that contain genetically modified foods. This would help consumers become more conscious about their intake of these potentially detrimental foods. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the consumer to be knowledgeable about the production and consumption of genetically modified foods because of the potential hazards associated with their consumption.
Works Cited
Anslow, Mark. "Ten Reasons Why GM Won 't Feed The World." Ten Reasons Why GM
Won 't Feed the World. GM Free Cymru, 03 Jan. 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Artemis, Dona and, Ioannis Arvanitoyannis. "Health Risks Of Genetically Modified
Foods." Critical Reviews In Food Science And Nutrition 49.2 (2009): 164-175. MEDLINE with Full Text. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.
Endres, Bryan A. "GMO: Genetically Modified Organism or Gigantic Monetary
Obligation? The Liability Schemes for GMO Damage in the United States and the European Union”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 22.4 (2000): pages 453-505. Web.
Fox, Michael W. Beyond Evolution: The Genetically Altered Future of Plants, Animals, the Earth... and Humans. New York: Lyons, 1999. Print.
Frewer, Lynn. “Societal aspects of genetically modified foods” Food and Chemical
Toxicology 42.7 (2004) 1181-1193. ELSEVIER with Full Text. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.
"Genetically Modified Foods: Get the Facts." The Dr. Oz Show. ZoCo, 06 Dec. 2010.
Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Jefferson, Valeria. "The Ethical Dilemma Of Genetically Modified Food." Journal Of
Environmental Health 69.1 (2006): 33-34. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.
Klerck, Deon and, Jillian Sweeney. "The Effect Of Knowledge Types On Consumer-Perceived Risk And Adoption Of Genetically Modified Foods." Psychology & Marketing 24.2 (2007): 171-193. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.
McLean, Margaret R. "The Future of Food: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues in
Genetically Modified Foods." Santa Clara University. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 15 Apr. 2005. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Robbins, John. "Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?" The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10 Jan. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Turner, Lisa. "Playing with Our Food." Better Nutrition June 2000: 56-59. Rpt in
Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson, 7th ed. New York: Longman, 2007
Whellams, Melissa. “Corporate Decisions about Labeling Genetically Modified
Foods” Journal of Business Ethics 75.2 (2007) 181-189. JSTOR. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.
Research Paper
Since the creation of Genetically Modified Foods in the 1950s, there has been increasing controversy over scientific, environmental, social, and the ethical issues surrounding them. The history of Genetically Modified foods shows that the initial purpose was to extend shelf life, improve flavor, and increase resiliency against degradation and rotting. According to Margaret McLean, a profound researcher of GMO’s, the first products to be genetically modified were tomatoes. These tomatoes were developed in 1994 and were given the name “Flavr Savr Tomatoes” because of the enhanced flavor and long lasting shelf life. Initially consumers reacted positively to the idea of genetically modified foods. (McLean). However the process of genetic modification was not very well perceived by UK consumers, as agreed upon by Bryan Endres, the author of “GMO: Genetically Modified Organism or Gigantic Monetary Obligation? The Liability Schemes for GMO Damage in the United States and the European Union.” This sparked the initial controversy about whether or not genetically …show more content…
modified foods were safe, which ultimately raises the question of whether produce companies should be permitted to genetically modify our foods. (Endres, 453) Genetically modified foods put the environment and the wellbeing of humans at risk, and they raise ethical challenges as to whether we should be genetically altering nature. Therefore I believe that produce companies should not be permitted to genetically modify our foods.
Since the creation of genetically modified foods, their purposes and uses have dramatically evolved. Margaret McLean, a director and professor on medical ethics, science, and biotechnology at Santa Clara University reports that the main purposes for modern day genetic modification are to speed up the process of growing crops and to transfer genes from one organism to another to obtain a desired characteristic. Genetically modified foods have dramatically evolved since the first creation of “Flavr Savr Tomatoes.” Since then, crops such as soybeans, corn, and bananas have been genetically altered to withstand pesticide spraying, have a higher resistance to insects, and ripen at a slower pace. Nowadays 80% of soybeans and 40% of all corn grown in the US are genetically modified and 75% of all processed food in the US contains genetically modified ingredients (McLean).
