Month: February 2019
Hungry for a GMO
Jamie: Hello all, my name is Jamie Hubbell and I’m a current Agricultural communications major at Texas Tech University. I have spent my whole 18 years growing up in Houston, the United States 4th largest city. With their being over 3 million people in Houston, there are various income classes as well as state funded programs. With the continuously growing population of homeless, food insecurity is considered to be a rising issue in Houston. Houston is only the 4th largest city in the U.S so what’s there to say about food insecurity in the rest of the United States and even in the world?
Jamie: Food insecurity is when a person does not have reliable access to adequate (and nutritious) food. Food insecurity is a year-long measure, it doesn’t refer to not having time to cook or a lack of available grocery stores. Food insecurity refers to a lack of food access due to financial and other resources in a household. With 1 out of every 8 people in the united states experiences food insecurity, that’s roughly 40 million Americans who aren’t receiving proper nutrition or access to those nutritious and much needed foods. The U.S is tied with the United Kingdom for 3rd under the global rankings for Food Insecurity. If the U.S is 3rd with 40 million households being considered to have food insecurity, it’s difficult to imagine the lower ranking countries.
Jamie: The world’s population is growing at a tremendous rate. the world is expected to reach a population of over 9 million by 2050…. And with that large of a population, there will be various crisis, with food being one of the most important. With the population expecting to increase by 30%, there will need to be a 70% increase in food production to meet demand. As of 2017, 821 million people are considered undernourished. The agriculture industry will need to step things up. For developing countries, 80% of production increases would come from yield increases and only need a 20% increase in land expansion. As good of news as that may sound, globally all the yields of major crops have been declining from 1960 until present times. The 21st century is the technological advancement age, however even with technology we can’t necessarily reverse this decline on a global level. As of recently, there has been talk of what could be a ‘saving grace’
[what is a gmo recording]
Jamie: What is a GMO?
Stranger 1:
Stranger 2:
Stranger 3:
Jamie: Nearly 40 percent of Americans believe that GMOs are bad for their health due to not being educated on them. Scientific research and date have concluded that genetically modified crops that are on today’s market are safe for consumption. A New York Times article commented on how majority of consumers don’t know or realize that for decades they’ve been consuming foods that have been developed through bioengineering (including gene mutations). Genetically modified organisms are considered to be living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a lab through genetic engineering (for multiple purposes). This manipulation is what creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. Currently there are ten GMO crops that are approved and commercially available in the U.S. (alfalfa, apples, canola, corn (field and sweet), cotton, papaya, potatoes, soybeans, squash, and sugar beets).
Jamie: The use of GMO’s is diverse and becoming more frequently used. With climate change being a preeminent issue on a global scale, GMO’s are being seen as a possible effort to address such a large-scale issue. Climate change will mean that the crops we depend on now will likely no longer be suited to grow in the areas where they are currently being produced and may in just one year, GM crops had reduced their atmospheric CO2 emission by 5.2 million pounds educed atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions by 5.2 million pounds. Their new usage of herbicide tolerant GM crops along with conservative farming practices (conservation tillage), showed to reduce farm emissions globally and help in minimizing agriculture’s ‘carbon footprint’. These positive GM results showed improvements in production, soil health and also decreased greenhouse gas emissions.
Jamie: The positive results from GM plants have given scientists high hopes in using GM crops and GMO’s to help with preventing world hunger and decreasing food insecurity. To help increase crop yields, many GMOs have been engineered to withstand the direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. All of these things are being tested and tried through various Biotechnology companies that want to see improvement for the agriculture industry and see if we can safely use GMO’s when it comes to our food.
Jamie: So, the question still stands, can GMO’s be safely used to increase food production? Increasing crop yields will only do so much, scientists are working on improving crops nutritional quality, not just quantity. the amount of arable land planted with GM crops has multiplied 100-fold in the last decade (From 1.7 million hectares (1996) to 185.1 million hectares (2016). All of said crops were planted in 26 countries by roughly 18 million farmers, this makes GM the fasts adopted crop technology worldwide. Dr. Denneal Jamison-McClung from UC Davis Biotechnology Program has said that “From (GMO’S) introduction in 1996 until now, scientists have found, through repeated and extensive testing, that GM foods are no more risky than comparable non-GM foods, nor do they differ in nutritional value.” GMOs are actually one of the world’s most researched agriculture products and have been deemed safe by virtually every major independent institute.
Cite this page
Hungry for a GMO. (2019, Feb 15).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
The Impact GMOs on the Society
In today’s world one-third of the world’s food is wasted - that is around 795 million people who do not get sufficient food to have a healthy life. Food is wasted in many different ways, however, many people do not realize how much is lost before it even gets to the store. This is due to lack of knowledge, efficient transportation, and storage. How can we better feed others and fix this abundance of food loss? One way to solve this problem is by using genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs can change the way a crop works and can, overall, give us a better advantage to increasing the amount of food we have stored. In the following paragraphs, we will discuss different ways a GMO can be utilized to benefit world hunger and reduce food loss.
GMO stands for “genetically modified organism”, which is an organism that has been altered by using genetic engineering methods. This method used in crops is very controversial, but it if is done successfully, it can be very beneficial to our agriculture sustainability. To make a GMO, one must identify a trait of interest, isolate that trait, insert that trait into a desired organism, and then propagate that organism. To identify a trait of interest, one must find the problem within that crop (e.g. if a fruit ripens too quickly). Then, look at other crops that carry that specific trait and copy those genes. To isolate a trait, one must use comparative analysis to decode the organism’s genetic makeup that make the trait of interest. To insert the specified gene, bacteria encoded with the trait are mainly used to invade and alter the genetic makeup of the desired organism. To be classified as a GMO, the organism must be genetically altered and created with modified engineering. This does not include selective breeding and animals/plants being given supplements. Using this method to alter crops can greatly affect the outcome of production and nutrition in today’s agriculture. Intro sentence.
Another example of a successful GMO would be corn that has been genetically altered to be insect resistant. We lose about 40% of maize due to pests, therefore harvesting a pest-resistant corn is very beneficial. Insects currently affected by the genetically modified corn include: moths, butterflies, corn borers, and corn worms. These pests influence stalk rot and ear rot disease, which are extremely harmful and deadly to corn plants. Some consumers raise concerns about the safety of this corn and what benefits we would get from it. Gary Munkvold from APS says, “One aspect of risk/benefit analysis is the influence that Bt technology may have on corn diseases and mycotoxin-producing fungi in corn”. This aspect plays a big part in the safety of using a GMO. Fusarium ear rot is the most common ear rot disease in corn and can be found in almost every harvest. This disease produces toxins that are highly fatal to horses and pigs, and is a probable human carcinogen; symptoms are usually related to corn borer and earworm. The use of genetically modified maize would assist in terminating this crop-bound disease, thus, helping to eliminate risks to human/animal health. Altogether, genetically modified corn would not only produce a greater yield of corn, but actually be beneficial to our health. Limitations include keeping watch on corn with the GMO, some insects are affected more than others, and parts of the world are different.
Cite this page
The Impact GMOs on the Society. (2019, Feb 15).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Is GMO Harmful or Beneficial to Us?
Genetic engineering technology is the core of modern biotechnology. Since the birth of the first transgenic plant in the 1980s, genetic engineering has been rapidly and widely developed and applied in various fields. At the same time, genetic engineering has brought profound revolution to the field of food. Genetically modified food refers to the introduction and expression of exogenous genes into target organisms through gene recombination technology. The food produced in this way, including agricultural products and food additives, is collectively referred to as genetically modified food. The advantage of GMO is that it makes our life more convenient. At present, many people have questioned the toxicity of genetically modified foods, the problem of allergic reactions, nutritional problems, resistance to antibiotics, and environmental threats. Objectively speaking, every new thing has its growth process. We should treat it objectively and critically. In my opinion, we should look at genetically modified food scientifically, instead of just refusing it.
GM foods can be broadly divided into three categories :(1) Gm plant foods. Such as genetically modified corn and soybean are more kinds of genetically modified food, mainly for improving the nutrition, anti-insect, anti-virus, anti-herbicide and anti-adversity survival of food, reducing the production cost and increasing quality of crops, and improving the yield per unit area. (2)Genetically modified animal food. Transgenic fish and meat, for example, it is mainly used for by introducing proper exogenous genes and modify its own to “ reduce the degree of crosslinking of connective tissue” in order to improve the meat of animals and get a good flavor and nutritional value which meet the needs of the consumers.(3) genetically modified microbial food. For example, through genetic modification of the preparation of microbial fermentation, wine, beer, soy sauce, this kind of food is produced by the use of genetically modified organisms. Though there are always people spread the idea that GMO is toxic but So far, there is no evidence can prove that genetically modified food will affect people’s health on short term at least. It will only affect oral argument. From 1998 to 2009 there was negative news about gm food. From the “approval in the United States of ""star alliance"" genetically modified corn for animal feeding”, to the “proliferation of weeds around genetically modified rape in Canada”, to the “contamination of other species' genes by genetically modified corn in Mexico”, more and more facts have shown that the safety of genetically modified food deserves everyone's attention. The organization for economic cooperation, the world health organization, and World food and agriculture organization (FAO),and other international authority said that the transgenic species may set a biological cause ""unintended consequences"", it is this ""unintended consequences"" instructions for the safety of this product is not decided yet, international consumer association also suggests that ""so far there is no evidence that genetically modified food is harmful or safe. There are indeed reports of GM food hazards, which are not repeated in this article. We only analyze the advantages of genetically modified foods.
Genetically modified food brings us benefits indeed.
- Increase crop yield, solve the problem of food shortages, reduce environmental pollution.
- Extend the life of fruit and vegetable products.
- Improve the taste and quality of food.
- Use genetically modified technology to produce foods that are good for health and disease resistance.
One of reason the crops failed is Salt, drought, pests and diseases, which is also responsible for yield production. Nowadays, scientists combine a variety of anti insect, drought and salt tolerance genes into crops by the development of genetic and DNA technology.
By getting excellent properties of the new strain of genetically modified (gm), it greatly reduces the production cost and increases the production at the same time. Many scientists expected to use genetic modified to solve the problem of food shortages all around the world with the booming of population. At the same time, the environmental pollution due to pesticide or fertilizer can be reduced hugely by the application of transgenic technology such as hybrid rice.
Traditional vegetable and fruit preservation techniques, such as refrigeration, coatings, preservation, storage costs with severe defects, time, and freshness preservation, often result in softening, over-ripening, decay, and deterioration, causing heavy losses. The direct production of shelf-stable fruits and vegetables has become a reality through genetic engineering techniques. For example, adding an anti-freeze gene for marine fish grown in the Arctic to an ordinary eggplant will allow it to be stored longer in the winter and greatly extend the shelf life. At present, commercial and transgenic tomato storage has been produced at home and abroad. Related research has been extended to strawberries, bananas, mangoes, peaches, and watermelons.
In order to change the taste and extend the shelf life of the food, food company may add additives illegally to make sure the food “looks good”. However, additives and preservatives sometimes contain harmful ingredients which most of the leads to cancer. Genetic modified food can solve the problems better. The taste of food, nutrition and bactericidal properties change or transfer some of the characteristics of certain genes. Take milk as an example, gene replacement technology can change the specific the composition of milk and increase milk production.
Furthermore, in order to provide plants food for some animal nutrition and taste, scientists also transfer animal genes to these plants which give them some special characteristics. Thus, Transgenic technology could improve the quality of the animal food and give human a new aspects of knowing things. And att present, the transgenic fish, chicken and pig research have made great success.
The newly developed genetically modified rice from European scientists is found to be rich in vitamin A and iron, which helps to reduce iron deficiency anemia and vitamin A. Incidence rate. And another Japanese scientists have successfully cultivated new rice that can lower serum cholesterol levels, reduce the possibility of arteriosclerosis by using genetically modified technology.
In conclusion, GMO bring us lots of benefits. Without this benefit, we cannot imagine how will the world be. There is indeed some negative news about genetically modified foods. But this does not justify our refusal to use GM food. Everyone has their own right to choose. In Africa, people often try their best to supply food, and genetically modified foods can greatly increase the production of food and allow more people to live. Since humans can develop genetically modified foods, it is believed that humans can gradually discover the potential dangers of genetically modified foods in the future, modify and improve these shortcomings, and make them safer and healthier. People should take a scientific view of genetically modified foods, maintain an optimistic attitude towards genetically modified foods, and conduct in-depth research on genetically modified foods. This will allow genetic technology to perform its best.
References:
Feuillet, Catherine. “Figure 2f from: Irimia R, Gottschling M (2016) Taxonomic Revision of Rochefortia Sw. (Ehretiaceae, Boraginales). Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e7720. Https://Doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e7720.” doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f.
Huso, et al. “IMPACTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) TRAITS ON CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES.” AgEcon Search, ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/23491?ln=en.
Bredahl, L. Journal of Consumer Policy (2001) 24: 23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010950406128
Suzie Key, Julian K-C Ma, and Pascal MW Drake, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Vol 101, Issue 6, pp. 290 - 29, June 2008, https://doi.org/10.1258%2Fjrsm.2008.070372
Charu Verma, Surabhi Nanda, R. K. Singh, R. B. Singh, Sanjay Mishra. A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on Human Health. The open nutraceutical journals, 2011, 4: 3-11,https://benthamopen.com/TONUTRAJ/home/
Maclean, Norman (2003) Genetically modified fish and their effects on food quality and human health and nutrition. Trends in Food Science & Technology, April 2003
Cite this page
Is GMO Harmful or Beneficial to Us?. (2019, Feb 15).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Pros and Cons of GMO Use
Statement of Issue:
Genetically modified (GM) foods are a hot topic of debate and have been for over two decades. Currently, there are hundreds of millions of people in third world countries suffering from malnourishment. This is due to the fact that our world’s population is growing far too fast and more food is required in order to sustain it [1]. There are various benefits and potential risks associated with the use of genetically modified organisms, and at times the research is not in clear support of one side over the other. One benefit of GM foods is that they can increase crop yields, resulting in higher food production and potential profits for farmers [2]. However, some experts believe that these claims may be either unsubstantiated or overexaggerated and the use of GM foods alone will not solve world hunger; there are more complicated issues involved [3].
Scientific Introduction and Background:
The US FDA defines genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as “animals or plants created through genetic engineering”, or direct and specific manipulation of the organism’s genome [4]. Traditional crop breeding involves the exchange of genes between two plants to create a new plant that has desired traits from one or both of the parent plants. To make this happen, male pollen is transferred to the female flower organs. This type of breeding is limited in that it can typically only be done between similar or related species. To get desired results, it can take a very long time, and even then the desired genes may not exist in compatible breeders. GM technology is novel because it allows for the artificial transfer of desired genes from one plant to another, regardless of breeding capabilities via biotechnology [2].
There are four key steps involved in the creation of a GMO; identifying what gene is of interest, isolating that gene, inserting DNA of that gene into a new organism, and the finally keeping that organism alive and reproducing. In order to identify a gene of interest, the key is often referring back to nature to see what plants are already capable of surviving in the environment the new organism is slated to survive in. for example, in the case of Roundup Ready plants, a gene was isolated from bacteria able to survive adjacent to a herbicide factory and was subsequently implanted into crops, conferring the resistance seen in the original bacteria [4].
In order to isolate the gene, or find the specific DNA sequence of interest, comparative analysis is used to compare genomes of the plant with the desired trait to the plant without the trait in order to find the portion unique to the plant with the trait. This gene is inserted into new plants in one of two ways. A gene gun can be used to insert metal particles coated in DNA from the gene of interest into the plant, where it gets incorporated into the genome. Alternatively, it is possible to engineer a plasmid containing the gene of interest and induce its uptake by bacteria known to invade the plant of interest; the bacteria can then insert the new DNA into the plant’s genome. From there, the new GM crop needs to genotypically checked to ensure that it is expressing the gene of interest, and carefully grown in controlled chambers [4].
Benefits of GM crops include reduced farming costs, increased profits, higher yields, better quality food, and less environmental harm. More specifically, first generation GM crops can decrease production-associated costs via tolerance to herbicides and insect resistance; second generation crops offer more direct benefits to consumers, such as increased nutritional content, non-bruising fruits, and healthier corn oils [2]. In the case of developing countries, the ability of GM crops to increase food production could potentially be beneficial. Critics of GM use in third world countries state that there must be enough food and that we must distribute it better, but this cant be the sole solution because even countries with surplus food distribute it poorly. GM crops could make it possible to increase their food production in order to not only increase supply, but improve their economies and decrease dependence on other countries [1]. However, a major issue is that the majority of developing countries have other confounding issues such as insufficient scientific capacity, insufficient regulatory capability, and lack of economic expertise [2].
When looking at the safety of GM crops, both human health and environmental risk must be considered. GM food safety is treated differently than traditional foods because the organism’s characteristics may have been modified, for either better or worse. Human health areas of concern include toxicity, allergenicity, stability of the gene transferred and the probability of further gene transfer, and unintended effects. Environmental concerns stem from the potential for genes to enter wild populations, decrease biodiversity or encourage invasive species, and increase the use of pesticides. From the perspective of public opinion, people are concerned about GM foods because up until the early 1990’s most people had little understanding of molecular research. Further, outright benefits to the consumer are few, since the food isn’t cheaper and doesn’t last longer. In Europe specifically, several food scares have made people distrust risk assessments, particularly if there is little information on long-term effects [5].
GM crops currently usually fall into one of 3 categories: resistance to viral infections, resistance to insect damage, or tolerance to herbicides. In the near future, it is likely to see GM foods with increased nutritional content. Scientists are also working on other beneficial traits such as resistance against drought and other enhanced growth characteristics [5]. Around 30 countries produce GM crops, but just 5, including the US and Brazil, are responsible for 90% of the production. Corn, cotton, canola, and soybeans account for 99% of GM crops grown, with soybeans being roughly 50% [6].
In Favor of the Use of GMOs
It would be amiss to not discuss the inherit benefits of GMOs before deciding whether or not their use is appropriate to alleviate world hunger. Benefits include increased crop production, herbicide tolerance and use of tillage systems that is beneficial for the environment, reduced pesticide use, economic prosperity, and the potential for increased human health.
In terms of productivity, GM seeds are designed to increase productivity and profitability because the resultant plants are supposed to be more efficient and resilient [6]. One way this is done is through the introduction of genes that cause resistance against plant diseases or that can increase tolerance to pesticides. One example is the conferral of insect resistance. A gene for toxin production from the bacteria bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is added to plants. It is a common insecticide and safe for human to consume. When crops produce this toxin they require less pesticide to be protected. The same principle applies to the insertion of viral genes to confer resistance against said viruses [5]. As a result, the need for external pesticide use is reduced, making crops easier to manage, resulting in less loss of yield, and thus making farming more sustainable. In fact, studies done by the USDA have shown a relationship that links the use of herbicide resistant and pesticide tolerant GM crops with increased crop yields. Similar benefits have been seen not only in the United States, but also as far as India, South Africa, and the Philippines [6].
In terms of environmental benefits, the reduced use of pesticides results in reduced water and soil pollution. Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops have been successful at improving methods of weed management. Mixtures of different herbicides can control many different weeds but are not always reliable and are often expensive. Many HT crops allow for the use of a single, nonspecific herbicide for all weeds [6]. By keying in on just a few methods rather than many diverse methods of herbicides, HT crops have made weed control much simpler and has been suggested to have led to an overall decrease in herbicide use [7]. There are many obvious benefits to reduced pesticide use, including less exposure to farms, less residue in food or in feed crops, less chemicals being released into the environment, and increased pollinator diversity [6].
The use of little to no tillage is beneficial for decreasing soil erosion, and while it is a correlation not a causation, studies have shown that farmers who use GM crops are more likely to practice conservation tillage, and those who use less tillage were more likely to use GM seeds [6]. This farming technique conserves soil and moisture, while decreasing carbon dioxide emissions, leading to an overall decreased environmental footprint [8]. In fact, GM crop-associated fuel reduction has decreased carbon dioxide emissions the equivalent of taking 500,000 cars off the road [6].
