Should Gmo Be Banned Research Paper
If someone put gasoline in your plate of spaghetti in order to make it taste better or last longer, would you still eat it? Although it could be said that genetically modified organisms support an exponentially growing population and could possibly fortify crops with much needed vitamins and minerals, the risks greatly outweigh the benefits. GMOs are known to cause many health issues such as cancer, and ethically, it is more important to care about quality more than quantity. Foods higher in nutritional value are more important than just meeting a certain quota for food production. The usage of GMO´s in America should be completely banned by having the government outlaw it in all areas. Following this change, the overall amount of GMO´s in
…show more content…
American crops will decrease greatly, and non-GMO crops should start to increase in numbers.
A genetically modified organism emerges when genes from DNA of a certain species is removed and released into the genes of a plant or animal.
According the Institute for Responsible Technology, “the foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals, or even humans” (Smith). The main purposes of this is a higher tolerance for herbicides and causing the plant to release its own pesticides. These provide no health benefits, and in fact may very well be detrimental to human health. The IRT adds, “genetically modified foods have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ” (Smith). Although not exactly known how GMOs directly affect humans, the effects on animals have shown to be disastrous. Mice that were fed GMOs had damaged intestines, reduced digestive enzymes, reactions to formerly harmless foods, atrophied livers, smaller, sterile babies that died shortly after being birthed, and altered sexual organs. Also, “a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights” (Burke). Clearly showing extensive damage, these effects are scary and is a recipe for certain …show more content…
doom.
The beginning of commercially produced GMOs date back to the 1990’s, with a genetically altered tomato. Yet, “they were brought out of production just a few years later, in 1997, due to problems with flavor and ability to hold up in shipping” (Non-GMO). Even earlier, the first emergence of fights over the dangers of GMOs to humans showed face in 1971, when “a common intestinal microorganism, E. coli, was infected with DNA from a tumor-inducing virus” (Phillips). When the debate continued to grow, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee was formed by the National Institute of Health to deal with these issues. Additionally, in the 1980’s, when GMOs were purposely released into the world, there were almost no regulations, and issues such as “the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science…” (Phillips). Lastly, in 1986, a publication of Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations by the OECD was released. It was the first document addressing the use of GMOs. This was just the beginning.
Throughout the late 1900s and into the 2000s, a comprehensive timeline can be put together of the events occurring concerning GMOs. In 1935, DNA was discovered by Russian scientist Andrei Nikolaevitch Belozersky (Shireen). In 1973, the emergence of DNA created by humans, or man-made DNA became prevalent (Shireen). Two years later, at the Asilomar Conference, a gathering of scientists and lawyers concurred “to create guidelines for the safe use of genetically engineered DNA” (Shireen). Five years passed, and “A 1980 court case between a genetics engineer at General Electric and the U.S. Patent Office is settled by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling, allowing for the first patent on a living organism” (Shireen). Finally, in 1982, GMOs gained approval by the FDA, genetically altered E. coli bacteria produced humulin, a sort of insulin, and this was released on the market (Shireen). By 1994, GMOs slowly found their way into grocery stores, and in 1995, “Monsanto's NewLeaf™ potato, the first pest protected plant, approved by the EPA and FDA” (Timeline). Across the world, genetically modified seeds and crops are found and used in over 100 million acres of land by 1999, the popularity of GMOs taking a steep climb at precariously speedy rate (Shireen). Furthermore, on a more nervous note, less than ten years after GMOs were introduced to the world, in 2003, bugs completely resistant to pesticides were found, having adapted to the genetically altered toxins (Shireen). Lastly, and most alarming, in 2011, “Research in eastern Quebec finds Bt toxins in the blood of pregnant women and shows evidence that the toxin is passed to fetuses” (Shireen). In the same year, despite problems concerning the legality of it, the USDA granted permission for the planting of RoundUp Ready sugar beets (Timeline). Who knows what effects the toxins could reveal in a baby? GMOs have a critically short history, which shows to demonstrate how little knowledge scientists have on it’s effects.