Because of the rapidly increasing amount of genetically modified foods sold in the US, the threat to the health and wellbeing of all Americans is substantial. As Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review author Bryan Endres points out, one of the most prominent health risks associated with genetically modified foods is the possible transfer of antibiotic resistant genes. When genes are switched around through genetic modifications, the genetic configuration of different foods becomes more complex. Ultimately this could result in genes with an antibiotic resistance, making it nearly impossible to develop new medicines capable of treating specific illnesses. This is because of the complexity of the newly generated gene configurations within genetically modified crops. “Citing fears of potential allergic reactions and antibiotic resistance, the British Medical Association called for a ban on the release of GMOs into the environment” (Endres 457).
Allergic responses are very prevalent with genetically modified foods.
Director of bioethics at Santa Clara University and author of “The Future of Food: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues in Genetically Modified Foods” Margaret McLean, acknowledges, “There is the potential that allergy-producing genes will be inserted into unrelated foodstuffs. Since GM foods are not labeled, a person could suffer a potentially fatal allergic reaction.” For example, genetically modified tomatoes are more likely to cause an allergic response than naturally grown tomatoes because they are engineered with external genes. Most tomatoes have been genetically altered to contain a gene from flounder fish that keeps them from freezing in cold temperatures. This exchange of genes has the potential to cause someone who is allergic to fish to have an allergic response to tomatoes as well.
(McLean)
In an article entitled “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods” the authors reported that effects on digestion were noticed with the consumption of genetically modified foods. Stomach erosion and necrosis were reported in rats fed with “Flavr-Savr Tomatoes” (Artemis 169). Genetically modified soybeans were also seen to cause moderate inflammation in the intestines of salmon (Artemis 169). These outcomes noted in other animals can be interpreted to show that there are dangerous effects on the digestive system from the consumption of genetically modified crops.
Dr. Oz, a cardiac surgeon, author, and daytime host of his own health television show insists “Researchers fear that the health risks may include: exposure to allergens, antibiotic resistance, endocrine disruption, reproductive disorders, and accelerated aging”(Genetically Modified Foods: Get the Facts).
In addition to the numerous risks and potential dangers associated with genetically modified crops, there are also many ethical issues because these crops are being unnaturally created. Valeria Jefferson, author of “The Ethical Dilemma Of Genetically Modified Food,” in the Journal of Environmental Health points out, “Opponents argue that government agencies are violating their religious and consumer rights…”(Jefferson 34) Many consumers see the process of genetic modification as immoral because of the religious reasons. The fact that God didn’t create crops to be genetically modified is a religious issue that reinforces the belief that crops should not be genetically altered.
Another central concern of whether or not produce companies should be allowed to genetically modify our foods is the environment. The environment can be tremendously effected due to genetic pollution. Genetic pollution can result from a release of genetically modified bacteria. The risk of contaminating the environment through genetic modification is significantly greater than any other ecological threat. This is because genetic pollution is uncontrollable, irreversible, and permanent. In the end this poses a major threat to biodiversity and to the bio-integrity of the entire life community (Fox, 1999).
With all the potential health and environmental risks linked to genetically modified foods, it 's imperative that produce companies provide consumers with food that is healthy, ethically produced, and doesn’t have the potential to harm the environment. Many people hold the belief that genetically modified crops have the potential to end world hunger. However, the truth is that world hunger is caused by poverty and the inability to buy food, not by lack of supply. As Peter Rosset, director of Food First, reminds us, "People do not have Vitamin A deficiency because rice contains too little Vitamin A, but because their diet has been reduced to rice and almost nothing else" (Robbins).