In regards to human health, reduced exposure to insecticides is always beneficial. Even when insecticides are still used, GM crops usually utilize glyphosate, which is fairly-nontoxic [6]. On top of crop loss, insects can carry diseases harmful to humans. Crops that are pest resistant due to the Bt toxin genes protect against specific insects and are harmless to humans. Bt technology has the capability to reduce levels of mycotoxin contamination that can be found in grain, lowering nutritional quality of food and limits weight gain in farm animals being used for food [9]. All GM foods on the market must pass regulatory approval from the US FDA or the European EFSA. Most interestingly, GM crops can be modified to improve health and nutritional quality. This may lead to a decrease in allergens, or increased protein or nutritional content. This can have applications in developing countries where hunger is prevalent. Finally, when considering the economy, GM crops have value because of operational benefits to farmers, including cost reduction from using less pesticides and increased crop yields [6]. Continued adoption of GM crops has led to economic advantages and farm profitability in both the US and developing countries [8].
All of these benefits must be considered when determining if the use of GM crops is appropriate for third world countries and the amelioration of hunger, both from a safety standpoint in general as well as more specifically and situationally. As mentioned, the world’s population is rapidly growing and is expected to hit 11 billion by 2100 [6]. Some people believe GM seeds can help in feeding this growing population. Even countries that produce surplus amounts of food have a tendency to distribute it poorly, and thus poor countries must find a way to increase their food production. Food production on a global scale requires that crops are able to be grown in more tropical and less temperate climates. These areas are often riddled with pests, plant diseases, and poor-quality soil. Due to the prevalence of insects, post-harvest losses can be extremely high. Further, there are rarely adequate storage conditions, which can lead to further food lost. In these cases, GM foods that are fortified against pest resistance and strengthened for extreme climates can help this problem [1].
Weed management is a massive undertaking. In developed worlds, we have plenty of technology, but in developing countries there is a lot less infrastructure, and long labor hours in the fields are often required. In regardless to the lack of appropriate technology, there is either a lack of resources to adapt new technology, or the technology does not exist because major research companies have no financial incentive to find solutions for weeds that are specific to crops grown in African or Asian countries. As a result, HT or Bt crops play a huge role as they are one of the few labor-light options for superior crop growth [9].
As new novel GM crops are being developing, one with massive potential is drought-tolerant crops. These crops have the potential to increase food production by 35% in dry conditions. This is important because a drought in TX in 2009 led to crop losses that cost over $3.5B. The situation is far worse in developing countries such as Sub-Saharan African where there is little to no rainfall, and little use of irrigation systems. Here, the potential of these crops is enormous [9]. By not finding better solutions, the environment is put at risk in the sense that millions of hectacres of tropical forests are being leveled yearly in the attempt to find better farm land [1].
The majority of farmers in third world countries who live rurally rely on subsistence agriculture, or the production of just enough food to get by. If productivity is increased, they have the potential to not only survive, but to develop a form of income. Most subsistence crops are rice and corn, and thus Bt corn has a role. When farmers are able to financially benefit from the use of these crops the economy can be stimulated. Looking into further impacts, if farm yield is increased, families can profit enough to be able to afford to send their kids to school; easier field management would also mean that women and children are free to get an education [9].
Before the wide-spread use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, no one ever considered that world hunger could potentially be eliminated. The introduction of crops that could grow with the use of these chemicals was called the Green Revolution. Some analyses have shown that hunger decreased by 16% during the two subsequent decades, and now people are calling for a new Green Revolution, this time using genetically altered plants [3]. For the reasons previously described, and for ones not yet presented, there may or may not be a place for GMO technology in solving world hunger. But there is no doubt that plant biotechnology can positively affect developing countries in other ways. As malnutrition is a major issue for both women and children, fortification of foods can help. An excellent example of this is the existence of Golden Rice, a crop enriched for Vitamin A, which is needed for both vision and the development of an immune system. Vitamin A Deficiency leads to 2.2 million deaths/year. Finally, plants can be used to produce cheap oral vaccines that are often temperature stable. Through plant biotechnology, vaccines have been developed for Hepatitis B, rabies, and even diarrheal diseases, which is largely significant considering diarrheal diseases account for a huger number of under-5 deaths in developing countries [9].
Cite this page
Pros and Cons of GMO Use. (2019, Feb 15).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Feudalism in England under William the Conqeuror
After his victory at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 William the Conqueror became the first Norman King of England. Immediately William set out to consolidate his power in England by taking vast swaths of land and redistributing it to Norman lords who would rule on his behalf. This was the beginning of the feudal system in England. Scholars are split on whether or not William actually created feudalism or just capitalized upon a system that was already in the making, but it is clear that the Normans utilized the feudal system in order to cement their power in England. The structure and control the feudal system offered allowed William to maintain control of England throughout his reign.
To understand how the structure of feudalism affected the Norman rule of England, feudalism must first be defined. Feudalism describes both a social and governmental structure where a monarch delegates land and power to vassals who rule on his behalf in exchange for military assistance. While arrangement of feudal power varied from place to place there were four common elements seen throughout feudal government: the fief, the castle, the knight, and vassal commendation . The process through which a lord would become a vassal of the king was called commendation. Commendation was a ceremony that usually consisted of two parts, an act of homage and an oath of fealty . The act of paying homage involved the inferior coming before the king bareheaded and weaponless, as a sign of submission, and then clasping the hands of the king to signify his obedience to him. The king would then produce a bible or other holy relic, which the vassal would place his hands upon in order to swear his oath of fealty. These oaths generally involved the vassal swearing to support the king and honor his act of homage by acting in the interest of the monarch. In return for this act, the king would grant the vassal a fief. A fief is a parcel of land given to a lord to rule on the king’s behalf. These lords would hold the land ‘in fee’ for the king so that the king could maintain control over larger areas of land without being directly involved in the day to day governance of each area. The monarch in these situations still maintained the rights to the land that the vassal has control over, making it easy for the king to ensure his vassal stayed in accordance with his wishes because the vassals land rights could be revoked at any time. Land was not the only object that could be held in fee, government roles and hunting rights were also commonly granted in exchange for fealty. A fief’s main purpose was to provide income for the lord so that he had the means to provide for his knights. Fiefs usually consisted of some amount of land, which varied widely, as well as a number of un-free peasants tied to the land that would work for the lord. The majority of the fiefdoms under the rule of William the Conqueror were taken from Anglo-Saxons and redistributed to Norman lords.
The seat of power for most fiefs was a castle. Castles were integral to the control of England because they gave the Norman aristocracy defensible positions through which they could amass armies and be safe from any rebellious Anglo-Saxons. Placing castles in each of the new fiefdoms formed following the Norman conquest not only gave the Normans a physical advantage in term of defensive outposts but also a distinct psychological advantage that the imposing stone structures provided . These nigh-impenetrable fortresses were placed in strategic positions that made them incredibly difficult to overwhelm and easy to defend. While castles provided the defensive and strategic advantage over the English, knights were the true military backbone of the feudal system implanted by the Normans. Knights were mounted soldiers that abided by a code of honor known as chivalry. Vassals of the king would grant knights an estate or manor with a certain number of peasants attached to it in order to support the costs associated with being a knight. The horse, armor, and weapons necessary to be a knight were astronomically expensive, and without a portion of land it would have been impossible to attain knighthood. It took anywhere from fifteen to thirty peasant families to generate enough money to sustain one knight . The Normans used knights as a powerful tool to quell insurrections and stabilize life in Medieval England.
With the common elements of feudalism defined thusly it becomes easier to see how William the Conqueror and his Norman allies manipulated the political and societal structure in their favor. Immediately after the Battle of Hastings was completed William set about consolidating land previously held by Anglo-Saxon lords and redistributing it to those loyal to him among the Norman aristocracy. Most of the English lords fled the country to find refuge in Scotland, Scandinavia, or Constantinople. Before William came in to power the power structure of the lords in England was very horizontal. There were thousands of lords who shared power with less authority granted to the king than under William. In many instances land was granted to English lords in perpetuity before Norman rule, thereby removing the kings power to take back the land he had granted his vassal. This was not the case under Williams rule. William established a more pyramidal structure to his rule in England. The Normans had a tradition of having stronger bonds between their lords and king than did the English. Whereas the English king only controlled his vassals through land rights, the Normans generally had a system where the ruling Duke, or in this case king, relied on his ‘military familia’ which consisted of a group of lords that were tied to the king through family bonds . The soldiers fielded by the ‘military familia’ were professionals who fought on horseback. They were superior to the un-mounted thegns who comprised the majority of pre-Norman English forces as well as had deeper family ties to the monarch. William utilized these stronger bonds between ruler and ruled in order to maintain a tight grip on the fiefs of England.
After the Norman Conquest all of the land held by over 4000 Anglo-Saxon lords was taken and given to around 200 Norman and French lords . By displacing the former lords who would most likely not be loyal to him William ensured that any who would oppose him would not have access to the land or finances needed in order to field an army. In addition, by granting this land to Normans who were loyal to him William was granted access to all of the resources he was denying his opponents. Now William not only had control of his forces from Normandy, but also controlled the financial and military might of England. English lords had no choice but to vacate the country or to strike deals with their new masters. For those that were willing to make deals with the Normans, William would again use the ritual of vassal commendation to accept oaths of fealty from them. The English lords who fled remained a problem though. There were many rebellions staged by former English lords against Norman England between 1066 and 1085. Every time, William retained control of England because of the political structure he had in place.
For example, the first rebellion occurred in 1067, and was staged by the three sons of Harold Godwinson. King William had already returned to Normandy, just six months after his victory at the Battle of Hastings. The rebels had established themselves in Ireland and were raiding the Western coast of England. The Norman lords who had been established there utilized their castles and mounted forces to repel the invaders long enough for William to return from Normandy and gather men from his surrounding magnates then march to the Western coast. Because William had consolidated land and titles under his ‘military familia’ he had loyal men to defend his throne even in his absence. Perhaps the best example of William utilizing his newly formed feudal hierarchy was in the Harrying of the North in 1069. The earldom of Northumbria was semi-autonomous under previous English kings. In 971 Edgar the Peaceful had promised the earls of the North that interference of the king would be minimal in exchange for their obedience to the crown. William the Conqueror did not want to continue this practice. After the lord he had established in the North, Robert de Comines, was brutally murdered by the locals William formed an army to march North. Despite the small size of his army, William proceeded to obliterate much of the North and decimate the rebel forces there.
This was made possible in large part due to the prowess of the mounted knights who rode with him, the large retinue of loyal lords he could choose to support him, and the amount of defensive fortifications and castles he could utilize along the way. The amount of destruction wrought by William in such a short amount of time is a clear example of how the rigid structure and authority provided to him by his newly formed feudal hierarchy allowed him to act swiftly and effectively in bringing down his opponents. Despite multiple other attempts at rebellion following the Harrying of the North none proved successful. William established Norman lords in all of the earldoms of the North, which prevented any rebels from finding refuge. Even when Edgar Ethling, one of the last rebel Anglo-Saxon lords, sought help from the Danes to overthrow William the Conqueror they were unable to do so. William had such a strong hold on all of the lands of England that the Danes were unable to leave their ships and establish themselves on land to last the winter.
Cite this page
Feudalism in England Under William the Conqeuror. (2019, Feb 15).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
The Decline of Feudalism
The decline of feudalism is an aspect that is attributed to different factors. The elements are considered one of the significant issues that contributed to the rise of the modern world. The establishment of the existing social order is one of the features that have been employed in dealing with the required aspects that have been instrumental in defining the current world. The period of the crisis is attributed to the elements that have been employed towards addressing the crises that have developed in the long-term. The paper examines the different crises that have been instrumental in undermining the feudal system.
The feudal orders are considered to have been concentrated on the accidental disintegration that has been thought to lead to unnecessary conflicts among the different classes. The fall of the feudal system is considered to have affected the social economic and political order that is being witnessed in the current world. The general crisis is, therefore, one of the critical factors that have led to the rise of the communal aspects that has been the cornerstone of the issues related to the fundamental foundations. The identified inherent weaknesses have been instrumental in determining the unique factors that led to the current crises and expressions.
The fall of feudalism is considered one of the significant issues that have been developed with the aim of looking into the unique factors that have defined the European populations. The end of the perceived mediocrity and stagnation among the populace is one of the critical aspects used to determine the changes that led to the ultimate purpose of feudalism. The subsequent period after the 14th century played a vital role in defining the changes that occurred in society (Glassman 1698). The decay of the medieval society is also one of the critical factors that have led to the fast-changing aspects of growth and depression. The particular civilization was undermined by the intellectual doubts that were rising at an incredible rate. The weakening social and moral rot that was characteristic of the civilized societies that eroded the political foundation.
The general picture was seen even though the disentangled perspectives were reduced substantially. The obscurity associated with the perceived image that was used to define the system of feudalism was poisoned by the demographic concerns that existed. The increased population in the periods before the 12thand the 13th century provided the perfect ground for the development of feudalism (Castles 10). The emergence of Black Death at the beginning of the 14th century was critical in initiating the decline. Significant sectors of the economy such as agriculture were significantly affected. The lad was particularly touched, and cultivation could not occur anymore.
The decline led to the fall of the ruling class that was unable to withstand the changing prospects. A focus on the verdict class depicted inability to exert their control on the people making it difficult for the people to understand the differences that appeared in the system. The aspect led to the fall in the profits making it difficult for them to exert their control on the working class (Castles 7). The contraction of the seigneurial revenues meant that the feudal system was soon going to diminish its capabilities on the people. The aspect was characterized by the fall of the market for imported goods that were the key drivers of the European industries. One of the most affected was the textile industry that was later attributed to political causes. The tendency for the diminishing prospects was thus a significant contributor to the market drivers that were substantial issues in the lives of the people.
In conclusion, the stagnation is perceived to have been a long grown fruit of the feudal system, and the people could not change it. The risk of error associated with the system led to the emergence of the associated innovations that were attributed to the crucial issues that were associated with the development processes. The advent of the social conflicts was one of the great pointers to the items that needed to be treated with the concerted effort to drive the reliable processes on the different aspects of political, social and economic problems.
Cite this page
The Decline of Feudalism. (2019, Feb 15).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
The Rise of Feudalism in England
The heightened sense of loyalty, allegiance, and homage that developed across England throughout the early 11th century was greatly influenced by the rise of the feudal system across Medieval Europe. An interpretation of the events throughout the evolution of feudalism is presented in the novel, The Rise of Feudal Monarchies, written by Sidney Painter and published in 1951. Her elucidation of the events is closely related to the ideas of Carl Stephenson, who communicated similar ideas in his 1965 novel, Medieval Feudalism. The authors similarly discuss the emergence of the feudal system, presenting that the interpretation of the feudal conditions in England remain consistent and unvarying between the years 1951 and 1965.
The inception of Feudalism in England derives from the Norman Conquest, initiated in 1066 and expedited to enforce the decentralized governmental policies of France. William the Conqueror, the former Duke of Normandy, set out to conquest control over England, and spread his ideas of reform. As William brings his ideas of a successful feudal system with him to the throne, the previous disorganized styles of government would be abolished. (Painter 44) An example of the policies that derived from French authority can be exemplified by the source created in 1110, “The Charter of Homage and Fealty”, created by Bernard Atton who was a viscount of Carcassonne. The oath details, “Moreover, I acknowledge that I hold from thee and from the said monastery as a fief the castle of Termes in Narbonne; and in Miner-ve the castle of Ventaion, and the manors of Cassanolles, and of Ferral and Aiohars; and in Le Rogs, the little village of Longville; for each and all of which I make homage and fealty with hands and with mouth to thee my said lord abbot Leo and to thy successors, and I swear upon these four gospels of God that I will always be a faithful vassal to thee and to thy successors and to St. Mary of Grasse in all things in which a vassal is required to be faithful to his lord, and I will defend thee, my lord, and all thy successors, and the said monastery and the monks present and to come and the castles and manors and all your men and their possessions against all malefactors and invaders, at my request and that of my successors at my own cost; and I will give to thee power over all the castles and manors above described, in peace and in war, whenever they shall be claimed by thee or by thy successors” (Charter of Homage and Fealty). This pledge was an oath of loyalty to his lord Leo, and in situations like this and other ones similar, the aptitude and strength of the oath would determine the benefice of the subordinate. Throughout this excerpt, the speaker detailed the land and castles that he is interested in, in return for his loyalty and service. The benefice to the vassal, if his oath is reviewed and approved, is the desired land, castles, or monuments. This approval was determined by the level of devotion in the ideas offered by the vassals within their pledges. A subordinate must offer enough service to the lord, often including military obligations and a measurement of their wealth. Both state and society became dominated by agriculture. The methods of the feudal system were monopolizing and engrossing, but evidence supports that it was seemingly necessary to create an established military, and thus creating a systematic way to achieve this was necessary as well. (Stephenson 6-8). Vassals often would have had to offer their own self to guard and fortify the lord, and in order to protect him and his successors, they would have had to recruit and allocate other members of the militia. Beneficially, this landed a stronger sense of commitment and devotion between the different levels and members of the social hierarchy, and the collection of knights from the lower social classes may have provided the idea of belonging. Evidence also concludes that members of England society believed they could influence figures of authority through wealth, land, and social rank and thus strived to become powerful members of society. (Painter 44-45). In Bernard Atton’s, “Charter of Homage and Fealty” of 1110, the extent of devotion that this subordinate expressed was presented to and considered by his lord Leo.
Another excerpt that details the France origin of Feudalism is the oeuvre, “Modus Faciendi Homagium & Fidelitatem (The Manner of Doing Homage & Fealty), c. 1275”. The text expounds, “When a Freeman shall do Homage to his Lord of whom he holds in Chief, he shall hold his hands together between the hands of his Lord, and shall say thus: "I become your Man from this day forth, for life, for member, and for worldly honor, and shall [owe] you Faith for the Lands that I hold of you; saving the Faith that I owe unto our Lord the King, and to [mine other Lords.]…. I become your Man from this day forth, and shall bear you Faith for the Tenement which I claim to hold of you; saving the Faith that I owe to our Lord the King, and to my other Lords” (Modus Faciendi Homagium & Fidelitatem (The Manner of Doing Homage & Fealty), c. 1275). There is a deep-rooted fidelity and devotion presented in the excerpt, utilizing phrases such as “worldly honor”, “become your man”, and a frequent repetition of the word “faith”. This tonality indicated an eagerness to offer devout services to Lord, exchanging their loyalty for a higher rank in society or an improved, reformed disposition. It was easy to enforce the policies of the feudal system due to the lack of a decentralized government prior to the reforms. A strong sense of leadership was established and although the conditions weren’t always ideal for the dependent peasantry, England became unified under a compound belief system.
The inclination towards structured feudal systems in England was presented in Sidney Painter’s 1951 work of literature, The Rise of Feudal Monarchies, and such ideas were expressed similarly by Carl Stephenson in 1965 in his work, Medieval Feudalism. The progression towards a systematic feudal system is portrayed very similarly between the two novels, and evidence from the texts indicates that the interpretation has not significantly changed over time. In Sidney Painter’s work, The Rise of the Feudal Monarchies, the author proclaims that the idea of Feudalism originally derives from “Germanic” customs many years prior. Painter asserts that “the royal power rested on three bases. Each King had a small group of men, bound to him by special oaths of loyalty, who served as his officials and bodyguards. Clearly a later form of the Germanic Chieftain’s Comitatus” (Painter 1). The author indicates that social classes were put into a hierarchy regarding their wealth, stability, and devotion to their lord. William of Normandy brought these policies with him as he conquered England and overrode the previous governmental ideals. In “1066 William, Duke of Normandy, invaded England, defeated and killed King Harold, and subdued the whole country. William had been brought up in a feudal environment, was the head of a great French fief, and was followed to England by men who were equally imbued with feudal ideals” (Painter 44). William believed that England required a heavier military bases and sought to establish the feudal system in order to create this. King Henry, successor and son of William the Conqueror, sought to expand the civil courts, promote new methods of jurisdiction, and further establish new processes for obtaining land. As Henry was trying to build himself up as king and figure of authority, his desire for power imploded. Following the implosion of his power, there was a dynamic change in the methods of jurisdiction. Previously, an individual who expressed their case in the court would have been severely penalized and many crimes would go unpunished. Reformed policies sought to reform these standards and required proper judicial decision to be completed in order to distribute land. These reforms also set to combat the contention and aggression found in the trials for land. Evidence throughout Painter’s work continues to support that under the reign of both King William and his successor King Henry, one's wealth and amount of land determined their worth and position in society. To exemplify further, Painter asserts that an individual could, “purchase an order moving the trial to the king’s court. Then the sheriff levied a jury of 24 knights, called a “grand assize,” who were to investigate the question and be ready to state in court which party was in the right” (Painter 60). This details that through the power of wealth, people could purchase trials to further investigate their worthiness of the land.