Genetically modified crops are almost unavoidable. The percentage of GMOs in our daily food is sky-high. According to the Non-GMO Project, “today, the majority of GMO crops are corn (88% of the U.S crop), soy (94%), canola (90%), cottonseed (90%), and sugar beets (95%)” (Scipioni). This doesn’t even cover the 24,000 acres of genetically modified zucchini and yellow squash. Overall, around 75% or more of all processed foods contains GMOs. This can be a scary number, considering the fact that most people have no idea that they are consuming these things, as stated, “people are outraged when they find out they are eating experimental products without their consent” (Scipioni). How many people are outraged? Apparently “a 2012 Mellman Group found that 91% of American Consumers want GMOs labeled” (Non-GMO). Furthermore, although the world population is estimated to reach numbers of 9.6 billion by 2050, a 38% increase according to Fox Business, it will not matter is GMO crops provide the necessary amount of food to sustain this number if people are dying of cancer and getting sick from them. The true effects of GMOs are unknown and must be discovered if we are to advance their availability. The aftermath of GMOs are not one hundred percent verified, but many health problems are strongly linked to them. Issues such as food allergies, toxicity, infertility, gluten disorders, transfer of DNA, birth defects, and cancer (Burke). The Organic Consumers Association states that “The list of GM food products intersect with the eight most common food allergens: eggs, milk, fish, peanuts, shellfish, soy, tree nuts, and wheat” (Burke). Allergic reactions are activated by proteins that are in foods, and those proteins are “gene spliced” into foods that humans have never consumed before, and without testing as well (Burke). Theresa Phillips remarks that “potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora” (Phillips). Also, over the course of 19 studies, it has been found that in cows, GMOs proved to have toxic effects on the liver and kidneys, and when mice were given genetically modified corn, over time they produced less and less offspring (Burke). A theory came across that when consumed, the DNA in the GMO foods is transferred to the human's bloodstream, therefore affecting their genes, and the results are unknown and could be deadly (Burke). Later, this theorem proved to be true when “evidence dating from the early 1990s indicates that ingested DNA in food and feed can indeed survive the digestive tract, and pass through the intestinal wall to enter the bloodstream” (Burke). Lastly, in an herbicide that goes by the name of RoundUp, an ingredient called glyphosate can be absolutely deadly, not only causing birth defects, but going even further (Burke). Andres Carrasco of University of Buenos Aires adds that glyphosate “is responsible for causing birth defects, infertility, sperm destruction, and cancer” (Burke). Genetically modified organisms are truly terrifying things and must be given the utmost attention.
Many groups of people will tell you that the benefits of GMOs show to be salubrious and profitable more so than harmful and detrimental (Get).
They will tell you that somehow genetically engineering crops “allows farmers to use fewer chemicals, such as pesticides...helps them utilize more environmentally friendly planting techniques [and]...[less] greenhouse gas emissions” (Get). What they won’t tell you is the unabbreviated truth. In reality, yes, in the first few years, statistics show that herbicide and pesticide use decreases within the first few years of utilizing genetically modified crops (Hoffman). Yet, the long terms effects hold a much higher importance, which geneticists do not want you to look at. When pesticides are repeatedly sprayed on a plant, the weeds around it adapt to it, and eventually they become resistant to the chemical, usually given the title of “superweeds” (Hoffman). These weeds proceed to reproduce, the offspring possessing an increasingly higher resistance (Hoffman). Causedly, farmers find it necessary to use more and more pesticide each time, and “Food and Water Watch found that the ‘total volume of glyphosate [a pesticide] applied to the three biggest GE crops - corn, cotton and soybeans - increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012” and pesticide use has “since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010” (Hoffman). If more herbicides and pesticides make an appearance, this means for a deadly increase in
resistant weeds (Hoffman). This issue screams dire attention from everyday consumers and especially from the United States Department of Agriculture.
There is no way around the simple fact that GMOs need to be utterly banned. But how does one accomplish this daunting task? Small steps lead to big accomplishments. To start with, use of pesticides on the plants would be eliminated. Organic food possesses even greater qualities than GMO foods, and does not use pesticides, so why do other companies need to use them? Organic farmers have been “using natural fertilizers to feed soil and plants, and using crop rotation or mulch to manage weeds” (Mayo). So is using pesticides an issue of laziness and not wanting to do a bit of extra work? Furthermore, a bill should be pushed requiring the labeling of GMO foods, so that consumers do not stay in the dark about what they put into their body. Most companies are fighting with everything they have in order to avoid labeling their products, concluding that they may even know that how they grow their food proves to be risky. Following this step, individuals with an influential government presence should begin to press for the limiting of the number of GMO farms, and move towards funding for organic farms. If organic farms make a headline in the food industry, people's’ attention will turn towards them, and away from the typical products, causing a decrease in sales of GMO foods. This occurrence could “be an economic boom for agriculture and green jobs across the country” (Hoffman). The final and foremost challenge is to knock the companies over when they are down - organize a strong case and bring it to the attention of the government in order to eliminate and prohibit the genetic engineering of crops and plants that originally grown organically.