Also, in the process of using genetically modified food to end world hunger, it is likely that a catastrophic issue of genetic pollution could be created. This is a risk that would be irreversible and virtually uncontrollable. Another common belief is that genetically modified crops reduce the amount of pesticides needed and consequently makes food less expensive. Valeria Jefferson, an author in the Journal Of Environmental Health, addresses this belief by stating, “ The question becomes whether the damage that has been perpetuated upon the environment through the use of pesticides and harmful chemicals causes more damage to the environment than the narrowing of the germ plasma through the development of genetically modified foods”(34). Although genetically modified crops are engineered to be resistant to weeds, this leads to the formation of “super weeds” and “super bugs” which are weeds and insects that have evolved to become resilient against normal pesticides. Author of “Ten Reasons Why GM Won’t Feed The World” Mark Anslow confirms that farmers are forced to use new pesticides and a variety of other chemicals to treat the problem of “super weeds” and “super bugs”. Eventually the price of stronger pesticides and chemicals costs farmers more money than it would to naturally produce crops. According to a report by the Soil Association in 2003, the estimated cost to the US economy for genetically modified crops was at around $12 billion since 1999 (Anslow). Additional misconceptions associated with genetically modified foods include the idea that genetically modified foods have been heavily tested and haven’t been proven to cause any harm. This idea is completely false. Also verified by Dr. Oz, these tests have only been performed on animals, therefore the safety of genetically modified crops on humans cannot be guaranteed. There have been no long-term studies to track the effects of genetically modified foods on humans. (“Genetically Modified Foods: Get the Facts”) The controversy behind the production of genetically modified foods is primarily composed of environmental, health, and ethical issues. The misconceptions of genetically modified foods such as environmental safety, and potential benefits make it hard for consumers to see the imminent risks associated with the production and consumption of genetically modified foods. There is also a responsibility for the producers to be more transparent in disclosing the composition of the ingredients in their products and whether they have been genetically modified. In lieu of banning all genetically modified foods, the least that producers can do to protect consumers would be to label all products that contain genetically modified foods. This would help consumers become more conscious about their intake of these potentially detrimental foods. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the consumer to be knowledgeable about the production and consumption of genetically modified foods because of the potential hazards associated with their consumption.
Works Cited
Anslow, Mark. "Ten Reasons Why GM Won 't Feed The World." Ten Reasons Why GM
Won 't Feed the World. GM Free Cymru, 03 Jan. 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Artemis, Dona and, Ioannis Arvanitoyannis. "Health Risks Of Genetically Modified
Foods." Critical Reviews In Food Science And Nutrition 49.2 (2009): 164-175. MEDLINE with Full Text. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.
Endres, Bryan A. "GMO: Genetically Modified Organism or Gigantic Monetary
Obligation? The Liability Schemes for GMO Damage in the United States and the European Union”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 22.4 (2000): pages 453-505. Web.
Fox, Michael W. Beyond Evolution: The Genetically Altered Future of Plants, Animals, the Earth... and Humans. New York: Lyons, 1999. Print.
Frewer, Lynn. “Societal aspects of genetically modified foods” Food and Chemical
Toxicology 42.7 (2004) 1181-1193. ELSEVIER with Full Text. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.
"Genetically Modified Foods: Get the Facts." The Dr. Oz Show. ZoCo, 06 Dec. 2010.
Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Jefferson, Valeria. "The Ethical Dilemma Of Genetically Modified Food." Journal Of
Environmental Health 69.1 (2006): 33-34. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.
Klerck, Deon and, Jillian Sweeney. "The Effect Of Knowledge Types On Consumer-Perceived Risk And Adoption Of Genetically Modified Foods." Psychology & Marketing 24.2 (2007): 171-193. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.
McLean, Margaret R. "The Future of Food: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues in
Genetically Modified Foods." Santa Clara University. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 15 Apr. 2005. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Robbins, John. "Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?" The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10 Jan. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Turner, Lisa. "Playing with Our Food." Better Nutrition June 2000: 56-59. Rpt in
Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson, 7th ed. New York: Longman, 2007
Whellams, Melissa. “Corporate Decisions about Labeling Genetically Modified
Foods” Journal of Business Ethics 75.2 (2007) 181-189. JSTOR. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.