In the 1965 work of Carl Stephenson, Medieval Feudalism, the author expresses ideas similar to those of Sidney Painter. Stephenson also firmly asserts that the idea derived from German culture, “comitatus”, was relevant to the development of Feudalism across Europe. To exemplify, Stephenson states, “comitatus is heard of again and again in the later centuries among the Goths, the Franks, the Lombard's, the Anglo-Saxons, and even in the Vikings of Scandanavia” (Stephenson 8). Detailing the spread of the feudal system throughout parts of Europe, this quote helps assert that Anglo-Saxon England began with the emergence of William the Conqueror to power in 1066. This allowed England to be introduced to a new style of government and rule, a style that was initially presented in Germanic customs and spread to places like France and England. Stephenson continues to assert this further when he states, “Clientage, involving no military service and implying anything but social inequality was utterly unlike the German comitatus” (Stephenson 6). This enforces that the “comitatus” structure entailed and introduced a stronger connection to military service and established social hierarchies. Stephenson asserts through this that the evolution of the feudal system in England is cultured by the ideas and practices of other rulers and places. Furthermore, Stephenson contends that “the most successful were those whose rulers maintained the best armies and the strongest administration. In such an environment feudal institutions continued to thrive because they provided a simple and practical means of government” (Stephenson 16). Detailing the reasons why feudalism was necessary in environments like England, this excerpt holds significance as it reveals similarities between the ideas of Sidney Painter and Carl Stephenson. Both Stephenson and Painter assert that feudalism was a heuristic, feasible form of governmental and military structure. The power of wealth in society is also mentioned in Stephenson’s, Medieval Feudalism. The author states that the “population tended to be sharply divided into two classes: an aristocracy of landlords and an economically dependent peasantry” (8). This section of the text illustrates that the peasantry was economically dependent on the other classes, including landlords, and that without this economic independence the peasantry had much lower levels of power and significance. This deepens the idea that state and society were monopolized by agriculture and wealth.
Both Sidney Painter in her work, The Rise of Feudal Monarchies, and Carl Stephenson in his work, Medieval Feudalism, interpret the events summarizing the rise of feudal systems in medieval England under the reign of William the Conqueror and his successor, King Henry. Both authors assert that feudalism is derived from Germanic customs, known as Comitatus, that wealth and ownership of land insinuate power, and that the installment of feudal systems were necessary to create a strong military.
Cite this page
The Rise of Feudalism in England. (2019, Feb 15).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Feudalism in Germany
For this project I have chosen to cover the topic of feudalism in Germany. Feudalism was the dominant social system in medieval Europe. Feudalism came about due to Roman client ship and Germanic social hierarchy of lords and retainers. It started in the eighth century and ended in the twelfth century. It is really just a mutual agreement between a lord and the people under him. It was an agreement that helped each person usually get a benefit out of the process. For example in exchange for some land and protection, vassals had to give a certain amount of military service. This gave security to the vassals and a good amount of financial benefits to the lord. In the line of superiority it went the lords, vassals, and then serfs. The serfs were peasants who worked on the land and gave them goods and taxes to the lords and vassals.
They had to do this in exchange for being able to live on the land provided by the lords. There were many different feudalist run communities and sometimes the lords would be corrupt and wouldn’t give the serfs what they had previously agreed to do because the serfs had no say at all in the government and the way that it was ran. A good thing about feudalism is that it brought good stability. A bad thing is that the serfs had no rights or independence and the church and the lords ran all of the legal stuff in the countries. Feudalism ended because of a bunch of social changes that took place. Beginning with increased trade which allowed the peasants to leave the lords land and earn their own income. There was a huge reliance on land that was used to determine how the economy ran and when that all changed to let the lower class citizens are able to provide for themselves the feudalism faded away. The national leader during this time was the Holy Roman Emperor and the Catholic Church basically ran the whole country.
The nation’s leader did help encourage feudalism because they also took part in it. They helped set the lords up with high positions in the government so that way they could control how the country was being run and what laws were out into place to protect themselves. This kind of helped set them up to do what I mentioned previously about the lords being able to do what they wanted because really there was no one that could stop them.
In conclusion, feudalism was a very specific type of government that is only able to operate under certain circumstances. Due to those circumstances changing the style of government slowly died away leading to the more modern approaches to government. Although there isn’t a government currently calling itself a feudalist type of style many styles of governments used today are based off of common views that are seen within the feudalistic style of government.
Cite this page
Feudalism in Germany. (2019, Feb 15).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Robert Frost’s Poems Analysis
Robert Lee Frost was an award winning American poet. He was an extremely successful poet that was known as a tragic poet. Frost uses ordinary speech in his poetry in hopes of making sense to readers and uses a lot of ordinary, everyday situations in his poetry. Even after dealing with much tragedy in his life Frost was able to write beautiful and unforgettable poetry. Robert Frost uses great imagery, symbols, and themes in his poems. His poems show a very clear, vivid picture of what is happening is occurring and do not leave readers with questions.
Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken” is a bittersweet poem and was written in 1916. In this poem most of the imagery is visual. Frost uses imagery to describe the setting throughout the poem. “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood” (line 1). Right away the reader is able to visualize that the season is fall since the woods are yellow. Robert Frost chose a very relatable, understanding topic for this poem and a common matter people have to deal with. The theme is major decision making and what path to choose at the crossroads. “And sorry I could not travel both” (line 2). Although the marvelous outcome isn’t always clear this poem shows that you have to make the decision with confidence. The diverged roads symbolize the adventure life takes you on. “Because it was grassy and wanted wear” (line 8), symbolizes that the narrator wants to take on an adventure unusual from what he or she would normally do.
“Fire and Ice” is a poem about destruction written in 1923. It is a short, but powerful poem as Robert Frost shows us that both fire and ice can be destructive. The imagery is displayed in the fire and ice, too much of heat or cold can be powerful and destroy. In moderation both are pleasant and appealing. Fire symbolizes desire and ice symbolizes hatred. Frost is showing a possibility of how the world can end in this poem from destructive people. “Some say the world will end in fire / Some say in ice” (line 1-2). The destructive people being the ones that have the desire to do potentially harming activities and cold feelings like fire and ice. Destructive desires could be polluting the world and harming people. “As the speaker indicates by the end of the poem, both emotions and conditions are potentially violent and sufficient to destroy the world” (Explanation of: “Fire and Ice”).
“Mending Wall” was written in 1914 and describes a wall that separates neighbors. In a way the wall brings the neighbors together but it separates them more than anything. The only way it brings them together is the annual repairing of the stone wall. “I have come after them and made repair” (line 6). The theme of this poem is the unnecessary separation humans create between each other. The narrator doesn’t seem too sure of the tradition of repairing the stone wall and the narrator views the wall as useless and a hassle. “There where it is we do not need the wall” (line 23). The stone wall is the principal symbol of this poem and it represents the physical and psychological barrier between the neighbors. The gaps in the poem represent openings that could lead to new experiences. “Frost mischievously navigates through the many meanings and functions of boundaries; how they separate, unite, and ultimately, how they might mend” (Perlow and Furman).
In conclusion, all three of these poems written by Robert Frost have completely different meanings but all three are clear, visual stories. Frost’s poetry has to be some of the most easily understood poetry and he doesn’t lack a use of imagery, theme, or symbols in his poetry. Robert Frost uses a major sense of reality throughout his poetry and embraces real world problems in his writing, which I’m sure is why many people consider him one of the greatest American poets of the twentieth century.
Cite this page
Robert Frost's Poems Analysis. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Consequences of Genetically Modified Organisms
Genetically modified organisms pose a series of beneficial factors, yet - at what risk? Companies like Monsanto are booming in the global market as these chemicals and modified seeds are seen as a fix-all solution for better crop production, yet studies show that their impact on the environment may be greater than some believe. Genetically modified foods have been on the market since the early 1990’s. Today most foods in the United States contain GM ingredients. GM foods helps impoverished and developing countries, are more nutritional than traditional foods, yet attribute to negative effect in biodiversity, and may cause harmful health effects. World leaders should make an effort to find a balanced medium for both organic and modified organisms.
GM foods helps impoverished and developing countries. Countries with the opportunity to grow genetically modified foods are able to feed their low-income citizens and keep them from malnutrition. The world population has topped 7 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. The food and drug administration or FDA, has approved over 40 seeds and plants for genetic modification. These genetically modified seeds are the only answer to this growing population. This means more for the common people, because when there is mass production of an object prices tend to lower. In Africa for example, the benefits outweigh the harms. Keep in mind that genetically modified crops help increase yields and reduce input costs thus, growing more food in less time, with less money, and labor. This could be a huge step towards a solution to end starvation in Africa. These foods will not only produce to be more in quantity but can also have a longer shelf life with less labor and natural materials (water, soil, and energy) to produce. These modified food crops can produce the needed better nutritional foods that African people need. It gives an increase in food security for the developing and starving Africa (IUNS).
Genetically modified foods have been engineered to become tolerant of pesticides and herbicides. This in turn creates an issue as farmers are able to spray their fields, without fear of ruining their crop. The usage of chemicals in today’s agricultural industry has allowed for the mass production of crops at a lower rate of corruption due to the absence of rodents, and insects that normally would destroy fields. The industry has multiplied its usage of pesticides over the past decade, however the past decade has also seen that bee populations have been on a rapid decline. Pollinators such as honeybees, have a much greater impact on the environment, and even world. Scientists have dubbed the phenomenon Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD,(vanEngelsdorp) and have been searching frantically for a cause. A direct link to glyphosate can be seen as a cause. The active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, (Motta) can disrupt learning behaviors in honeybees and severely impair long-term colony performance. The loss of pollinators like the honeybee will have disastrous effects on the global food supply. Pesticides can reach human consumption. A study found glyphosate in nearly 70% of rivers and streams they tested in the Midwest (Scribner). Glyphosate is a powerful pesticide. This means new bees will likely have lower overall foraging rates, which could have long-term negative consequences on colony performance. In fact, it could lead to the disappearance of the colony altogether. For humans, the pesticides can even lead to birth defects. Another study found glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Round-Up pesticide in mothers breast milk (Sustainable Pulse).
Works Cited
Engelsdorp, Dennis et al. “A Survey of Honey Bee Colony Losses in the U.S., Fall 2007 to Spring 2008.” Ed. Nick Gay. PLoS ONE 3.12 (2008): e4071. PMC. Web. 22 Oct. 2018.
Scribner, E.A., Battaglin, W.A., Dietze, J.E., and Thurman, E.M., 2003, Reconnaissance data for glyphosate, other selected herbicides, their degradation products, and antibiotics in 51 streams in nine Midwestern States, 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-217, 101 p.
Battaglin, W.A., Thurman, E.M., Kolpin, D.W., Scribner, E.A., Sandstrom, M.W., and Kuivila, K.M., 2003, Work plan for determining the occurrence of glyphosate, its transformation product AMPA, other herbicide compounds, and antibiotics in midwestern United States streams, 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-69, 18 p.
Motta, Erick V. S., et al. “Glyphosate Perturbs the Gut Microbiota of Honey Bees.” PNAS, National Academy of Sciences, 9 Oct. 2018, www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10305.
Sustainable Pulse. “World's Number 1 Herbicide Discovered in U.S. Mothers' Breast Milk.” Sustainable Pulse, 27 Apr. 2014, sustainablepulse.com/2014/04/06/worlds-number-1-herbicide-discovered-u-s-mothers-breast-milk/#.W83dUy-ZMUF.
Iuns. “Statement on Benefits and Risks of Genetically Modified Foods for Human Health and Nutrition · International Union of Nutritional Sciences.” International Union of Nutritional Sciences, 8 May 2012, www.iuns.org/2012/05/statement-on-benefits-and-risks-of-genetically-modified-foods-for-human-health-and-nutrition/.
Cite this page
Consequences of Genetically Modified Organisms. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
GM Foods Research Paper
Have anyone ever wonder about GMO's and whether it is safe when reading a label saying generic energetic. The government or FDA should regulate whether these are safe to eat or put in the kitchen. FDA doesn't regulate with GMO because of the safety and the danger that is in it. GMO's should be banned because they are not safe. Also, GMO'S are harmful toward people health. Although banning it may be possible or not because of the profit they have off these companies using the GMO's. Lastly, GMO's should be regulated and be banned from the market. Think about the last meal that you ate. When thinking about the meal and how much GMO’s is consumed. While researching about 57% of GMO have been consumed and put into most food products. So are GMO foods safe to eat? GMO food wouldn’t be safe because it is used's in biotechnology by having generic energetic chemical genes into it. Also, GMO'Should is banned because it causes a health problem in the environment, for example having cancer.
Also, these companies just want to make money and the hideout the fact and the dangerous chemicals found in GMO products. GMO’S foods are dangerous to the environment because they are harmful and bad for people’s health. While researching I found that GMO is one of the causes of cancer and different diseases that most people have in their health. Also, this is bad for the environment because it has theses Generic chemical that can cause damages to a person body. Also, it is harmful because it is unnatural and contaminated with a chemical that keeps it from being dead. In addition, this is harmful because it brings allergen, toxins, and many diseases. Also, this is dangerous because it can kill someone by consuming so much. GMO’S are risky for human health because the health problems it can brings and give diseases . This is because when GMO are contaminated into the plant and an organism consume the GMO it cause the human genes to change, and health risk. For example the nutrients when they are not organic it can brings type of diseases like cancer because of the toxics put. Also, this can also be risky because when bugs try to eat the plant they died very quickly, this is how you know how dangerous these GMOs is. Also, this can cause new diseases to erupt. Like for example like how is it every year many get sick and died. This is because these chemicals put into our foods.
In addition, this is harmful because the GMO product being spray is toxic. Like for example, the food allergen like the soybean, peanut, eggs, milk, fish, shellfish these all contains the GMO. Like for example my sister when she ate regular peanut when she was young. But when she had organic peanut butter she was fine that being sick. But when she ate the regular peanut butter brought in the store she started having an allergic reaction like being sick. So form this I sometimes this is why I also might have these allergies, asthma and getting sick most the time I wonder. Also in my research, I read that GMO’S also affects the endocrine system. Also while researching I also read that these GMO create common and new diseases like for example shortness of growth, organ damage, reproductive disorder. The effect on human health with GMO'S was first noticed by farmers. Also, this is a problem because most of the GMO'S food that has genetically modified food have the chemical into most dairy, oil, and peanut products and its effect human by giving allergic reactions. So I would say GMO company should just stop affecting foods because it is not right and it’s wrong. GMO’S crop plant is damage because of the environment and polluting with it chemicals and affecting it to keeps pesticides insect away.
Also GMO crop plants ability to trigger allergies in human. Also, GMO’s are damage the environment because the Gene and the chemical that is transferred to another organism it affects bodies by different new diseases are happening. For example look when they said about the Ebola virus for about a few months in the news and now you don't hear anything about it anymore. Sometimes I think about now how these health problems keep happening at different times. Also, I would say it is very harmed because it is not an organic nutrition product it is a product with added chemicals transfers into to it. The way this can be harmful to our body is by how the GMO is sprayed into it and contaminate to whatever we mostly eat. GMO’s food being sold in the market is a big impact to most this is why because of the prices. Like for example when you go inside a store most foods have a different price like some are high and some are low. GMO'S also affect the market most of its products are either less like a millennial is 3.49 at the store. Also, this is an impact because the world largest distribution of crop form GMO is the Monsanto company. This type of company is a company gets seeds and use it as a herbicide and weed killer. "Mostly 27% of genetically modified crops made in the world come from a farmer that uses their seeds ( Kimbrell).”
This explains how the Monsanto company they are just taking farmers seed and use it for dangerous purposes just to make money. Most people fear of buying GMO food because the Monsanto company are afraid to put a label on their food because of the chemicals the try to hide about their company. In addition, these companies build more profit to the richest companies by using their crop and using it for weed killer. However, while they use the seed and take it to make their money. I would say these GMO companies are trying to pursue more danger to the world by contaminating these plant crops. Also, consumers who buy the crops should stop buying it because they don't know what they are putting into there bodies and selling it in stores. GMO’s should be banned if they not going to label there products because people want going to a store want to know what they eat. People have noticed there products are not labeled they could be sued by a lot of people because their foods haven't been proven safe. Their food is harmful and it is not nutritional because it chemical gm sprayed into the plant of organism gene the is very unsafe. Also, I think banning the companies would business shut down and no more GMO's.
Like for example how they say these companies use the GMO in their products just to make money. I would say if we spread the word about the GMO are being produced and they have chemicals into them by this they can be shut down because if people knew the danger of it GMO won't be in the store anymore and it would get banned. Also, they should ban these GMO's because these Gene are altered into these organisms and it is unpredictable because of the chemical polluting Some argue that GMO food is good from the part of the world with hunger. Also, some would argue that GMO food is a good benefit for us human to get our vitamins but eventually it not. Also, most argue that GMO is saying that these chemicals they put into the seeds will help but it just bring birth and it is going across the world before most of the world know about it, it will get to late because not most know about the GMO. Also, some argue that gm tampering with our foods it a good idea because it brings better tastes to the food and flavor. Also, some argue that the GMO's are lie fraud for their plant crops they are contaminating.
Also, some argue that there is a little safety of GMOs and safeguard band against GMO because of their lack of evidence to there crops and they refuse to introduce what is put in to proven safe. Also, some argue there are many countries who ban gm foods. From this, it means clear that gm food is dangerous and not safe. Also, some argue that GMO should be regulated before put their food products out there and at least put a labeling on it so we can know what goes into our bodies. In conclusion companies with GMO's should be regulated by these chemicals they put into the food. They need to think about the chemical they putting into the food because they the ones buying it and eating too. Also, these companies should think about people health and nutrition because there a new disease and common diseases happening now to people in the world because of these GMOs. Also, these companies are putting the danger of GMO out to the environment and most are worried because they want to know what they eat if safe or is it something that going to bring health problems later in life.
Cite this page
GM Foods Research Paper. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Genetically Modified Organisms in Food
Over the last few years, the food we eat has changed drastically. One of the reasons for this change is because of the introduction of GMOs into the farming industry. Many people are lead to believe that GMOs are safe but upon further examination, it’s become very apparent that not only are they unsafe but that the impacts they have had on our world have been negative. This is important because of the fact that GMOs affect everyone’s daily life and people should learn to be aware of the effects GMOs have. The food we choose to eat impacts not only ourselves and the environment around us but also the businesses we choose to buy the foods from. Because GMOs have negative consequences we should refrain from using them in order to bring down the companies who produce them, help the environment, and stay healthy. Many people don’t know what GMO stands for, a GMO is a genetically modified organism. In the words of Rebecca Rissman, who is an award-winning author, “Scientists have discovered how to make small changes to the genes of different organisms. Doing this alters how the organisms grow, look and behave” (6).