GMO foods have shown to be nothing but trouble, their presence bringing a certain and obvious unease to the general public. Those who oppose it, do so with impressive evidence and colossal vehemity. Those who support it, do so uninformed and uneducated, only wanting people around them to see a small part of the picture. For some unknown reason, money and greed have recently and sadly shown a developing superiority over the health of fellow humans. This gluttony can only be eliminated by the permanent disappearance of genetically modified foods.
American crops will decrease greatly, and non-GMO crops should start to increase in numbers.
A genetically modified organism emerges when genes from DNA of a certain species is removed and released into the genes of a plant or animal.
According the Institute for Responsible Technology, “the foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals, or even humans” (Smith). The main purposes of this is a higher tolerance for herbicides and causing the plant to release its own pesticides. These provide no health benefits, and in fact may very well be detrimental to human health. The IRT adds, “genetically modified foods have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ” (Smith). Although not exactly known how GMOs directly affect humans, the effects on animals have shown to be disastrous. Mice that were fed GMOs had damaged intestines, reduced digestive enzymes, reactions to formerly harmless foods, atrophied livers, smaller, sterile babies that died shortly after being birthed, and altered sexual organs. Also, “a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights” (Burke). Clearly showing extensive damage, these effects are scary and is a recipe for certain …show more content…
doom.
The beginning of commercially produced GMOs date back to the 1990’s, with a genetically altered tomato. Yet, “they were brought out of production just a few years later, in 1997, due to problems with flavor and ability to hold up in shipping” (Non-GMO). Even earlier, the first emergence of fights over the dangers of GMOs to humans showed face in 1971, when “a common intestinal microorganism, E. coli, was infected with DNA from a tumor-inducing virus” (Phillips). When the debate continued to grow, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee was formed by the National Institute of Health to deal with these issues. Additionally, in the 1980’s, when GMOs were purposely released into the world, there were almost no regulations, and issues such as “the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science…” (Phillips). Lastly, in 1986, a publication of Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations by the OECD was released. It was the first document addressing the use of GMOs. This was just the beginning.
Throughout the late 1900s and into the 2000s, a comprehensive timeline can be put together of the events occurring concerning GMOs. In 1935, DNA was discovered by Russian scientist Andrei Nikolaevitch Belozersky (Shireen). In 1973, the emergence of DNA created by humans, or man-made DNA became prevalent (Shireen). Two years later, at the Asilomar Conference, a gathering of scientists and lawyers concurred “to create guidelines for the safe use of genetically engineered DNA” (Shireen). Five years passed, and “A 1980 court case between a genetics engineer at General Electric and the U.S. Patent Office is settled by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling, allowing for the first patent on a living organism” (Shireen). Finally, in 1982, GMOs gained approval by the FDA, genetically altered E. coli bacteria produced humulin, a sort of insulin, and this was released on the market (Shireen). By 1994, GMOs slowly found their way into grocery stores, and in 1995, “Monsanto's NewLeaf™ potato, the first pest protected plant, approved by the EPA and FDA” (Timeline). Across the world, genetically modified seeds and crops are found and used in over 100 million acres of land by 1999, the popularity of GMOs taking a steep climb at precariously speedy rate (Shireen). Furthermore, on a more nervous note, less than ten years after GMOs were introduced to the world, in 2003, bugs completely resistant to pesticides were found, having adapted to the genetically altered toxins (Shireen). Lastly, and most alarming, in 2011, “Research in eastern Quebec finds Bt toxins in the blood of pregnant women and shows evidence that the toxin is passed to fetuses” (Shireen). In the same year, despite problems concerning the legality of it, the USDA granted permission for the planting of RoundUp Ready sugar beets (Timeline). Who knows what effects the toxins could reveal in a baby? GMOs have a critically short history, which shows to demonstrate how little knowledge scientists have on it’s effects.