The first GMO ever approved for human consumption was in 1994 and it was the Flavr Savr tomato, which was genetically modified to remain firm longer (Rissman 23). Since then GMOs have become more and more popular which has caused their negative impacts to begin taking shape. Many people actively try to avoid GMOs because of both the known as well as unknown effects it has. There has been very little research done about GMOs and we are in the processes of doing more research but the fact of the matter is GMOs are already affecting us in a bad way. America is the largest producer of GMOs (isaaa.org). According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications in 2017 America had 75 million hectares of biotech crops compared to China’s 2.8 million and Mexico’s 0.1 million (isaaa.org). From 2016 to 2017 the United States of America grew 2.1 million more hectares of biotech crops, proving that this is a growing industry (isaaa.org). But this isn’t good, we need to be slowing down the rate of GMOs for a large number of reasons, all of which are important.
Perhaps the worst damage GMOs have caused is by the companies who produce GMOs themselves. Monsanto is a chemical company that owns most of the world’s GM Food (Food Inc). According to Food Inc, they have a team of investigators that’s sole purpose is to find reasons to sue farmers that don’t buy from them and that use the seed saving process. In fact, they have a list of names of all the farmers they are after. A book about GMOs written by Andy Rees who is a scientist at PML, the world’s leader in the science of measurement, proves there are many cases of Monsanto suing innocent farmers (87-88). Percy Schmeiser was one of them. He’s a 73-year-old farmer from western Canada who uses the seed saving technique (Rees 87-88). He’s also doesn't use GM seeds, meaning he’s a non-GMO farmer but his fields got contaminated with GMO seeds (Rees 87-88). Even after he tried to contain the GM contamination with considerable costs to himself by buying all new seeds, 20 percent of his harvest was still contaminated (Rees 87-88). Monsanto caught wind of this and took him to court where they won costing Schmeiser 25 years of research and his life savings of $600,000 (Rees 87-88).
This was because of the fact that they considered him liable regardless of his means of contamination deliberate or accidental (Rees 87-88). Meaning that all contaminated plants as if by some convenient corporate magic spell suddenly become the property of Monsanto the farmers have no rights (Rees 87-88). They later admitted that Schmeiser had not obtained the seeds illegally but said that wasn’t important (Rees 87-88). Food Inc pointed out that because of the fact that Monsanto is a huge company they are able to hire the best lawyers, compared to a farmer who can’t afford a very good lawyer. Rodney Nelson, a farmer in America commented on their unfortunate situation, “We were told that if a farmer represents a field of soybeans to be non-GMO and Monsanto finds as little as one plant that tests positive in that field they may consider that patent infringement” (Rees 89). He then continues on to talk about the fact that all of the major soybean supplies are going to be contaminated with Monsanto’s seeds (Rees 89-90). This means that Monsanto could easily have a case in the courts eyes against all of the non-GMO soy farmers at least within America alone (Rees 90-90).
There are many more cases like this, which sends fear into the farmers and scares them away from both telling the truth and using non-GMO seeds. Monsanto is slowly getting rid of the non-GMO farmers by either making them switch to GMO seeds or suing them. Farmers feel as though their only way of avoiding getting sued by Monsanto is to stop non-GMO farming (Rees 89). To do so the farmer has to be bound by a harsh contract that is hard to get out of where Monsanto can come in without their permission to check on them and make sure they are doing exactly as Monsanto wants (Rees 89). Not only this but GM farmers are having to pay more for their seeds, around 40-60 percent more (Rees 89). One of the worst parts of these cases is after it’s all said and done the farmers aren’t legally allowed to say anything, as Monsanto is (Rees 87). Monsanto then turns the farmers into the villains for the public eye even though Monsanto themselves are the true monsters (Rees 87). The number of environmental effects GMOs cause are shocking. Many people question their non-target effects.
In The Case For Regulating Intragenic GMOs by Wendy Russell and Robert Sparrow, they explain that introducing these genetically modified organisms may result in many unpredicted effects because it’s difficult to understand the impact it could have on a complex social structure. One example of this comes from a Bt protein that could have a non-target effect on a variety of different insects or even microorganisms that live within the soil (Russell, Sparrow 171). To build onto this, a fish that has been genetically modified to be bigger could then feed on larger prey and have fewer predators, changing the ecosystem and challenge other wild fish as well as beat out the competition and might cause extinction for other animals. (Russell, Sparrow 172). On top of that horizontal gene transfer may occur. Horizontal gene transfer, according to Russell and Sparrow is “genes that were introduced by gene technology into one organism being transferred to other organisms” then they go on to explain that horizontal gene transfer happens quite frequently in bacteria (171).
A good example of this is the “Daughterless Carp” Project. The goal of this was to reduce the number of carps by turning off a sex development gene which would prevent the carps from becoming female. This would work because they all start off as male and this particular gene is what causes some of them to turn female (Russell, Sparrow 157). By reducing the number of females it would, therefore, reduce the number of offspring, leading to fewer carps (Russell, Sparrow 157). The researchers involved admitted that this may be subject to horizontal gene transfer to native fish which would defeat the purpose of protecting the native species and the ecosystems (Russell, Sparrow 172). Also because of this horizontal gene transfer as well as cross-pollination between HT crops and weeds it creates weeds that are resistant to herbicides (Rees 61). This is causing farmers to have to use stronger herbicides in order to get rid of the weeds (Rees 61). This is then defeating one of the purposes of GMOs, which would be to use fewer herbicides and pesticides.
These weeds that are becoming resistant are called superweeds. Martin Entz, a professor of Agronomy at the University of Manitoba admitted that one superweed, GM canola, has expanded faster than they expected and that it's no longer possible to control (Rees 61). It's very clear that the environmental impacts caused by GMOs are not only overwhelming but they are simply inexcusable. GMOs are also dangerous to human health. In the documentary by Food Inc., Barbara Kowalcyk, a food safety advocate witnessed the damage GMOs can cause when her 2-year-old son Kevin got E-Coli from eating meat and died within 12 days. She went through a lot of trouble to be able to find out the cause of her son’s death, which was the meat he had eaten and the company didn’t end up recalling the meat until 16 days after her son had already died (Food Inc.). According to Barbara Peterson, E-Coli is a bacteria that lives inside of our stomachs but within the cloning process of GMOs, it can mutate to a new strand that’s harmful to humans and it can get into the plants that humans eat, such as lettuce, or plants (Mirchandani 1).
Also if an animal eats a plant with a GMO and then the human then eats that same animal with the gm meat they can also get E-Coli (Mirchandani 1). One of the problems with this is that if one cow has it from eating say, GMO corn, all the other cows will get it from that one single cow’s manure, contaminating all the cow’s meat (Food Inc). This problem needs to be addressed before even more lives are lost. Russell and Sparrow also touch on the risks humans are taking by eating GMO foods. When someone inserts or deletes a gene it changes the product which can do a number of things including increasing, “the toxicity, allergenicity, and/or carcinogenicity” (170). Building onto that, some of the new products being created may have not ever been consumed by humans and no one has any idea how this could affect us (Russell, Sparrow 170). Not to mention the problem that antibiotic resistance GMOs are causing within humans. There is an Antibiotic Resistant Marker (ARM) that is used in the creation of GMOs in order for the scientist to see which cells have the new genetic material (Rees 75).
When GM food is eaten though, this cell may be able to pass into the host’s system (Rees 75). While this may not seem like an issue, at first sight, the ARM gene is antibiotic resistant, which could result in diseases within humans that are resistant to treatment (Rees 75). This is a concern for many doctors like Dr. Michael Antoniou, “The possibility is that someone who picked up antibiotic resistance through food and then fell ill… a medical antibiotic might not be effective” (Rees 75). Not only this but GMOs aren’t good for animals either, and animals don’t like GM food. According to the Soil Association, animals try to avoid GM food, “If a field contained GM and non-GM maize, cattle would always eat the non-GM first” (Rees 66). On top of that pig breeders found a steep decline in pig’s contraception rates after feeding their cows a genetically modified food called Bt maize (Rees 67). Furthermore, when one breeder decided to stop feeding their pigs the Bt maize and the pigs fertilization rates went back to normal (Rees 67).
GM animals are also abused in the way they are treated. Food Inc showed the way they are treated within their documentary. The animals lived in such a cramped space they died often (Food Inc). Chickens for example are being modified to grow faster and be fatter (Food Inc). Their bones and internal organs then aren’t able to keep up with how fast they are growing, causing many of the chickens to only be able to take a few steps (Food Inc). GMOs aren’t good for not only the humans eating them, but also the animals as well. The other side of this debate would try to insist that GMOs are helping feed our world’s population but this, simply put, isn’t true. Vaclav Smil, a University of Manitoba analyst, explained that we already have enough food to feed everyone the problem is that the richer countries are overproducing and the poor counties are under producing (Fromartz par. 8-14). If the food was better distributed to the poor countries there would be plenty for everyone. Working at Tim Hortons has been an eye-opening experience for me personally.
Tim Hortons is one of the slowest fast-food restaurants in America, and our store, in particular, is amongst the slowest of them all. Because of this, we make less food every day than the average fast food chain and at the end of the night are expected to throw away less food than a busier store. This makes sense because a busier store can afford to take more risks in overproducing than a smaller store that makes less money. Even with this being considered every night I throw away three large garbage bags so heavy they have to be double bagged so they won’t break. On top of this, I can hardly lift the bags into the dumpster. This is just one single restaurant compared to the millions within the U.S. alone. There is no reason to be making so much food only to let it go to waste. If rich countries were less wasteful it is very clear they would have plenty of food to feed the masses. Many people are curious as to why changes aren’t being made within our system but the answer is actually quite simple. According to Food Inc. changes aren’t being made because many of the people in the government work for these messed up companies.
For example, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto attorney and he was in charge of writing most of a case that allows companies to prevent farmers from saving those seeds (Food Inc). This is why there hasn’t been very much of a much political debate because for the last 25 years our government has been dominated by the industries they are supposed to be critiquing (Food Inc). But this doesn’t mean we can't make a change. Food Inc compares the current situation to that of the Tobacco industry. Tobacco companies used to be in control until the consumers began to rise up and that’s exactly what the consumer needs to do in this situation. They need to rise up and voice their opinions by not buying foods that contain GMOs and instead buy from local farmers. If something isn’t done before it’s too late everyone will be sitting in a disaster they created for themselves with no escape. At the top of the food chain will be Monsanto, looking down with swarms of money at the stupidity of the human race and laughing . Just the act of making well-informed purchases and thinking about where your money is truly going can help save the world from this crisis. We need to end GMOs before it’s too late.
Works Cited:
Fromartz, Samuel. Genetically Modified Foods Will Not Help Address the Global Food Crisis. , 2016.
“Pocket K No. 16: Biotech Crop Highlights in 2017.” Labeling GM Foods - Pocket K | ISAAA.org, 2016, www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/.
Rees, Andy. Genetically Modified Food: A Short Guide For the Confused, Pluto Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.umflint.edu/lib/umichigan/detail.action?docID=3386239.
Rissman, Rebecca. Genetically Modified Food. Abdo Publishing, 2016. EBSCOhost, libproxy.umflint.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e860xna&AN=978901&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Mirchandani, Aneela. “GMO Crops Produce Poisonous Gut E. Coli? Many Faces of an Important Bacterium.” Genetic Literacy Project, Genetic Literacy Project, 12 Jan. 2018, geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/30/gmo-crops-produce-poisonous-gut-e-coli-many-faces-of-an-important-bacterium/.
Kenner, Robert, et al. Food, Inc. Magnolia Pictures, 2009. “Pocket K No. 16: Biotech Crop Highlights in 2017.” Labeling GM Foods - Pocket K | ISAAA.org, 2018, www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/.
Russell, A. W., and Robert Sparrow. "The Case for Regulating Intragenic GMOs." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 21, no. 2, 2008, pp. 153-181.
Cite this page
Genetically Modified Organisms in Food. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Understanding Genetically Modified Organisms
Genetically Modified Organisms. Just the name sounds like something out of a science fiction novel.
There was a time when it was. Modified or altered DNA has always been a favorite subject in various novels, movies, and tv shows from the likes of Spiderman to the clone army of Star Wars. However thanks to modern technology, we have been able to copy and even edit the DNA of plants and animals. Possibly the most significant example of this is the Biotech industry; responsible for the creation of GMO crops.
At first glance, it seems to be the ideal solution for many problems in agriculture. Corn is modified to be toxic to harmful insects that eat up the farmer’s hard worked fields, a potato can be made to be more resistant to bruising than its natural counterpart, and crops can be edited to be bigger and therefore more appealing to customers. It also has been a long-standing claim that GMOs could be the key in solving world hunger. It sounds enticing, reasonable, and in a word ideal. However, are we entirely certain about the safety of the food we eat? To this day the DNA remains to be a subject we have hardly scratched the surface on, and are we really fully aware of the possible consequences of altering the basic building blocks of life? It is the answers to these questions that will reveal that we should stop producing GMO crops in America since they are an endangerment to our health, and to farming communities at home and abroad.
Thesis
Thesis: We should stop producing GMO crops in America since they are an endangerment to our health, and to farming communities at home and abroad.
History and Terms
In the past, humans had a hand in controlling what desired traits should be passed on through “artificial selection.” These terms, coined by Charles Darwin, describe the process of choosing the organisms with the most desired traits and allowing them to reproduce with others with the same desired traits. This process would result in the production of offspring that have the desired traits. While artificial selection is not what we typically consider GMO technology as we know it today, it contributes to the inspiration of modern biotech in the agricultural industry and the earliest example of humans tampering with genetics. It is through this process that what we know as corn today exists as well as the multiple variations of apples.
In 1973, Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen engineered the first successful genetically engineered organism. These two scientists developed a way to cut out a gene from one organism and insert it into another. A method that’s now used to create GMO crops.
After this discovery, the question of whether or not genetic engineering should be made legal in America was heavily debated and discussed by scientists, government officials, and lawyers in the Asilomar Conference of 1975 for three days. It was concluded at the end of those three days that the GE projects should be allowed to continue with certain guidelines in place.
Since 1975, genetic modification remained in the medical field for making medicines as well as experimentation only until 1987. In this year, Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomato became the first food crop to be approved for commercial production by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These modified tomatoes were inserted with a DNA sequence that inhibited production of a certain natural tomato protein that causes a tomato to go soft or show bruising, thus increasing its firmness and extending its shelf life in comparison to its natural counterpart.
In 1995 the first pesticide-producing crop was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A year later, Bt corn was approved, and now the majority of corn in the U.S. has the Bt toxin gene which makes the corn secrete its own toxins and thus makes the corn poisonous to various insects.
All of these products of genetic engineering were created using the same basic steps: identifying a trait of interest, isolating that genetic trait, inserting that trait into the genome of the desired organism, and then growing the engineered organism. However, there are also several different ways to change the DNA such as Protoplast Fusion; when two plant cells have their hard cell walls removed (Protoplasts) and a chemical called polyethylene is added which sticks the two cells together. Once stuck, chemicals are added to help the two cells combine and exchange genetic information to create a hybridized plant cell. Another is by Mutation Breeding which involves exposing plants or seeds to mutagenic agents, whether by ionization radiation or chemical components, to cause random changes in the DNA sequence. The most commonly used tactic is replacing or inserting genes within seed cells using “molecular scissors” called nucleases—enzymes which can to loosen, remove and add nucleotides. These nucleases are artificially engineered to insert desired genes into the genome of a crop. It is through this process that the Bt corn, which makes up the vast majority of America’s corn production, was created by slicing a gene from a bacteria that had the desired pesticide effect for insects and inserted into corn genes.
Proof #1
GMO crops are a threat to our physiological health. Hippocrates states ""Each of the substances of a man's diet acts upon his body and changes it in some way and upon these changes his whole life depends"". Whatever we eat, may it be ice cream from Marble Slab or French cuisine, affects the body whether good or bad. The immune and excretory system prevent and treat foreign toxins and bacteria that enter the human body. While the immune system neutralizes viruses and harmful bacteria, the excretory system sorts through the food we consume and removes the toxins or waste that enters the human system. The kidneys are a key organ in this system. They constantly filter and clean the bloodstream, thereby preventing waste build up or toxins from interfering with the natural functions of the body. But what happens if there are too many toxins for the kidneys to handle? Unfortunately, this can cause the kidneys to become overwhelmed to the point that they no longer function as they should. The Bt gene that is inserted into a crop such as corn may decrease the need for pesticides, however, the cost is the fact that now the genetically modified corn secretes its own toxins. It is these toxins that are harming primary organs like the kidney. According to an Austrian study, mice fed genetically modified corn had lower birth rates, fewer offspring that were also notably smaller, but most importantly was that it degraded how well their kidney and liver function and therefore make them more susceptible to disease. Even Monsanto, a biotech seed company, found that about 10% of rats fed their M0N89034 corn developed kidney damage and bladder stones, and one even died after two weeks. If these effects can be found in rats after only a few weeks of tests, it can be assumed that the same will happen in humans who consume a consistent diet of these GMO based foods. As more toxins are able to enter the bloodstream due to the kidney weakening, this will then harm the body’s immune system. This can cause allergic reactions as the body tries to rid the body of the alien toxin. In fact, it has been found that allergens have increased by more than 50% in the last 20 years: a statistic that follows the trend of the growing use of GMOs.This could be passed off as a coincidence, but the parallels are too significant to ignore.
There are also other chemicals that cause adverse health effects such as Aperture, (a common artificial sweetener, that increases lipids in the bloodstream and decreases biomolecules needed for essential functions in the cells. In particular, this creates dysfunction in the endothelial cells, cells that make up the skin and important for various secretion glands in the body, and about 40% of Americans consume Aspartame on a daily basis. While the immune and excretory systems are designed to keep the body healthy, the constant consumption of these foreign toxins only weaken these key systems and makes the other vital organs more susceptible to being infected.
In recent years, scientists have studied the organ, known as the Gut Microbiota, which plays such a significant role in the well being of our bodies that it has been dubbed the “2nd Brain” by various experts in microbiome research. Gut Microbiota is positive bacteria that thrive in the intestinal system and play a key part in the endocrine system at the molecular level. These bacteria control what hormones are created and secreted, which in turn impact changes and functions throughout the entire bodily system. If there are too few of these, the negative consequences of this can be extreme. Because the Gut Microbiota is in the intestines, this makes the microbiota exposed to toxins that enter the digestive system. Once enough Bt toxins have been run through the system, this can create a “leaky gut”. This is a condition ulcer from that act as “holes” in the intestines and allows waste and toxins into the bloodstream as well as kill off these vital microbiotas. If genetically engineered crops can wreak this much damage to the body, what could it be doing to our minds?
Proof 2
Consuming GMO products negatively influences and degrades our mental health. You may have heard idioms such as “hating someone’s guts”, or perhaps having a “gut reaction”. Or maybe you recall moments where you have had “butterflies in your stomach”. These idioms derive from the old idea that the gut houses the intuition or the innermost being of a person. According to modern research, this is actually true. Not only does the gut microbiota create and regulate hormones within the body, but it also influences the body’s neurons, of which 90% of these said neurons are located within the gut. It is here that the microbes interact with the neurons to create neurotransmitters including serotonin, acetylcholine, and histamine. Serotonin helps regulate sleep, appetite, mediate moods, and inhibit pain while acetylcholine controls the actual neural functions of the brain and histamine affects metabolism as well as controlling the body’s sleep/wake cycle. In order for neurotransmitters such as these to be produced, the body requires microbiota as well as a sufficient amount of nutrients. Once created, about 90% of these neurotransmitters are housed in the gut while the rest is sent to the brain. On the flip side, the brain can send signals to the gut through the vagus nerve which connects the two organs together. That is why if one feels something like anxiety, the “butterflies in my stomach” sensation arise from the brain releasing these negative signals to the gut.
The brain is an organ that hardly needs an introduction. It plays a vital role as the “control center” for the human body and is where we store our memories and knowledge we accumulate over the years. However, just like any other organ, the brain can get sick. According to the National Institute on Mental Health, about 44.7 million adults in America suffer some form of mental disease, while 10.4 million of the adults suffer a severe form of mental disorders. These statistics are significant when we consider the fact that we live in a country rich in medical research and facilities. A key factor that has played into this high number of mental disorders are GMOs. When the toxins from GMO foods like Bt kill off gut microbiota, this cuts off the brain’s key supplier of neurotransmitters and the decreased amount of neurotransmitters can disrupt or halt different brain functions. This can also kill off or make the neurotransmitters housed their ineffective once they are sent to the brain. Some of the immediate effects can be irregular sleep patterns, mood swings, and aggression. On the other hand, this can become severe enough to result in depression, anxiety disorders, and Parkinson's disease. Various GMO derived ingredients can also directly alter the already existing neurotransmitters, such as high fructose corn syrup which can disrupt the functions of the neurotransmitter dopamine: an essential neurotransmitter that controls movement as well as mood and the ability to learn. In the long term, disrupting dopamine can cause Parkinson’s disease and schizophrenia.
Of course, the brain has its own defenses against possible damage. One, for example, is the blood-brain barrier, which acts as a sort of gateway into the brain. It follows a strict system of ensuring which and what chemicals are allowed and blocked from entering the brain. However, a leaky gut causes antibodies to be released that attack the blood-brain barrier, thus allowing dangerous substances and chemicals to enter the brain. These chemicals also include the toxins from GMOs that can now directly harm and alter the brain. If GMOs were to be removed from the market, we could see a significant change in the number of people with mental disorders in America.
Proof #3
Growing genetically modified crops in America endanger neighboring farms and small farming communities around the world. Modern technology enables us to not only create GMOs but also track the DNA. This ensures that the GMO seed created by a biotech industry such as Monsanto is not stolen and planted by another farm or company. If this were to happen, the company has the right to sue for copyright infringement. Unfortunately, this has created several problems for farms with no intention to steal seed property.
In the present time at least, GMO seed is not sterile and can pollinate just like its natural counterpart once grown, whether through being carried by bees or by the wind. This is a problem for organic farmers or even other GMO farmers. If the pollen lands in their fields, they could grow the GMO seed illegally without realizing it. Once it discovered, they are susceptible to be sued or at the very least remove a large portion of their crop to rid the GMO in their field. This results in money and crop loss for the farmer for something that was not even their fault.
Two solutions have been proposed for this problem. One suggestion is to increase the distance between farms to prevent cross-pollination. However, pollen has been found to be able to spread for miles and even in some cases about 2-3 thousand miles. This indicates that protecting farms from unintentional piracy would be near impossible since it can also be safely concluded that no farmers are too eager to start trying to move their farmland. It demands too much time and money that none of them can afford. The second idea is the possibility of the use of GURT (Genetic Use Restriction Technology), otherwise known as “Terminator” or “Suicide” seeds. First developed in the 1980s, these types of seeds are designed to turn off or on a certain trait within the DNA. This technology was later used by the USDA and a small seed company called Delta who had sought a “genetic switch” in order to protect copyright on GMO seeds. At first glance, it seemed to be the ideal solution; The GMO crops would be edited using GURT to stop them from reproducing and thus allow farms to be able to coexist safely with a lesser likelihood of copyright issues. However, this had been counter argued with the fact that it would force farmers to get new seed every year as well and in turn make them heavily dependant on the seed corporations; something that can easily be taken advantage of as then the seed corporations could raise the seed price as much as they want to since the demand for seed would constantly be high. This reasoning banned the use of this technology in countries such as India and Monsanto pledged to not use terminator seeds in 1999.
The legal implications of GMOs, as well as the regulation process, are also questionable. Just like their natural counterparts, GMO crops or derived food must be approved by the FDA before being legally allowed to be grown and sold in the food market. According to the FDA, the process follows through three main steps; first, the GMO plant developers introduce their product to the FDA and the FDA, in turn, provides feedback for kinds of data that should be considered for the safety assessment. Second, the developers independently complete the safety assessment and submit a summary to the FDA. Finally, the FDA evaluates the information and ask questions such as “Does food from the GE plant contain a new toxin or allergen?” or “Is food from the GE plant as nutritious as that from its traditionally bred counterpart?”. Once all of the data can “logically support the conclusion that food from the new plant variety will be as safe as food from conventionally bred varieties” it is allowed by the FDA and dubbed as safe. However, there is a key flaw in this regulation system that’s too large to overlook. According to the regulation process, it’s the developer that assesses the safety of the product and the FDA merely evaluates the information given and decide based on it. Meaning, they would have to trust that the developers are telling the truth. Suppose the developers did happen to find a new toxin or allergen in their product but lied and told the FDA that their product was completely free of any new toxins or allergens? Because the FDA relies on their word, they could release this product and not know the actual data that the developers found that would have impacted the product being permitted.
Counter-Arguments
It has often been argued that the USDA and FDA along with multiple scientific studies have had and continue to assure that GMOs are safe.
More often than not, the case has been made that GMOs could solve world hunger. That with the already existing impoverished areas in the world combined with the foreseen global population increase, GMOs provide a way to feed everyone. Sadly, however, this is a falsehood. First, it is crucial to understand that seed companies and industries are just that; companies and industries. Not charities.
We also have to consider; Does the poor only deserve the cheapest quality of necessities?
Cite this page
Understanding Genetically Modified Organisms. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
GMO and Health Risks
For many people, reading the words “GMO-free” on a food label at the grocery store brings a positive sentiment. In fact, around 39% of Americans reported in a 2016 Pew Research survey reported that they believed GMOs–organisms whose genes have been molecularly altered in favor of specific traits–are worse for one’s health. Resistance or apathy toward GMOs is common in developed Western countries, but these foods have the potential to change the lives of people not as fortunate as their well-fed, wealthy counterparts. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 90% out of the estimated 2050 global population of 6 billion people will live in developed nations, which leaves farmers needing to grow 70 percent more food within the next thirty years. Biofortification through genetic engineering addresses this issue by improving the practicality and nutritional value of foods.
There have been a number of biotechnology initiatives worldwide to combat hunger and agricultural crises, including _______. In Nigeria, a project to supply farmers with a type of rice crop genetically-engineered to contain high levels of vitamin A was introduced in _____ by _______. Three genes from corn and bacterium are inserted into the cells of the rice grain, and the resultant product is light yellow, hence the name “golden rice”. Considering the socio-scientific, economic, and environmental implications, the Nigerian government should subsidize the growing of “golden rice”. _____(Road Map)________. However, opponents argue that the crop goes against valuable traditions and that such direct “tampering” with nature is unethical. Especially in an era in which rapid modernization and the effort to hold on to traditions often clash, the controversy over the consequences of genetically-modified organisms such as golden rice has _____ limited its use.
Addressing the Health and Safety Concerns of Genetically-Engineered Rice
The Nigerian famine has intensified over recent years due to the rising cost of food, ongoing violence, and decrease in aid from international organizations. Currently, up to 5.2 million people are in need of food aid, according to the Norwegian Refugee Council, a humanitarian NGO established after the Second World War. Cheick Ba, director of the NRC explains the situation, “Armed conflict and violence are driving this food crisis, and innocent families are bearing the brunt.” The UN World Food Programme has made a tremendous difference in assisting these innocent civilians, but Ba alludes that Nigeria should not be solely reliant on donations, explaining that “providing people with food is only a short term solution.” Likewise, in times of political or economic struggle, funding from private relief organizations is cut at the expense of desperate citizens. In July of 2017, the WFP was unable to provide emergency food assistance for 400,000 people due to a lack of funding, which highlights the urgent demand for a more sustainable solution. Nutritionally supplemented crops such as golden rice are one strategy for addressing dire hunger and malnutrition problems such as this.
Golden rice is essential in helping to eliminate vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in Nigeria, one of the most significant health consequences of the country’s famine. Thirty percent of children in the world suffer from VAD, which is the leading cause of blindness. Compared to the 62,492 blind people in the United States, at least 1.5 million Nigerian children are blind, according to the American Foundation for the Blind and the Overseas Disability Charity. In addition to vision, Vitamin A is important to the immune system, cell growth, bone strength, reproduction, and adult gene regulation. Russel Reinke is a rice bioscientist at the International Rice Research Institute, an international research center that has been awarded the Third World Prize, John Scott Medal, Krishi Ratna Award, and US Presidential End Hunger Award, among others. He remarks,“Daily consumption of a very modest amount of Golden Rice—about a cup—could supply 50 percent of the recommended daily allowance of vitamin A for an adult.” The widespread adoption of farming golden rice would reduce the number of deaths of Nigerian children under five, currently at 1,049,000 annually.
Despite public concern, genetically modified ingredients such as golden rice are proven to be safe for consumption. People like David Schubert, who say that “there is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat,” are simply misinformed: Major food safety organizations including the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and British Royal Society have pronounced that GM crops are as safe to eat as foods not genetically-engineered. Furthermore, regulators put GMOs through extremely thorough safety procedures, as is typical with new technology. Some scientists even argue that such rigorous, expensive, and time-consuming testing is not necessary, since the risk of harm is so low and that it may deny nutrition from the poor and hungry. ________ says, “In the national perspective, we are looking for options to become more food secure, not to have to go through such a crisis again”, implying that food availability may be more of a real concern than food safety. Finally, the remaining risk of dangerous substances (if any) is eliminated at the last step since rice is cooked at high temperatures.
What sometimes is the underlying cause of hesitation to support subsidition of golden rice is an instinctive discomfort to the idea of “tinkering” with nature. People often feel that going into a laboratory and altering the DNA of plants is unethical. However, Pamela Robertson, _________, explains that “the whole model just misunderstands how nature is. Nature is a much more chaotic interplay of genetic changes that have been happening all the time anyway.” In her TED talk at ______, she explains that genetic modification evolves from past methods of genetic techniques, including hybridization, mutagenesis, and cell selection, some of which could be even more questionable than genetic modification, if judged by the same standards.
Economic Value of Golden Rice
Farmers will see economic benefits since golden rice crops will produce higher yields at a lower cost. Four years ago, the International Rice Research Institute found that the 2014 version of golden rice resulted a lower yield than un-enhanced rice.To address this issue, the IRRI immediately modified their programs, and field trials from October 2014 to July 2017 demonstrated that the new programs had succeeded in producing a GR2E variety that did not negatively affect the output. The new seeds with the GR2E trait will be available to farmers by 2020. With higher yield and economic return, farmers will also be able to more easily provide affordable golden rice for the impoverished.
The cost for the Nigerian government to subsidize farmers to grow Golden Rice is no reason to delay the project. While non-profit organizations have experienced a lack of funding, many corporations have pledged to assist farmers in need. In one case, the major company Syngenta has promised to supply free seeds to farmers who make less than $10,000 per year, which is about 99% of the targeted, local Nigerian farmers. The Rockefeller Foundation and European Union have also been funding the manufacture and distribution of golden rice seeds. As shown, external support will alleviate much of the costs of subsidition. As well as costing very little for both the government and farmers to purchase, Golden Rice does not need to be reinvested in because the seeds can be re-harvested and planted the following year.
The cost-effectiveness of golden rice subsidition is emphasized by the fact that it is far cheaper than past methods of vitamin supplementation. Continuous funding is required to pay for the mass distribution of vitamin A capsules, while the cost of biofortification is much less since it is a one-time investment. The International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, DC reported that each year around 500 million containers of vitamin A are distributed at a cost of 1 dollar each, which totals to five billion US dollars in ten years. Even considering the expensive safety testing described in section 1, genetic modification is far less expensive than current supplementation practises. In fact, research concluded by the Golden Rice Project states that biofortification of rice costs four million USD over 10 years. Safety regulation does raise the price to sixteen to twenty-four million per ten years, but this number is still only one percent of the cost of traditional vitamin A supplementation.
Cite this page
GMO and Health Risks. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Genetically Modified Foods
Introduction
The presentation of Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs) into the market has raised a dubious level headed discussion. A worry has been raised about the capability of GMOs to nourish the expanding populace on the planet where the assets are winding up rare while keeping up their great wellbeing in the meantime. The analyst was powered to direct an examination of the capability of GMOs to have antagonistic wellbeing impacts after the acknowledgment that there has expanded concern, however no exploration is being led. The specialist encountered a hard time endeavoring to acquire measurable confirmation to help the level headed discussions accessible in light of the fact that there was none. The specialist, in this way, selected to leave on an investigation to discover the worthiness of GMO nourishment in the general public.
Literature review
As he was tending to the issue of inadmissibility of GMO nourishments in the general public, Goldberg, a plant atomic scholar at the University of California contended that individuals are encountering counterfeit dread as the researchers have just given evidence that GMO sustenances are safe. Despite what might be expected, David Williams, a cell scholar recommended that individuals have motivation to dismiss GMO nourishments in the general public since when a quality is set in an alternate genome, the genome responds with the quality. The impacts of such responses may not be prompt, but rather they might be unsafe and cause unfriendly wellbeing impacts.
Problem with statement
What is the assessment of the general public on GMO sustenances and their agreeableness?
Hypothesis
On the off chance that individuals have a dread of tolerating GMO nourishments, at that point they ought not be completely brought into the market until the point when verification certain has been given that they are safe.
Methodology and Research Design
The analyst will utilize exploratory research with the assistance of surveys and auxiliary sources. These strategies will furnish the specialist with satisfactory subjective and quantitative data to settle on persuading choice in light of factual proof.
Secondary sources
The analyst will investigate the effectively archived data extraordinary sources particularly in every one of the nations where the GMO nourishment have been acknowledged and brought into the market. The sources will be gotten to from the web and distributed the logical diary. Such data from auxiliary sources will be pertinent in this examination since it will give the premise to persuading those individuals that still invalidate GMO sustenance. Auxiliary sources are modest and simple to get to, and the can give the exploration a ton of data. The believability of the data from optional sources can, in any case, be tested in light of the fact that the analyst does not acquire firsthand data from the field.
Questionnaires
The specialist will outline and plan surveys that will contain both open-finished and shut finished inquiries. The scientist will send the surveys to the respondents through online means by messages. Sending on the web polls will empower the scientist to achieve an expansive cross-segment populace that is spread over a wide topographical area. The surveys will be replied by individuals who acknowledge GMOs and the individuals who don't favor them. The specialist will send 50 surveys by means of email focusing no less than 40 reactions. Surveys sent to a wide example populace give trustworthy data that is basic for basic leadership. Sending polls through the online means does not anyway ensure the analyst that the focused on respondents will send the surveys back.
Data analysis
The scientist will examine subjective information from surveys physically while quantitative information will be broke down utilizing SPSS programming. SPSS gives works that will empower the examination to plot pie-diagrams, charts and perform different speculation tests to touch base at a persuading choice.
Cite this page
Genetically Modified Foods. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
The GMO Controversy and the Labeling of GMOs
Genetically modified organisms, often shortened as GMOs, are almost certainly part of every modern American’s diet. According to 2018 USDA statistics, 92% of corn and 94% of soybeans planted in the United States are genetically altered. Other common genetically modified foods include potatoes, tomatoes, and canola beans (Starr & McMillan, 2016). Despite their ubiquity, 58% of Americans do not know that these food sare genetically modified (Chrispeels, 2014) and 39% believe that GMOs are worse for their health than foods that are not genetically modified (Funk & Kennedy, 2016). Are concerns over this widespread technology justified? Scientific evidence paints a clear picture of the realities of GMOs and how they relate to human health.
The mechanisms of genetic modification are relatively simple to understand with some background knowledge. Bacteria commonly carry circular DNA molecules called plasmids, which carry genes with specific functions and may be obtained from other bacteria or from the environment (Bacterial DNA – the role of plasmids, 2014). Genes may be cut out of the plasmid by humans and replaced with more beneficial one (Rangel, 2015). When this technique is used to modify plants, it means replacing a gene in the plasmid used by bacteria to infect the plant with a gene from another organism. Once the bacteria infects the plant cell, the foreign gene is transferred to the plant and becomes a part of its DNA. The plant cell may then develop into an embryo, and then a fully grown plant (Starr & McMillan, 2016). This is how genetically modified crops are created. The ability to directly add genes to plants creates new opportunities for agricultural scientists.
Crops have been created that are resistant to herbicide or insecticide, leading to higher yields of crops both in America and in developing countries. (Chrispeels, 2014). Crops have also been modified to increase nutritional value, such as when Golden Rice was introduced in 2000 to reduce the issue of vitamin A deficiency (Rangel, 2015). Environmental Scientist Mark Lynas (2018) states that in addition to these benefits, genetic engineering causes less disruption to a crop’s genetics than typical breeding methods. Lynas also argues that in-depth testing and labeling of new GMOs produced using methods proven to be safe is a waste of time and resources.
The most vocal opposition to GMOs comes from groups who claim that genetically engineered crops cause health issues. This is simply not the case. In reality, there is a scientific consensus that genetically modified foods are no more dangerous than non-GM crops. (Rangel, 2015). One myth that is particularly pervasive in anti-GMO groups is the idea that the consumption of GMOs leads to an increase in allergic reactions. In 1996, there was a single documented case of a GM soybean crop which tested positive for allergens, but those beans never reached the market and there was never an allergic reaction (Lim, 2014).
Cite this page
The GMO Controversy and the Labeling of GMOs. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
The Genetically Modified Organisms Process
One may only wonder, what are GMO’s? GMO’s stand for genetically modified organisms. In laymen terms it means that plants and animals are created using biological technology which alters their DNA by modifying their genes, another term you may have heard of is Molecular Gastronomy- which is the altercation of food (which I learned in my F+B class at STU). One can already assume that this process is very different from normal traditions like cross-breeding, a process which humankind has been doing for thousands of years. In class I have learnt that America is the leading producer of GMO crops in the World today, which is not fortunate for someone like me whom is deciding to live within the Country. Furthermore, in class I learnt that the first GMO product was introduced to society in 1994, this product was the labor saver tomato. Ever since the Labor saver tomato was released in 1994, GMO products in our food supply has been increasing more and more ever since. Additionally, we learnt that most common GMO crops which can be found in the Market are; corn, soy-beans, cotton and rapeseed- which shocked me to learn that canola oil is made from it.
In Contrast, I also learnt, that a few positives of GMO’s do exist, and this is what brings up the ethical question of- does the good outweigh the bad? It is argued that scientists created these organisms in order to achieve specific desired result, for example, they created apples that don't brown when exposed to air, Salmon that grow faster and rice that is much healthier. Additionally, another claimed benefit of GMO’s, are that GMO’s help fight off global hunger- by making it cheaper for consumers, quicker to grow, more profitable and beneficial to the community and cheaper production costs which means lower sales price. Furthermore, genetically modified crops also lead to reduced pesticide use- this is because some GMO crops are engineer to resist insects and therefore farmers don't have to use this, however, having a plant that can resists pesticides just means that growers can use more pesticides on their farm without worrying about killing their crop- and this is very devastating to our environment!
In class we also learned about Hawaii and its Papaya epidemic- where the Papaya Plant was almost on the verge of extinction. In this case, we learned another benefit of GMO’s. The Papaya Plant is a major cash crop for the Island of Hawaii and in 1992, a virus threatened to wipe out the entire production of Papaya in Hawaii, and luckily a local resident genetically modified the plant so that it could defeat the virus which was contributing to the Papaya Plant to become extinct. So, thanks to GMO’s, farmers were able to save this important crop and that is why it continues to be the main US producer of Papaya today. Another claimed benefit is that by using GMO’s there is potential to create medicine using compounds created by these crops- which may help fight off diseases.
In contrast, there are several environmental and health-related issues concerning the use of GMO’s. For example, the creation of genetically modified insect and weed resistant crops has increased the population of other pests and created insects and weeds that are also resistant to insecticides the herbicides. Another huge concern for GMO’s is genetic manipulation, which could lead to what's known as super bugs (like Spider-Man), that may have potential dangers to society. Indirect effects also exist- an example of this would be the “Honey Bee.” Honey Bees love to fly out and seek pollen, nevertheless, how would they know which plants are genetically modified from which plants are not? They don’t know, and that’s the issue! So, it is only safe to say- that majority of the Honey in America is contaminated due to the strong GMO presence in America.