Genetically modified crops are almost unavoidable. The percentage of GMOs in our daily food is sky-high. According to the Non-GMO Project, “today, the majority of GMO crops are corn (88% of the U.S crop), soy (94%), canola (90%), cottonseed (90%), and sugar beets (95%)” (Scipioni). This doesn’t even cover the 24,000 acres of genetically modified zucchini and yellow squash. Overall, around 75% or more of all processed foods contains GMOs. This can be a scary number, considering the fact that most people have no idea that they are consuming these things, as stated, “people are outraged when they find out they are eating experimental products without their consent” (Scipioni). How many people are outraged? Apparently “a 2012 Mellman Group found that 91% of American Consumers want GMOs labeled” (Non-GMO). Furthermore, although the world population is estimated to reach numbers of 9.6 billion by 2050, a 38% increase according to Fox Business, it will not matter is GMO crops provide the necessary amount of food to sustain this number if people are dying of cancer and getting sick from them. The true effects of GMOs are unknown and must be discovered if we are to advance their availability. The aftermath of GMOs are not one hundred percent verified, but many health problems are strongly linked to them. Issues such as food allergies, toxicity, infertility, gluten disorders, transfer of DNA, birth defects, and cancer (Burke). The Organic Consumers Association states that “The list of GM food products intersect with the eight most common food allergens: eggs, milk, fish, peanuts, shellfish, soy, tree nuts, and wheat” (Burke). Allergic reactions are activated by proteins that are in foods, and those proteins are “gene spliced” into foods that humans have never consumed before, and without testing as well (Burke). Theresa Phillips remarks that “potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora” (Phillips). Also, over the course of 19 studies, it has been found that in cows, GMOs proved to have toxic effects on the liver and kidneys, and when mice were given genetically modified corn, over time they produced less and less offspring (Burke). A theory came across that when consumed, the DNA in the GMO foods is transferred to the human's bloodstream, therefore affecting their genes, and the results are unknown and could be deadly (Burke). Later, this theorem proved to be true when “evidence dating from the early 1990s indicates that ingested DNA in food and feed can indeed survive the digestive tract, and pass through the intestinal wall to enter the bloodstream” (Burke). Lastly, in an herbicide that goes by the name of RoundUp, an ingredient called glyphosate can be absolutely deadly, not only causing birth defects, but going even further (Burke). Andres Carrasco of University of Buenos Aires adds that glyphosate “is responsible for causing birth defects, infertility, sperm destruction, and cancer” (Burke). Genetically modified organisms are truly terrifying things and must be given the utmost attention.
Many groups of people will tell you that the benefits of GMOs show to be salubrious and profitable more so than harmful and detrimental (Get).
They will tell you that somehow genetically engineering crops “allows farmers to use fewer chemicals, such as pesticides...helps them utilize more environmentally friendly planting techniques [and]...[less] greenhouse gas emissions” (Get). What they won’t tell you is the unabbreviated truth. In reality, yes, in the first few years, statistics show that herbicide and pesticide use decreases within the first few years of utilizing genetically modified crops (Hoffman). Yet, the long terms effects hold a much higher importance, which geneticists do not want you to look at. When pesticides are repeatedly sprayed on a plant, the weeds around it adapt to it, and eventually they become resistant to the chemical, usually given the title of “superweeds” (Hoffman). These weeds proceed to reproduce, the offspring possessing an increasingly higher resistance (Hoffman). Causedly, farmers find it necessary to use more and more pesticide each time, and “Food and Water Watch found that the ‘total volume of glyphosate [a pesticide] applied to the three biggest GE crops - corn, cotton and soybeans - increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012” and pesticide use has “since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010” (Hoffman). If more herbicides and pesticides make an appearance, this means for a deadly increase in
resistant weeds (Hoffman). This issue screams dire attention from everyday consumers and especially from the United States Department of Agriculture.
There is no way around the simple fact that GMOs need to be utterly banned. But how does one accomplish this daunting task? Small steps lead to big accomplishments. To start with, use of pesticides on the plants would be eliminated. Organic food possesses even greater qualities than GMO foods, and does not use pesticides, so why do other companies need to use them? Organic farmers have been “using natural fertilizers to feed soil and plants, and using crop rotation or mulch to manage weeds” (Mayo). So is using pesticides an issue of laziness and not wanting to do a bit of extra work? Furthermore, a bill should be pushed requiring the labeling of GMO foods, so that consumers do not stay in the dark about what they put into their body. Most companies are fighting with everything they have in order to avoid labeling their products, concluding that they may even know that how they grow their food proves to be risky. Following this step, individuals with an influential government presence should begin to press for the limiting of the number of GMO farms, and move towards funding for organic farms. If organic farms make a headline in the food industry, people's’ attention will turn towards them, and away from the typical products, causing a decrease in sales of GMO foods. This occurrence could “be an economic boom for agriculture and green jobs across the country” (Hoffman). The final and foremost challenge is to knock the companies over when they are down - organize a strong case and bring it to the attention of the government in order to eliminate and prohibit the genetic engineering of crops and plants that originally grown organically.
GMO foods have shown to be nothing but trouble, their presence bringing a certain and obvious unease to the general public. Those who oppose it, do so with impressive evidence and colossal vehemity. Those who support it, do so uninformed and uneducated, only wanting people around them to see a small part of the picture. For some unknown reason, money and greed have recently and sadly shown a developing superiority over the health of fellow humans. This gluttony can only be eliminated by the permanent disappearance of genetically modified foods.