In conclusion, it is safe to say- avoiding GMO’s is your best bet! GMO’s have only been introduced in 1994, therefore research is still lacking. In order to see the true effects of GMO’s- it will need a longer life-cycle to actually see the harmful results. If you are unsure, and cannot locate the GMO-FREE Mark- then look for a 3rd party verification for example- a little butterfly with a green check mark. Information is out there. Be informed before you decide, because cheap Produce is not always healthy Produce.
Cite this page
The Genetically Modified Organisms Process. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
The Promotion of Genetically Modified Organisms
Genetically Modified organisms, or GMO’s as some may call it, have altered DNA, intended to enhance the plant’s value. Scientists take pieces of desired genes and put them into certain plants, to hopefully have an outcome of an organism with a higher nutritional, cosmetic, and market value. Unlike selective breeding, which can take years to produce a sought after trait or traits, genetically modified plants can produce those traits within a harvest season. Genetic modification produces a generally similar product as selective breeding would, just in a more controlled, time reduced setting. The FDA, food and drug administration, controls the standards that are put on any product that is sold and marketed to consumers. The FDA states that any and all genetically modified foods are required to meet the exact same requirements that non-modified foods are expected to meet.
The list of Pro’s for genetically modified organisms greatly exceeds the few that will be discussed here; however, these are the most commonly talked about. Genetically modified plants, like corn, soybeans, and cotton, tend to have a faster growing period. With this faster growing period, harvests keep up with supply and demand. GMO plants also are modified for their nutritional value. When the genes are swapped or replaced, it includes the genes that are connected to the vitamins and minerals that the plant provides the consumer. Modifying the genes of a plant can effect its immunity to pests and weeds. This immunity can lead to higher yields , or the amount of product that is able to be produced in a growing season. These higher yields are related to the success rates of the farmers, causing them to gain more of a profit than before. This raise in profit allows the markets to sell the products for less to the consumers, saving everyone money in the long run. Along with immunity is the reduction of the use of pesticides and herbicides. Pesticides and herbicides have the potential to be harmful to consumers. When they don’t need to be used, or need to be used in much smaller amounts than before, it makes the product more desirable to consumers.
Many of these pro’s tie into each other, including the cost efficiency of GMO’s. When products cost the producer less to grow, it in turn costs the consumers less to purchase those products. When farmers grow normal crops, there is a percentage of these seeds that they had to pay for, but never return product. There is also plants that are destroyed by pests and weeds, which never make it to harvest. Farmers must take the cost of those seeds into account when trying to calculate their expected profit. With GMO crops, there is a much smaller percentage of those failure, resulting in a better yield and better profit for the farmer. As everyone knows, there is always con’s to oppose the pro’s. These con’s, much like the pro’s, aren’t all of them, but the most common. Many dislike GMO’s because they can occasionally produce undesired traits, like mutations and side effects, when the genes of the plant are modified. When scientists modify something genetically, they are usually shooting for specific traits, either interior, like the nutritional value, or exterior, more aesthetically pleasing looks. This difference could alter the actual makeup of the plant, causing a toxic or harmful product to result.
This doesn’t occur often, but consumers feel that the small percentage does not give GMO the credibility it needs to be marketed. Genetically modified plants can effect the wildlife in its surrounding area. Animals or insects that thrive off of the plants can harm the animals, or even kill them. If this happens enough times, that wildlife can become extinct or migrate away from that area. This could cause an upset to that regions ecosystem, effecting everything else around it. Genetic modification can result in less nutritious products as well. Occasionally, when the exterior of a crop is trying to be improved, it hurts the interior. This could cause a decrease in specific vitamins and minerals that consumers eat the product to gain. Allergens and toxins can also be introduced to a plant when the genetics are altered. These allergens and toxins can become more prominent effect or consumers when they hadn’t before because of the genetic modifications. When it comes to taking sides, personally I am for genetically modified plants. I believe that GMO’s are an amazing addition to the agricultural community.
Here in Eastern New Mexico, where I reside, farming and ranching is a large part of the community. Farmers depend on rainfall to grow crops, and when they don’t receive enough it affects the yield, which in turn affects the profit the farmer obtains. Many farmers in the region have turned to GMO crops because of their resilience in drought and their immunity to weeds and pests. Because GMO plants are resistant to many inhibitors, this saves the farmer a large amount of time and money that can be spent on other things, like tractor repairs and their families needs. The market value of GMO crops are generally higher, allowing the farmer a better profit and ability to turn their fields again and again. I personally enjoy eating fruits and vegetables; however, that is not the case for others. When consumers see that produce tastes better than it had before, they are more likely to purchase and consume it. This leads to an overall betterment of the health of the consumer community.
Bio-fuels can also be created with GMO corn. Living in a “oil-field” community, it may not seem like a great idea to introduce bio-fuels. But if we are honest with ourselves, we will see that fossil fuels won’t always be around and that alternatives need to be found for the preservation of those precious fossil fuels. Genetically modified plants can also create a plethora of jobs that this country needs. Putting people to work for something that will better the nation seems like a win-win situation to me. In conclusion, the opinions on GMO and whether they should be continued to be produced will vary, most likely based on region. Since this topic is widely and highly debated, pros and cons will constantly be added and argued until the end of time. Occupants of large cities won’t have the same outlooks and experiences as those who reside in rural farming and ranching communities. If they chose to, farmers could solely produce GMO crops. This would cause consumers to either accept GMO, purchase it, and eat it or they would refuse to buy corn or any other GMO crop again. The opinions on this subject will fluctuate, despite the amount of experiments and testing done, attempting to prove its value,or lack thereof.
Cite this page
The Promotion of Genetically Modified Organisms. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Food
During centuries, human societies depended on traditional breeding techniques, which allowed them to supply members with adequate nutrition. Such methods as hybridization and plant grafting had satisfied people for thousands of years as they improved all characteristics of products (“Genetically Modified Food”). However, with the progress made in all spheres, humanity could not leave the food industry without breakthrough innovations. First, it invented mutagenesis, the method that achieved unprecedented outcomes using using radiation and chemicals, and then, still more threatening for the mere survival of human species, transgenesis.
The latter demonstrates advances in the development of human technology on an unbelievable scale; this technique implies that people have found ways to impact the plants and animals at the genetic level. GM organism is genetically modified, which means that its genetic code is changed by purposeful intrusion (“Genetically Modified Food”). Such techniques as gene splicing or transgenic technology create the combinations of genes, so nature has nothing to do with the received plants, animals, or other organisms created in this fashion (Kromka). Although there are several advantages of growing genetically modified foods, disadvantages of this type of products are more crucial as they directly threaten the state of human health.
At first casual glance, genetic engineering can seem just a breakthrough in the food technology that provides a perfect solution to the problem of human nutrition across the globe. Thus, as DNA of any plant or animal can be modified according to need, it opens limitless possibilities of growing any food in any amounts (“Genetically Modified Food”). Besides, the traits reached in GM products overpass any other breeding technique because transformed genes protect plants from pests and viruses reducing the need for toxic pesticides and herbicides. This implies protection of water, soil, and the surrounding environment, in general, from ecologically harmful influences (Qaim; “Genetically Modified Food”). One more benefit of genetic engineering is the possibility to biofortify crops with the vitamins of the most pressing need. There is an experience of biofortification of rice, corn, sorghum, cassava, and banana plants with vital minerals and vitamins, which produces a favorable impact on human health (Qaim). At the same time, health risks of GM products are even more prominent than advantages. Furthermore, they have not been studied thoroughly yet, so people are under threat that is not known, as the devil without a face. Comparatively new method of breeding can be a time bomb whose explosion should be prevented to preserve the human species.
Fortunately, modern society is becoming more and more health conscious, and GM foods do not belong to the options of the healthiest standards. There has been a growing tendency in American society, in particular, to produce and consume increasing amounts of “natural” labeled products. For illustration, in 2013, consumers spent more than $40 billion purposefully seeking foods with “natural” labels (Kromka). Logic and sound judgment prompt obvious conclusion that GM products, or GMOs, are the direct opposite of this tendency of modern people to make food choices in favor of organic and natural options. There is a grave barrier, though, in the contemporary society not only in the US but also in Europe and throughout the world to the decision of many people to stick to naturally-based nutrition.
Specifically, the commercial gain has motivated state economies to approve GM plants for general use. Thus, US has allowed ten GM crops and 120 GM seeds for use in the food industry and commercial contexts, including 90% of all corn, cotton, and soybeans (“Genetically Modified Food”). Furthermore, the so-called processed foods, which are so popular in American society, contain ingredients produced based on genetic modification technology. Correct estimations are showing that 75% of processed foods contain GM ingredients (“Genetically Modified Food”). This situation reveals the severity of the problem of healthy nutrition. In spite of people’s increasing tendency to choose healthy food options, the spread of GMO is catastrophic and impossible to control. It reminds of a disaster that has reached the point where it has gone completely out of control. Therefore, the methods of dealing with GM production should correspondingly be radical, up to complete banning of this method of growing.
Cite this page
Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Food. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Are GMOs Safe?
Are GMO's a threat, or are they safe to consume? In today's technological world, the access to information is as easy as peeling a banana, a product that can be consumed with GMO's or 100% organic. With the waves and spread of sensationalist news on the internet, many people consume information at such a rate that their attention span frequently fails to drive them into researching the information. As survivalists’ beings, we tend to look out for what we eat and what might cause us to develop health complications along our lifespan, which is why the GMO scare is somewhat justified. However, we as humans are a product of GMO's, as we mix with other races and get vaccinated, we are modifying our genetics at a faster rate than we would have through an organic process. So, are GMO’s safe? My extensive and unbiased investigation agrees that it is safe. Many people do not even know what GMO stands for, it is an abbreviation of Genetically Modified Organism, in other words any living being that has been tempered with through genetical engineering. The benefits of GMO’s go beyond economically, many people consider these products as a creation of evil corporations that only seek to fill their pockets at the expense of the people who cannot afford organic food.
Though it is true that these products are created as a new source of income for corporations, GMO’s are helping the development of farms and livestock in places where it previously was impossible. For example, tomatoes do not favor cold or damped terrain, but through the modification of its genetic code with some specific gens from salmon it is now possible for tomatoes to adapt to this terrain. Consuming this product, will not affect humans in any way, the nutritional value stays the same and the modification will not make humans mutate. When considering the amount of research required to have an unbiased opinion on the subject, it is guaranteed to have read publications against GMO’s. As previously mentioned, today, information is constant, and it exceeds our attention and retention span. Many journalists and “researchers” take advantage of this by creating sensationalist headlines. Many, if not all, of the articles I read had scary headlines that are memorable. Even if the information read on these articles were favorable for GMO’s, the headline and first paragraph are enough to scare people away.
The truth on these articles is that are opinion based without any research to back up their claim. It would be no surprise that the people writing these articles wear tin foiled hats and are worried that the government is putting something in the water to make the frogs gay. It is almost impossible to find an article that does not cross the conspiracy theory line, their sole base to argue against these products is fear and that is how they have been able to spread so far and wide in a technological society. The modification of organisms through genetic manipulation is not something new, corn is believed to be the first of these products. A scientific achievement that makes the world a more habitable place, providing food to people who previously had a scarce access to it and have an all year-round production. With the large quantities that are produced through the genetic modification has allow the costs to be reduced and for food to be more accessible. While organic food still holds the edge when it comes to flavor, the constant investigations and advancement on the field of GMO’s can guarantee that it is only a matter of time before both are equal in every aspect except production.
Organic food, though more natural, would not produce the number of crops required to feed the population of a large city, it depends on constant attention and investment for it to be viable in large quantities, hence the high costs. GMO’s are not only a solution for world hunger, it is also an economic solution for many people who in the past had to choose between quantities and quality of nutritional value in food. It provides access to food to people who were unable to grow crops due to the terrain and it allows livestock to adapt. The research shows that most articles and investigations done against GMO’s are done by people with no qualifications on the field and it is borderline conspiracy theory, its fuel is fear. While it is a positive thing to have a level of skepticism, it is also good to accompany it with research on the subject, through a diverse opinion pool. When in doubt about the needs of GMO’s, remember that more people are having access to quality food than they did or would ever had through the organic crops.
Cite this page
Are GMOs Safe?. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Genetic Engineering and our Food
Farmers are passionate about growing food to them it's more than a job it's a way of life filled with hard work and uncertainty one of the many tools growers use to reduce risk and help their farm succeed is GMOs. Some GMO seeds help plants defend themselves against certain harmful insects using these seeds allows farmers to spray insecticide less often. Some GMO seeds allow farmers to consider a range of farming methods like no-till under the right circumstances no-till helps prevent erosion conserves water and gives time back to farmers when drought occurs farmers can suffer huge crop loss some drought tolerant GMOs use water more efficiently.
Consensus by the vast vast majority of scientists and medical professionals is that the GMOs that are currently available on the market have no health problems they're any different than conventional foods so if you were to look at medical society scientific societies the consensus view from all of these is that there is no specific health risk associated with these genetically modified crops how do we know that GMOs are safe to eat what's the process we go through so GMOs are actually probably the most intensively studied new foods that we have introduced over the last 20 years they go through a lot of rigorous evaluation so the first thing is that these are essentially the same as the crop varieties that we've been growing for 50 100 200 years what has been done is that one or two genes have been added to these crops so we know that now there are one or two additional new proteins being made in these crops and so we can follow those proteins we can ask very specific questions these proteins toxic do they cause allergic reactions are they in any way dangerous or are they just the same as the vast majority of other proteins that we consume that get digested and then ingested and provide our food so the bottom line is that these have been very well studied we can never say that anything is absolutely safe we don't know that about any food okay but there's tremendous equivalence between what's being grown in the past and what's being grown now with these genetically modified crops by adding one or two genes one or two new proteins yes you're making a change but we know what those changes are and we can study what those changes might do to humans or other animals that consume these plants.
So one reason is there's clearly different politics in different different parts of the world there's also different relationships with food in some places food is something that is revered very very highly and people have a different attitude about it and that may be part of the reason as well there's also differences in how the public regards the agencies the the regulatory agencies that let's say whether something is safe and or not and in some European countries the United Kingdom in particular there have been issues about how foods have been regulated whether they're safe or not and and that's an important factor thats played into the differences between how Europeans and North Americans react to GMOs is it possible that there are long term health risks that we aren't aware of that is a possibility yes absolutely I mean there's a there's there are we cannot know all of the risks that are associated with consuming anything okay and in fact I think that's one of the valid concerns that people raised about GMOs have we done long term feeding trials and the answer is no we haven't but when we introduce any other new food we don't go through long term feeding Trials so when blueberries became a new crop that people started consuming we have 30 years of long-term feeding trials before we said they're safe no we didn't but people are happily consuming that crop in at far higher levels than they ever did in the past so I think it's it's unrealistic and frankly unfair to suggest that these crops that have been modified in ways that we understand a tremendous amount of detail about that they should be expected to go through some unrealistic long-term feeding trial that we don't put other new foods through okay and so really you had mentioned something about allergens so how would GMOs affect food allergies could introduce new strain charge absolutely and in fact there there are a couple of examples in research where genes were moved into a plant in the laboratory and then they discovered oh this protein that's being now made in this in this plan this has the potential to be an allergen of a protein that causes an allergic reaction and so it is possible but the organization's primarily the companies that are involved in doing this go to great lengths to make sure as best they can that they are not introducing a protein that's responsible for for alert that causes allergic reactions in people so for example I think it's extremely unlikely that one of these companies would would take a lobster gene just to take it over you know mrs. Doubtfire or something of shrimp gene and that they know people have the potential to have allergic reactions to and put that into a food that everybody consumes and in fact there's actually the potential to remove allergens using genetic modification technology so allergens for the most part are proteins and so there's a possibility have not just a possibility a reality that we could remove some of those proteins to make something that people are allergic to make it less allergic.
There are no obvious health benefits that people get there are some products that have been in development for a long time one of those is what's called Golden Rice so this is a rice that's been genetically engineered to produce beta-carotene which humans can convert into vitamin A and that's an important new trigger so there's organizations the International Rice Research Institute is developing varieties that have this trait with the idea then that that will help prevent children especially for from becoming vitamin deficient and that leads to blindness and also to premature death but these products are not on the market at the moment they're they're still in development.
Golden Rice has been in development for 15 years so whether it will get to the market or not I don't know there are some other traits that I think we're likely to see in the near future things that will benefit consumers so one example is is a non browning Apple so the reason the brand that Apple's brown when when they get cut is that there is an enzyme released well your ace biotechnologists to figure it out or we can switch off that gene that makes that protein and so when you cut into these apples they don't turn brown and so I can imagine that you can see pre packaged apples out there in the future pre sliced pre packaged apples just like there's little mini carrots people all right gobble them up it'll be getting people to eat more veggies more fruits as a result so III think it's also important to remember this technology is really in its infancy you know this is something we've been doing for 25-30 years and there's a lot more potential perhaps in the future for what we'll be able to do in terms of improving the health promoting properties of foods as a result of this and other technologies.
Gene editing is a complex process but in concept is very simple you can think of our genome as an encyclopedia with books in it and paragraphs and sentences and gene editing is basically you acting as the sentence is written and you're going here you can change words you can change punctuation you can do nearly anything that's what a bio technologist does with our DNA just goes in there and rewrites it we can insert things remove things or add things and makes it work there when people talk about gene so what is CRISPR well CRISPR also connected with caste 9 is just a method of doing gene editing it's like we used to edit manuscripts by what's called cut and paste with scissors and then we moved to using typewriters and with the white out and then we move to word processors well this is just a word processor and later something greater will come out technology moves at its light speed and next year you'll be hearing something other than CRISPR 2 or right a totally different name it's just a method of gene editing ok all right that makes sense and is gene editing happening right now in the United States.
Oh Gina editing is happening everywhere in the world I mean it's such an easy although it sounds complex was actually quite easily do and that's actually one of the concerns is that it is so easy to do you can do it almost for a science fair project so it's being used by companies is being used by universities it's very ubiquitous and where it's going on ok so um what it what genes do we edit what might be an example of that well it depends upon the purpose we can literally edit any gene that we want so now you go in and you ask just like any business I need a new product or I want to solve a problem and you say well how can I solve that problem and under problems several problems in genetics that we have many years one example for instances horns in cattle horns are poses risk there there's dangers for for Bulls with horns and cows have horns they'll Gore you to cause injuries and deaths for handlers and also for its fellow cows you know they fight and so corns have to be removed by dehorning which is painful and nobody really wants to do it and it's costly so we found we the scientists found the gene that causes horns and cattle there's there's a natural gene for what's called pulled it's just not in all species so hosting which is a dairy cow doesn't have the polled gene so it's cordless well they found the basically how to edit the gene to make it harmless and this was done last year and now we can have hosting born without horns and totally avoid that issue and as a result animal well-being and safety of handling animals is greatly improved and and one example there's many there's a lot of regulatory oversight over all biotechnology particularly in the United States where we're looking at how the process more than the product so any any product any gene editing or any other way of making a genetically modified organism is under the if it's an animal is under the purview of the FDA there from a drug agency so even before you start making a transgenic organism it's the animal you have to apply to the FDA to do this research and if it's a food animal you definitely have to worry about containment make sure it's not eaten than everything until the FDA passes approval that it's not a risk to our health and also that it's not a risk to environment ok so you mentioned transgenic what is transgenic name actually well literally the word transgene means that we're moving genes between species so a transgenic organism is the when we're doing word editing or editing of the genome is literally moving genes from one species to another and because we might find a gem that's in one species that was really useful in another it just doesn't exist there yet so we can do that gene editing however can be also be used for editing within a species so you can have intra genic editing and we people tend to call those transgenic but they're not really transgenic they're they're just editing within the genome so the technology can be used for definitely a wide range application and this may be a very simple question but helped me to understand this what is the difference between a GMO so genetically modified organism and then gene editing well are we interchangeable no they're not interchangeable so a genetically modified organism basically means any any organism that's had its DNA modified in any way it's not breeding per se because we've been breeding animals forever evolution works on genetic variations so you could you know call that genetic marker genetically modified organs by evolution so classical animal breeding has been occurring for it since the beginning of time but specifically if we go in and directly modify the DNA of any organism.
Denys considered a genetically modified organism or we prefer to call it a genetically engineered organism okay and so gene editing is just one of the ways that you can get genetically modified oh yes gene editing is a very specific way prior to prior to gene editing we use things like micro injection where whereby we took what's called gene construct a word so to speak and we just injected it into the the embryo that they OD embryo and hope can prayed that somehow this gene got inserted someplace in the genome and that it would Express and so this is kind of random insertion you can imagine it had a lot of failures only about 1,000 work and we never knew where the trans gene was going to be inserted so gene editing gives us the way now of saying exactly where we want this gene insert so it's a lot more exact and precise way of doing genetic engineering so I've heard that gene editing is used not just in seeds and food but also in animals but also for health is that true we can we can use gene editing for any any purpose there there are genes that you have birth defects you can there's a number of known diseases hunting's Korea in several of these genes that were that we inherit that caused a lot of suffering and technically we could apply these same technologies to humans for addressing health issues and this is actually one of the things being looked at but now we enter into the realm of ethics is it ethical to modify genes in humans we've definitely done this in pigs for example where pigs were very susceptible to pers poor mine respiratory disease and there's no vaccine for it and there's no way of getting rid of the other than what's once your herd got purrs you had to euthanize all the animals disinfect the building and start over Wow yeah so now we can with gene editing we found out how to remove the receptor for the viruses virus causes this disease but all most viruses require what's called receptor place to land a place to attach to and so they knew what the the the landing place looked like nascent the ring would of the landing placing but without any place to park the virus is simply said I can't infect this individual so now we have genetically modified pigs that don't get Perez disease but this is just one example that this actually might be the one of the first examples the word gene editing is going to move into production phase because there's already a pig breeding company that has this in the wings and is trying is seeking regulatory approval to produce animals that are resistant Spurs.
References:
https://ag.purdue.edu/GMOs/Pages/WhatareGMOs.aspx
This source tells us about the most common misbeliefs of gmos like how https://www.piedmont.org/living-better/genetically-modified-foods-helpful-or-harmful
https://monsanto.com/innovations/biotech-gmos/
https://environmentalscience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-217
https://modernag.org/innovation/gmo-solutions-benefit-environment/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3680
Cite this page
Genetic Engineering and Our Food. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Genetically Modified Organism: Benefits Humanity and Environment
It might sound like a thing. But, it really is a process by which we create new hybrid varieties of plant to get desired genetic traits to make farming process more sustainable. we have been modifying organisms ever since dawn of agriculture for over ten thousand years. as we evolved our food has evolved. Mendel discovered genetic basis of inheritance. farmers started mixing two species through grafting. Genetic engineering is more modern term been out there for forty years now and we are using it in cheeses, medicines and crops. GMOs are the best efficient tool farmers have that helps protect and preserve water, land, air and to limit the climate change. also, it’s safe for human and animal consumption. Let’s explore some of the benefits of GMOs through the sources below;
This research paper shows data and statistic collected from us and around the world to explain GMOs are one tool that can improve crop yields by allowing fewer acres to produce the same amount of food. This can help save critical animal and plant, enhance biodiversity, ecosystem including forests, parks and pastures. Improved ecology through GMOs decreases insecticide use bt-crops are designed to allow important, beneficial bugs to thrive, including: bees, earthworms, butterflies, ladybugs etc. National Academies of sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
This consensus study report from national academies of sciences, engineering and medicine reaffirms GMO are safe for human consumption. over nine hundred studies and publications were examined. More than twenty researchers, scientists and agriculture experts over a two-year period reviewed animal and human studies, allergenicity testing; Based on health data over twenty plus year since GMO crops were introduced from north America and Europe. In Report- No substantiated evidence found for a difference in risks to human health between current GMO and conventionally bred crops.
Objective of this research is to study the GMO impact on greenhouse emission and economy. It explains how GMO use less fossil fuel, reduce pesticide uses and tilling. Thus, produce less carbon dioxide and eco-friendly. Also, paper explains how GMO technology impacts price, supply and welfare and can bring positive outcome for the global economy. especially beneficial to both consumer and farmer in poor country as well as limit the effect of climate change.
This summary report from Environment Protection Agency summarizes in Report that GMO crops with drought-resistance traits help them survive times of drought, reduce need for intensive irrigation. Conservation tillage made more possible, that help preserve most precious natural resource water. According to agency report drought and water scarcity is steadily rising since past forty-eight years and predicting significant increase in high-drought risk areas worldwide. To impede this GMOs are helping agriculture use less water and grow more drought tolerant plants.
References:
Brooks Graham and Barfoot Peter, GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2014. PG Economics, LTD.uk, 2016.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23395
Mahaffey, H., Taheripour, F. and Tyner, W. (2016) Evaluating the Economic and Environmental impacts of a Global GMO Ban. Journal of Environmental protection,7, 1522-1546. doi:10.4236/jep.2016.711127.
SUMMARIES OF EPA WATER POLLUTION REPORTING CATEGORIES USED IN THE ATTAINS DATA SYSTEM. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 2016, www.epa.gov/ Report No. EPA841-R-16-003
Cite this page
Genetically Modified Organism: Benefits Humanity and Environment. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Introduction to Genetically Modified Seeds
In the year 1970, the developed glyphosate as an herbicide or commonly known as Roundup, is a familiar herbicide among farmers to protect their crops from pests and weeds. The person who is behind the genetically modified seed is Monsanto, who became the biggest supplier of the glyphosate-resistant crops. Biochemist Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, developed the strategy of cutting the DNA in specific areas, and then latch it to other organisms, and this is the result of modern biotechnology. In the year 1976, the biotechnology was commercialized and companies injected genes from one organism to another. The most general Genetically modified crop is the glyphosate-tolerant soybean. After the sudden modification of crop was commercialized some other GM seeds have been developed, which consist of sugarcane, tomatoes, potato, cotton, rice, sugar, and beets. These GM seeds can withstand insects, pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, and diseases (Bushak, 2015).
Genetically Modified(GM) Seeds are crops that are enhanced by genetic engineering, a more exact technique for plant reproduction. By modifying a plant and developing its characteristic, genetic engineering, also associated as biotechnology, permits plant raisers to take a particular trait that is found in a specific plant and transmit it to the plant or organism they want to enhance. Bananas and seedless watermelon today are far more distinctive than the older varieties of fruits, this is because of the modification strategies that was used (GMO Basics, n.d.).
The agriculture sector has generally been mounting on innovation, especially in the field of genetic crop development. For a considerable amount of time, the industry has been looking for a dynamic type of crop by blending the qualities of seeds. The GM seeds have been changed to contain particular traits, for example, protection from herbicides (on account of Roundup Ready crops), and protection from pests (on account of Bt corn). GM seeds are modified with a conventional technique by embedding the DNA of the seeds straightforwardly. Over the ages, the qualities of cross-preparation have not been altered (Kruft, 2001).
Benefits Less use of herbicides
The herbicide resistant crops that is called the Roundup Ready crops is produced by Monsanto. The GM crops are preferable because of its unique traits that the farmers are already aware about the safety of its usage, and in effect, it leads farming more effortless and affordable. The soil of the traditional crops needs to be extremely prepared prior to sowing in order to somehow get rid of the weed seeds from breeding. When the crops are about to cultivate, the crops are then sprayed with varieties of herbicides without damaging the crop. On the other hand, the GM crops only needs a few exhaustive preparations, and the herbicide that is sprayed to the farm depends on how much the problem of the weed (Pinstrup-Andersen & Schiøler, 2001).
The accommodation of the GM crops lessens the need for a mixture of herbicides or dangerous toxicants that demands a lot of applications. The advantage of the farmers who cultivates a GM crop is the use of a product rather than having multiple herbicides in controlling the weeds without destroying the properties of the crop (Sanvido, Stark, Romies, & Bigler, 2006)
GM seeds that the seed companies are working on have high tolerance to various weeds and pests. This kind of GM trait could benefit to a more maximized and stable commodity for farmers. In the small farm sector, GM seeds are capable of generating high profits of yield products. In traditional ways of cultivating a farm, a farmer needs to hire more labor force in order to get the work done. While with the use of GM technologies, it only requires a few people to nurture the land (Carter, Moschini, & Sheldon, 2011).
Nutritional resources
GM seeds can be altered, so this means that we would be able to develop the seeds and make them advantageous for human yield and utilization. Healthful nutrients can be inserted to crops that lacks important vitamins and minerals. Since rice or corn is the staple food of some country, it would be possible to inject some genes with valuable nutrients to the crops, to help those countries who is in need of nutritional crops (13 Advantages and Disadvantages of GMO's, 2015).
The main focus of the strategies in the GM seeds is to enhance the traits of a certain crop and add nutritional value to it. Biotechnology also aim to work with a product that makes plant-derived pharmaceuticals(PDP). The importance of these biopharmaceuticals is gradually increasing and there is a big chance that it is a potential in making the crops more nutritious. Although the pharmaceutical crops are not yet publicly advertised, there will be a few PDP that is going to be out in the market for consumption (Sanvido, Stark, Romies, & Bigler, 2006).
Extracting the problems and adding more nutritional traits, biotechnology has demonstrated the possibility to develop the characteristics of a crop. The positive achievement of the GM technology with regard to maximizing the accessibility and diminishing price of a drug is the continuous research and implementation of the pharmaceutical crop production, referred to as “pharma crop” (Mahgoub, 2015).
Lower cost, increased profit
The crop yields remarkably increased when the farmers make use of the herbicide tolerant cotton and Bt cotton. The Economic Research Service(ERS) found an important study about the connection between the maximizing crop gain and the increase of herbicide and pesticide tolerance. Agriculturist anticipated to have an increase in the yields if they embraced the GM seeds technology. While for the herbicide-tolerant soybeans have a minor increase in crop yields. Another research that is implemented by the Iowa State University using 377 fields discovered that, the crop that is cultivated with the use of GM seeds gained 160.4 bushels of Bt corn per field, whereas the crops that are cultivated with non-GM seeds gained 147.7 per field. It can be clearly seen that GM seeds outdo the non-GM seeds (Kruft, 2001).
A finding from a beneficent analysis of GM crops passed by Wolf and Vogele in Switzerland. Their primary assumption is that the culturing of Bt corn is economically plausible rather than the culturing of non-GM maize (Scholderer & Verbeke, 2012).
After an PRSV infection that happened in Hawaii, the generically modified papaya exceedingly gained more than the non-generically modified sort of papaya. In 1999, out of 90% of the farmers that acquired the genetically modified seeds, only 76% of them cultivated it. The yield of the GM papaya gradually increased from an amount of 26 million pounds in 1998 to an apex of 40 million pounds in 2011. Nowadays, there is a total of 80%-90% of GM papaya in Hawaii because there is still no any other technique to control the PRSV infection (Bennet & Jennings, 2013).
Threat to farmers
A big concern to the farmers is the possibility of cross pollination from a genetically modified crop to a non-GM plant. Crops with GM genes have been found in ordinary plants as well as in plants that have been using only organic and natural cultivating practices. It will now be very hard for consumers to determine which is organic and which is really not. The seed growers are now a situation where they need to really think twice on what crop they are going to raise in their fields. It’s either they choose a significantly more costlier yield that can possibly flounder every now and then, than customary yields and can be exceptionally perilous to the people and other living organisms who consumes them (Smith, n.d.) (13 Advantages and Disadvantages of GMO's, 2015) (Kruft, 2001) (Mercola, 2014)
Toxic Plants
Another apprehension according to (Kruft, 2001) is that, the presence of an unperceived allergens in the GM food source is the greatest pitfall to health. In addition to that, (Mercola, 2014) stated that food allergies have gradually increased, with more or less five million youngsters who are suffering from the GM foods. There have been no further studies that is invoked to the safety of these GM crops because research and evaluation of these crops are conserved under various copyright and proprietary information laws. Furthermore, the effects of the human and animal health are not yet fully understood and there will be a great uncertainty to the welfare of the consumers (Why we are against GMOs, 2015)
Contract Issues
Monsanto promised the people that he will make the world a better place for future generations. His principal plan is to Increase the yields, that’s why he gives the farmers the product and framework to help them to achieve his desires. Monsanto creates GM seeds and his fundamental item is the Roundup ready crops, which is resistant to the herbicide. For the utilization of the specific trait on the crop, Monsanto induced the farmers who purchase GM seeds to go into an agreement of authorizing consent for the use of the special seeds. The farmers are prohibited from sparing the seeds, so Monsanto is demanding that seeds need to be purchased from them every season (Duvvuru, 2009).
It's a burden for agriculturist who purchase the GM seeds in signing the agreements that seed organizations are requiring. The seed organizations have put tremendous subsidizes in the innovation of the GM seeds, and they secure this speculation through their agreement with the farmers. These agreements strongly guarantee the biotechnology organization’s rights to seeds, plot the setting inside which debates may be settled, and compel the risk of the organization (Kruft, 2001).
To authorize the use of GM seeds, the farmers need to sign an agreement that remove their legitimate rights and obtain liabilities. The qualities that is injected to the GM seeds are secured by patents. The agreement outlaws the farmers to sell their seeds to researchers who wants to evaluate it, and also the organization obstructs independent research on the seeds that have been acquired from them. The farmers are strictly not allowed to save seeds from the GM crops. If a farmer whose detected with the patented genes by cross-pollination, the farmer still needs to pay the fine for having the genes of the GM crops even though he is actually cultivating his crops organically (Public Health Association of Australia, 2013).
References
13 Advantages and Disadvantages of GMO's. (2015). Retrieved from GreenGarageBlog.org: https://greengarageblog.org/13-main-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-gmos
Bennet, D. J., & Jennings, R. C. (2013). Succesful Agricultural Innovation in Emerging Economies: New Genetic Technologies for Global Food Production. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=g9MgAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA192&dq=positive+effects+of+genetically+modified+seeds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj99YOEgJjZAhWH0YMKHWSWAMcQ6AEIRTAF#v=onepage&q=positive%20effects%20of%20genetically%20modified%20seeds&f=false
Bushak, L. (2015, July 22). A brief History of Genetically Modified Organisms: From Prehistoric Breeding To Modern Biotechnology. Retrieved from Medical Daily: https://www.medicaldaily.com/brief-history-genetically-modified-organisms-prehistoric-breeding-modern-344076
Carter, C., Moschini, G. C., & Sheldon, I. (2011). Frontiers of economics and globalization: Genetically Modified Food and Global Welfare.
Duvvuru, K. (2009, May 2). Monsanto and It's Philanthropy. Retrieved from Dissident Voice: https://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/monsanto-and-its-philanthropy/
GMO Basics. (n.d.). Retrieved from GMO Answers: https://gmoanswers.com/gmo-basics
Kruft, D. (2001, November). Impacts of Genetically-Modified Crops and Seeds on Farmers. Retrieved from https://greengarageblog.org/13-main-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-gmos
Mahgoub, S. E. (2015). Genetically Modified Foods: Basics, Applications, and Controversy. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=A-v5CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&dq=genetically+modified+seeds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8hKeW5JfZAhUh6YMKHS7SCw8Q6AEIPTAF#v=onepage&q=genetically%20modified%20seeds&f=false
Mercola, J. (2014, February 10). Seeds of Evil: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering. Retrieved from Organic Consumers Association: https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/seeds-evil-monsanto-and-genetic-engineering
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., & Schiøler, E. (2001). Seeds of Contention: World Hunger and the Global Controversy over GM Crops. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=NtY6AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=benefits+of+genetically+modified+seeds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK3s-ts5fZAhUjjK0KHf_OAEYQuwUIKzAA#v=onepage&q=benefits%20of%20genetically%20modified%20seeds&f=false
Public Health Association of Australia. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.phaa.net.au/documents/item/235
Sanvido, O., Stark, M., Romies, J., & Bigler, F. (2006, October). Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: Experiences from ten years of experimental field research and commercial cultivation. Retrieved from https://research.cip.cgiar.org/confluence/download/attachments/2400/Swiss+study+GM+crops.pdf
Scholderer, J., & Verbeke, W. (2012). Genetically Modified Crop Production: Social Science, Agricultural Economics, Cost and Benefits of Coexistencte.Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=vbUvlULIfwgC&pg=PA33&dq=positive+effects+of+genetically+modified+seeds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj99YOEgJjZAhWH0YMKHWSWAMcQ6AEINzAD#v=onepage&q=positive%20effects%20of%20genetically%20modified%20seeds&f=false
Smith, M. D. (n.d.). GMO Reality Check. Retrieved from EBSCO Industries, Inc: https://eds.a.ebscohost.com.eztest.ocls.ca/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=a3ef297c-4d12-4432-ae2e-73b88c2a768e%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=78031008&db=hxh
Why we are against GMOs. (2015). Retrieved from Slow Food: https://www.slowfood.com/what-we-do/themes/gmos/why-we-are-against-gmos/
Cite this page
Introduction to Genetically Modified Seeds. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Genetic Modification: Pros and Cons
Genetic modification is the process of forcing genes from one species into another entirely unrelated species. (""GMO Defined,"" 2011). Most of these transgenic combinations do not occur naturally and they are made to create a certain trait within foods. GMOs affect a huge number of products that everyone consumes on a daily basis. This connects with another rising issue in America- which is poverty. Most of the processed foods are more affordable than the healthy, organic food. This is very effective when it comes to unhealthy diets. This kind of food is developed and marketed because farmers and agricultural companies are benefitting from it. The companies and Farmers are having to use less pesticides and they deliver higher crops (Deshpande). By higher crops, the food is bigger than the normal size and they last longer on the shelf. They are also able to withstand droughts and have been said to increase the richness and taste.
However, this does create rooms for a large amount of problems with the general public in the long run. According to The Non-GMO Project, GMOs safety is unknown. They have been linked to causing infertility, which is one of the most crucial problems that is caused men and women when it comes to reproducing. In 2008, the Austrian Health Ministers presented how the fertility rates have dropped. This will definitely put a strain on the future generations. It is said that woman have had less pregnancies and men have had a lower sperm count. This not only has occurred in humans, but in animals as well. Women has had more of a difficult time than men have had. They have higher risk of infertility, premature births, and lower birth rates.
It’s vital that we, the general public, are aware of GMOs. GM foods have been on the market only since 1994, and research on their long-term effects on humans is scarce. Most of the studies have been done on animals. As stated by Rachel Mount, a journalist with Oprah, some of those studies link GM foods to altered metabolism, inflammation, kidney and liver malfunction, and reduced fertility. In one experiment, multiple generations of hamsters were fed a diet of GM soy; by the third generation, they were losing the ability to produce offspring, producing about half as many babies as the non-GM soy group (Smith). This can change the human population in a very dramatic way. Consuming GMOs will cause a serious problem in our future generation. Our bodies are made to be a specific, detailed system made up of cells. When this system is disrupted, the body will try to change itself to get rid of that particular problem, but when there are unknown factors that are like aliens in the body, our detailed system of cells will not know how to properly dispose of that alien. People should be aware of what they are eating and putting into their bodies. The body is like a baby. It needs to be nurtured and treated with proper care.
There have been over twenty-five countries that require companies to replace their GMO ingredients in their products. Hethir Rodriguez, a certified herbalist, and Dr. Christine Taxler, an OB/GYN, has stated that GMOs has caused so many problems that the EU has actually banned the use of GMO products throughout Europe, while the United States continues to allow them throughout the nation (Rodriguez). Other countries are banning GMOs because of the problems that they cause with health-related issues. This is very important because other nations are being very cautious on what they allow in their country. America needs to do the exact because GMOs are harming our population. Russia being another of the major countries that have banned these kinds of products as well. The prime minister of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, expressed his opinion by saying, “If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.” We need to cut down on the dependence of modern technology. It is ruining the health of Americans and is causing a dramatic decrease in our fertility levels. Russia, just like many other countries, can see what GMOs are doing to our health and they don’t want it to happen in their country. This is a drastic change that we need in America. We could save hundreds of people from birth defects, many health problems, and infertility.
There have been no long-term studies on the impact GMOs have on the human body. This is very important because we don’t know what will happen later on in the future. With this being said, people should care about what they put in their bodies. If they don’t have a clue as to what it, they need to raise questions about and try to figure out what if it will harm them. The Reproductive Medicine Center of First Hospital of Lanzhou University, stated that genetically modified foods may impact our reproductive potential in several levels (Spear). Since GMOs are genetically engineered, they transfer new genes and DNA into the human body. When the body come in contact with DNA they aren’t familiar with, It doesn’t know what to do with it. This is also why the infertility levels are decreasing. These genes that are being passed down from generation to generation are harmful genes that the body does not know how to dispose of them properly. People may think that this only occurs in women, but that is false. GM foods have also been implicated in the reproductive capacity of males as well. Since the 1970s alone, sperm counts among the world’s male population have declined as much as 40-50% (Torres). People mostly hear of women being infertile and not being able to bear a child. In many rare cases people will hear about men having a low sperm count.
The best solution for people who want to avoid GMO foods is to learn how to grow their own food and stay away from processed foods. This is a safe way to maintain people’s diets and health. This will be a very effective solution because everyone could benefit from it. If we look at other countries like Russia or Europe, we can see a huge difference between the population and the health of the population. America is known for being the unhealthiest country in the world. If people start to care about what they put in their body, and start to make a change in their diet we will be able to see a vast difference within our population. Instead of depending on modern technology, we should go back to our roots of the cultivation of crops. Before genetic engineering, our ancestors planted their own crops, raised their own cattle, and other animals. If we could make that change and go back to what our ancestors started, we could change our future generations for the better. This will cut down on high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and hundreds of other problematic health issues that are prevalent in America. Growing foods will not only keep people healthy, but it will also save them money and give them a new hobby.
Cite this page
Genetic Modification: Pros and Cons. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Genetically Modified Organism: Glowfish
GloFish were originally zebrafish, a tropical fish from the Minnow family. They originate in rivers of Himalayas and Eastern India. Zebrafish measure three centimeters long and were name for their distinct blue stripes on the side of their bodies. In 1999, Zebrafish were genetically modified with fluorescent by Scientist at the National Singapore University. Dr. Zhiyuan Gong and his colleagues were working with a gene that encodes the green fluorescent protein (GFP), originally extracted from a jellyfish, that naturally produced bright green fluorescence (“StateMaster - Encyclopedia: Glofish”). They inserted the gene into a zebrafish embryo, allowing it to integrate into the zebrafish's genome, which caused the fish to be brightly fluorescent under both natural white light and ultraviolet light.
GloFish were intentionally developed to help fight pollution in water. The long-term goal for the scientists was to detect toxins in water so that polluted waterways could be identified and the local communities using those waterways could be protected. “The first step was to make them fluoresce all the time,” explains Alan Blake, co-founder and CEO of Texas-based Yorktown Technologies, which introduced GloFish to the home aquarium market in 2003. The fluorescing color in the fish, will signal that water is contaminated. A gene is inserted in one zebra fish embryo one time, and the fluorescence trait is then carried from generation to generation through traditional breeding. One of many advantages of using GloFish is that, they produce hundreds of offspring and grow at an extremely fast rate. Providing Scientists countless of GloFish to conduct their studies.
Because of their neon colors, GloFish became the first genetically modified animal to be commercialized. They became a very popular pet in the fish market across the United States. The fish appear bright under normal white light and fluoresce brilliantly under a blue light. They are available in six colors such as; Starfire Red, Electric Green, Sunburst Orange, Cosmic Blue, Galactic Purple, and Moonrise Pink (“StateMaster - Encyclopedia: Glofish”). Each GloFish inherits its unique color directly from its parents, maintains the color throughout its life, and passes the color along to its offspring. It has been reviewed by many state agencies (Florida division of agriculture), they have concluded that fluorescent fish are safe for the environment. GloFish are approved for human use by the U.S. food and drug administration (“GMO GloFish.”). Despite the GloFish being tested as safe, California along with Canada and Europe has used its Environmental Quality Act to ban sale of GloFish.
One con of creating the GloFish, is that they cannot survive in North American waters. “Their non-GloFish equivalents have not established in the wild, and it is reasonable to assume that a bright, fluorescent equivalent would have even less of a chance of survival,” says Craig A. Watson, director of the Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory at the University of Florida. Overall the GloFish was genetically modified to help protect the environment. It was a very creative and easy genetically modification, due to the fish being able to continue to pass off the trait in their genes for generations. To this day, there are no proven history of serious damage cause by the GloFish. In conclusion, genetically modifying organisms should only be used to help improve the environment. whether it be for food or medically.
Cite this page
Genetically Modified Organism: Glowfish. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Are Gmos Healthy?
Many people in the United States are not knowledgeable in or even care much about nutrition labels or what goes into their food, but GMOs whether productive are destructive have become almost impossible to avoid. GMOs are genetically modified organisms that have been commercialized and expanded in the passed two decades. There are many opposing views on whether GMOs are ethical. These issues have even stemmed controversy in politics, but what are the cons that have left people with a bad perception of GMOs and what kind of negative effects could they be causing. The most common type of gene modification occurs in food. Gene modification has not been around for that long or has not been tested extremely. Many of the side effects of modifying genes if any at all are still unknown due to how young it is.
The FDA has approved this modification in many crops such as corn, tomatoes, and apples. These type of modifications can cause the crops to lose their nutritional value. According to the article, Pros and Cons of GMO Crop Farming, “Genetic modification often adds or mixes proteins that were not native to the original plant, which might cause new allergic reactions in the human body” (Lehrer & Bannon, 2005). Since modifying crops is still fairly new, the genetic makeup might accidentally create more or less of certain nutrients, that the body would need to maintain homeostasis. Additionally, the human body can also become allergic to these new substances and react negatively.
These genetically modified foods can even be found in animal food as well that may affect the consumers. Corn is a common genetically modified food that is feed to many life stock we consume such as cows, pigs, and chickens. Since we do not fully understand any effect that these GMOs have on livestock. We also do not understand what will happen when we eat said animals that are obtaining their sole nutrients from genetically modified corn. More testing and data is required for anyone to make an accurate statement on the health risks of GMOs on humans.
One of the most powerful arguments against Genetically modified organisms is the moral aspect to genetically modifying an organism. Many people claim it is not in our rights as a human to change nature. There are some who state it is not within our jurisdiction to play God and edit organisms genomes. In response to this claim I found a quote by Michael Specter that states “All the food we eat - every grain of rice and kernel of corn - has been genetically modified. None of it was here before mankind learned to cultivate crops. The question isn't whether our food has been modified, but how.” It seems as though GMOs may be inescapable in our modern age.
Despite the cry from many concerned individuals over GMOs, there are a few reasons why some people claim they are not all bad and may have the potential to be a positive thing in the food market. GMO supporters will state that GMO crops yield bigger crops and are cheaper to grow as well which may aid in the ever increasing demand for food as our country’s population continues to grow. According to an article by the foundation education “Genetically modified crops are cheaper to grow despite the higher initial modified seed costs. It seems that modified crops are sturdier, standing up to more weather extremes and requiring less expensive pesticides and herbicides.” All of the pros for GMOs are very enticing, and have dramatically changed how the food industry operates, yet many people still aren't convinced.
There are many people demanding food providers to label foods with GMOs in them. According to the website, Nongmoproject.org, “While a 2015 ABC News survey found that 93% of Americans believe genetically modified foods should be labelled…” There are waves of people who are concerned with what negative consequences GMOs may provide when they are consumed. There are many people who seek organic fruits and vegetables to avoid any risk that GMOs may provide.
Although GMOs currently have a bad reputation in the past decades they have revolutionized our crop efficiency and our ability to yield more food. The major argument against GMOS according to my understanding is that there is no sure answer to if they can negatively affect humans after long term consumption. If scientists could finally complete tests proving GMOs were safe for human consumption, they would be able to release a statement that clears GMOs of its bad name. GMOs if safe for human consumption can be continually developed by science to help many malnutritioned countries who often have a difficult time providing crops.
Whether we agree with GMOs or not they are here to stay, unless a new study provides definitive proof that GMOs are unfit for human consumption we can be looking towards even more genetically modified organisms to hit the supermarket aisles. Plants will not be the only GMOs, in the near future we may have “disease-resistant pigs, bird-flu resistant chickens, hornless dairy cows and highly productive sheep.” This may seem scary to some but to others this is a revolution in the food market that can both be highly profitable and useful in the fight versus malnutrition.
There are many points of interest when considering if GMOs are a positive or negative thing, but I myself believe in the positivity that science can bring to the dinner table.” As long as GMOs are safe and our eyes are peeled for any issues I personally see no reason why science should not continue its efforts. The future of genetically modified organisms can lead to drive food prices lower and even be used in impoverished overpopulated countries in an effort to end world hunger which in my opinion would not be half bad. In conclusion I find it hard to come up with a definitive answer to whether GMOs are positive or negative, but I can appreciate peoples concern for their health but we cannot deny the potential that comes from genetically modified organisms. In fact our fear for the unknown may hold us back from even greater discovery. Science will never stop, there are always people working towards developing new technology and the ability to edit genres is in our realm of capabilities whether we are scared of the future or whether we embrace it time will till regarding genetically modified organisms in the good market.
Cite this page
Are Gmos Healthy?. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
Genetically Modified Foods: Safety, Risks
Food serves as a way for people to connect and has always been part of the human story. The effect that food has on culture and social aspects is very deep-rooted in our society. Yet as the world continues to grow, and technology continues to advance, the need for more food is crucial in order to satisfy an increasing population. As an effect, science has resorted to meet such demands by modifying foods at a genetic level. The use of GMO's currently has had profound impacts on society, that essentially resulted in positive and negative outcomes. More specifically, GMO's have raised conflict between groups of opposing viewpoints, increased awareness regarding health of consumers, and allowed businesses to reap the benefits of the advantages GMO's have to offer.
Perhaps the most severe consequence Genetically Modified Organisms have on society, is that they have raised disputes between people on whether consumers should be aware of what’s inside their food. The citizens of Colorado, Vermont, and other states, each with their respective opinions, are divided on instituting labeling laws to be put on genetically altered foods. Those supportive of the labeling laws argue that consumers are “entitled to know whether their food contains GMO’s” in order to make more informed decisions (Muskal). The public being unaware of what their food contains can be seen as a violation of their rights in their eyes, thus justifying why they feel the way they do. In contrast, those opposing the laws (mainly businesses) fear that labeling will “stigmatize” their products, or in other words associate GMO’s in a negative context, that will ultimately result in economic stress due to higher costs needed to separate modified from non-modified foods (Muskal). The disputes led to legislation taking action in courts to address the decision of passing said laws. Nevertheless, the two groups continued to battle out the subject, thus putting stress on social balance in the states. Social balance is important to keep in check in order to maintain control, which is unfortunately provoked by the controversial topics the use of GMO’s raise.
The safety of GMO's consumption has also come into question, along with the health of people who actively consume them. Most GMO's have been engineered to withstand the harshest of pesticides and endure environment conditions normal food would otherwise not tolerate. This raises speculation if GMO's are actually safe to eat considering all of the unnatural procedures that are done to it. A mounting body of evidence has connected GMO's with many harmful health problems. Lisa Archer a critic of the AquAdvantage Salmon, claims that the fish could cause allergies in people and even goes as far to say that ""'There's no place on our dinner plates for genetically modified fish'"" (Associated Press). Her argument proves that GMO's have no place in the diets of consumers and that their well-being may be at high risk. Furthermore, another reason why GMO's are causing such concerns regarding health, is that they are poorly studied. Therefore, in the absence of concrete evidence, many citizens have taken matters into their own hands and choose to ""opt out of the GMO experiment"" (""GMO Facts""). This supports the increasing amount of doubt among citizens and society, explaining why many of them choose to not take part in such unknown affiliations dealing with modified foods, in order to ensure the safety of themselves and others.
Despite the negative consequences GMO's have had on society, the usage of them has proven useful to businesses and corporations who make a profit off the many advantages the modified foods present. The J.R. Simplot Company in Idaho received approval from the Federal Department of Agriculture to pass two new varieties of potatoes that are impervious to certain diseases (Ridler). Diseases such as 'late blight' have made it hard for farmers to maintain their farms, but the new varieties of potatoes however, offer a solution because of their genetically produced defenses. Company officials claim that the potatoes will bring up to ""24-hour protection to farmers' fields and reduce the use of pesticide spray up to 45 percent"" (Ridler). This not only protects the farmers' property but ensures the success of companies due to increased production that will likely come about because of the foods' resistance. Furthermore, the genetically modified potatoes are more durable and can be kept in cold storage for longer periods of time (Ridler). Enhanced shelf life could show to be valuable to industries that rely on them by reducing trucking costs. The reduced costs saves the companies potentially large quantities of money that can be put to use in other places.
The effects GMO's have had in present-day society have greatly impacted everyday aspects of our lives. Some of the most principal impacts include that GMO's have caused ethical and health concerns amongst consumers, aided companies financially, and triggered social disputes. All under consideration, even though using GMO's has negative consequences, the benefits they have induced has significantly contributed to the development of our modern world.
Cite this page
Genetically Modified Foods: Safety, Risks. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
GMO Research Analysis
In the 1990s there was a significant threat in Hawaii known as the Papaya Ringspot virus which has been shown to cause tissue necrosis. Fortunately, researchers were able to save the fruit by developing a virus-resistant version, or genetically modified food, that looks and tastes the same as the original. However, that is just one of many cases where GMOs have come into play. Humans have been altering the genetics of organisms for over thirty thousand years. Early versions of this began with our ancestors in a process called “selective breeding.” The creation of the first genetically engineered organism was in 1973. Herb Boyer and Stanley Cohen managed to alter the bacterium known as E. coli. Their work laid the foundation for future research and engineering. Immediately controversy rose amongst media, government officials, and scientists. Though the debate of GMO safety environmental or health concerns is on going the scientific community has deemed genetically engineered foods safe. By looking at the purposes and possibilities, environmental and safety concerns, and the regulations and labeling of genetically modified foods, we can see that they benefit our society and are essential to our future.
Let’s start with the purposes and possibilities of GMOs. GM crops are engineered for a tolerance to pesticides and herbicides and for resistance to other threats such as fungus, insects, weeds, and disease. They are developed for faster growth rates and the ability to handle environmental disaster. GM foods are also designed to prevent bruising and eliminate browning as in the foods such as potatoes and apples. Scientists argue that biotechnology can produce fast-growing, disease and infestation immune crops that will successfully grow in difficult environments while providing much needed nutritional value able to correct widespread public health issues such as global hunger and malnutrition from lack of vitamins and minerals. An example of this is Golden Rice. It has been enriched with beta-carotene for the purpose of eliminating illness and death caused by a lack of Vitamin A in Asia, where rice is overwhelmingly the main ingredient in the average daily diet. While critics do argue that changing the genetics of an organism and introducing it into the ecosystem will compromise it permanently, and while yes, it will change the biodiversity, it’s not without good cause.
Next are the environmental and safety concerns of GMOs. GM seeds that are tolerant to pesticides and herbicides have significantly reduced use of such sprays, offering a more practical answer to farmers against devastating crop damage while having a positive impact on the environment. Scientists and regulatory bodies generally agree that human consumption of GM foods is as safe as consuming non-GM foods. A 2018 study published by Scientific Reports analyzed over six thousand peer-reviewed studies on GM corn and determined that the product provided additional health benefits due to a reduction of contaminants. A 2016 open letter signed by more than one hundred Nobel Laureates encouraged governments worldwide to embrace GM foods, notably Golden Rice, declaring them an important solution for reducing world hunger while helping conserve agricultural systems. Since widespread consumption of GM foods has occurred for less than twenty years, there is concern that unintended health hazards have yet to be determined and rigorously researched.
Finally we will talk about the regulation and labeling of GMOs. Advances in genetic engineering led the US federal government to develop the 1986 Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, a system for evaluating the effect of biotech research and products on public health and the environment. Different GM food products are regulated through different agencies. The FDA is responsible for reviewing the legality, nutrition, and safety of GM foods derived from plants, which are required to meet the same safety standards as non-GM foods to be approved for the consumer market in the United States, as well as food additives, drugs, biologics and GM animals, which are considered ""animal drugs,"" which must withstand the scrutiny of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates GM plants, seeds, and products derived from plants, their transport and importation with the goal of protecting agriculture. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates GM crops engineered for insect and disease resistance. In May 2018 the USDA proposed a system of rules in which manufacturers may choose one of three different options for labeling GM products: a standardized symbol containing the letters BE, a written disclosure that a product contains BE ingredients, or a digital Quick Response (QR) code.
?Works Cited
ModernAg. “The Science Inside a GMO Seed.” ModernAg, ModernAg, 25 Oct. 2018, modernag.org/innovation/the-science-inside-gmo-seeds/?gclid=CjwKCAiA5qTfBRAoEiwAwQy-6S_Luw0O5YlEv8E7QIRO0lmYVU_Eu_qOjxoiO0BXbV10JhxzXoohjBoCjYkQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds.
Rangel, Gabriel. “From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology.” Science in the News, 23 Oct. 2016, sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/.
""Genetically Modified Food."" Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2018. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/PC3010999249/OVIC?u=tel_a_pstcc&sid=OVIC&xid=fc0e4dda. Accessed 13 Nov. 2018.
Cite this page
GMO Research Analysis. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
What is GMO?
We’ve heard a lot about GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) or genetic manipulation. You can find everywhere in our life in foods, clothes and include medication. As science and technology have developed, humans become able to manipulate genes and there are many voices of interest and concerns.There are positive voices about GMO. They are saying in GMO products, the damage caused by insects, weeds and natural disasters is less than natural agricultural products and the improvement in quality resulted in an increase in production and decrease in miscellaneous expenses such as labor costs and pesticides. Also, it is possible to make vaccines for various disease include incurable disease through gene manipulation, even possibility to restore destroyed animals and plants that disappeared long time ago.
However, there are lots of concerning issues about GMO. GMO organism with strong resistance will destroy the current ecosystem and eventually only GMO organism will be survived. Also, no one knows what the consequences will occur for people who take long-term ingestion of GMO foods since we don’t know that GMO organism with strong resistance might increase human resistance to antibody. Since our bodies are directly affected, more time and effort will be required for recovery and treatment after problems are discovered. In addition, the genes of GMO organisms can be mutated to create mutations. Although it can be considered a kind of evolution, it will have negative consequences such as destroying the ecosystem. Moreover, after the introduction of modified crops, super weeds emerged that are difficult to kill even with herbicides. Modified crops make themselves toxic and defend against pests, but over times, pests and weeds also have the tolerance.
In the movie Gattaca (1997), most people are born with genetic manipulation that parents can choose good genes for their baby. In that movie, Ethan Hawke was born naturally without any genetic manipulation, dreams to become an astronaut that only smart and genetic manipulated person able to get in. I was in shock when I watched this movie since I thought it could be happening real in our society.In U.S.A. parents can choose the gender of their baby during in vitro fertilization (IVF). Gender selection during in vitro fertilization is prohibited in some other countries since there is possible unethical problems and producing inequality population of men and women. One year ago, my one of high school friends decided to come U.S.A. for in vitro fertilization to have a boy after birth of three daughters. It costs her total $50,000, but she says it’s worth it since she was under lots of stress to have a boy over 10 years. According to Grazian, popular culture refers to the aesthetic products created and sold by profit-seeking firms operating (Grazian,D p.6). Without demand, there will be no production, and there will be more people to come to U.S.A. to select gender of their baby and soon or later, shortage of women population will cause another problem in our society.
Lots of scientists, biotechnologists and others in the food industry support genetic modification for their profit; however, there is no scientific consensus on GMO safety and not confirmed its stability by World Health Organization. Also, there is no guarantee that transgenes and manipulations in the medical field will not result to create human mutation in few hundred years later.
Cite this page
What is GMO?. (2019, Feb 14).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/02/page/11/
