Le 1

Jimmy Le
Jamie McBeth-Smith
ENGL 1010
December 4, 2014
A Preceding Annotated Bibliography about the Genetic Engineering of Food and the Literal
Titling Thereof
The application of genetic engineering or modification in agriculture and our general
food supply is a relatively new technology that has only been recently explored in the last few
decades. That being said, this is probably longer than what most people expect. The genetic
modification/engineering of our food supply (GM/GE foods, GM/GE crops, or GMOs) aims to
supplement them with beneficial characteristics such as increased nutritional value, greater
resilience to insects, disease, or chemical substances, and so on. However, like the arrival of any
other ambitious technology, comes cause for concern.
From my own personal observations and experience there seems quite a bit of uncertainty
from the public on the matter, from to the methodology of the science, to its safety, and to its
prominence. A quick internet search of the prominence of GM foods/crops as of this decade
gives the impression that it is greater than I imagine many would think. Furthermore, it seems
that for the part of the public that cares to acknowledge GM foods, there is quite a polarization as
to how many feel about its potential risks and effect on ones health upon ingestion. This is
understandable, however, as the idea of modifying of our everyday sustenance on such a
complex level can make one tentative about its consequences.

Le 2
There many who seem to stigmatize GMOs as dangerous or something to avoid. Others
may tout that the issue has been overblown and that there has not been significant evidence to
merit a complete dismissal of GMOs. Admittedly I am not a biology major; I myself do not know
much more than one might find casually navigating Wikipedia. However, it is because of my
lack of credible knowledge about something that is apparently pervasive enough to potentially
greatly affect my health that I wish to delve further into the issue. Could advances in the
technology prove to be a promising avenue into fortifying the future security of our food supply?
Is there any credibility behind the bastardization of GMOs? Is there any scientific consensus as
to the viability and safety of GM foods? Does the benefits GM foods promise outweigh the
drawback, if delivering any real tangible benefits at all? These are the lens Ill be using to focus
the scope of my research.
Ellis, Glenn. "Glenn's Well-being: Risk of Genetically Modified Food." Mississippi Link: 10. Jan
2013. ProQuest. Web. Nov 29. 2014 .
Glenn prefaces his article by stating that our food supply is more dangerous
today than ever before. he goes on to talk about the risks of GM foods, such as
introduced allergens and toxins, accidental contamination, and super weeds. Glenn
warns against the eco- systematical havoc the genetic engineering of foods (which he
describes as defiling nature), and that once released into the environment, these GMOs
will be impossible to recall. In this, he poses the question of whether we can afford to
make such dire mistakes at this point, in a world that is already unable to feed itself.
In some respect, Glenn brings up some plausible risks of the genetic engineering
of food such as accidental contamination, which can be detrimental to the peaceful

Le 3
coexistence of organic and GMO foods. However, Glenns overall analysis of GMOs
seems more visceral than would be expected of statements based on just factual evidence.
This can be denoted by his use of emotionally charged language such as a [defiling]
nature, frakenfood, and trying to play God.
This article provides a voice of dissent in relation to material Ive found thus far.
With that being said, Im not entirely convinced of the credibility of this author, as his
emotionally charged rhetoric is a bit offputting. Furthermore, some of his statements
seem to be in conflict with previous material Ive found, (that of which Ive deemed more
credible) such as numerous studies (What studies?) proving GMOs being a extreme
health hazard.
Nicolia, Alessandro, et al. "An Overview Of The Last 10 Years Of Genetically Engineered Crop
Safety Research." Critical Reviews In Biotechnology 34.1 (2014): 77-88. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
This particular article analyzes a large collective of scientific literature, such as
research papers, reviews, etc. that deal with a variety of aspects pertaining to the safety
GE crops. This includes aspects such as the interaction of GE crops in the environment
(effects on biodiversity), the interaction of humans and animals with GE crops, the safety
of GE crop consumption, and so on. In reviewing the 10 years-worth of research they
have compiled, the author(s) conclude that the research has not discovered any significant
hazard directly related to GM crops.
This article is very fact and logic driven. They cite numerous other experts and
other scientific articles specifically pertaining to the same matter, providing detailed

Le 4
summaries and proper numerical data with the sources they have collected. Furthermore,
the authors themselves work in respective departments, such as the department of
Applied Biology, that would pertain directly to the subject at hand. This works to
substantiate their conclusion and lend to their overall credibility as a source on the matter.
More so than not, this piece validates that GMOs have not been shown to be a
significant hazard. This is significant in relation to the initial questions I posed for this
research project, in terms of any sort of scientific consensus or compelling evidence for
major risks for the genetic modification of crops. In turn I will be using this pieces
overall findings to not only answer my own aforementioned questions, but to validate my
response to negative stances on GMOs which may ask the same questions of a similar
nature.
Robinson, Elton. "Five Reasons Why We Fight Mandatory GMO Labeling." Southeast Farm
Press 41.19 (2014): 4. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
Elton proposes five reasons as to why the mandating of GMO labeling would be
unfavorable to all parties, and not just farmers. 1) Labeling GMO information in the
interests of displaying transparency could have the opposite effect of repulsion; GMO
labels could denote a significant deviation between said foods and their non GMO when
in actuality they are similar in safety, nutrition, and taste and therefore should need no
differentiation. 2) Genetically-engineered crops are evidently safe and provide long-term
profitability to many farmers. 3) Mandating of GMO labeling will increase food costs. 4)
There is already pertinent legislation for labeling of GMOs, in that the FDA will mandate
labeling GMO food ingredients if the agency determines a health, safety, or nutrition

Le 5
issue with the technology. 5) Consumers will erroneously perceive the GMO labeling as a
warning and will therefore not purchase said items. With GMOs becoming irrelevant,
food costs would soar and farmers would have to utilize other less-environmentally
friendly farming methods.
While some of the things Robinson mentioned are plausible, I dont find his
reasons very compelling at all. Most of this is due to relying solely on addressing
hypothetical negative outcomes, while not acknowledging pre-existing negative
sentiment; such is the case in Robinson proposing why transparency in food labeling
might give the wrong impression , while ignoring that there are already souring
sentiments towards GMOs over the lack thereof. For the most part, I find these reasons
betraying of a thinly-veiled corporate agenda that takes away any persuasive qualities
from Robinsons reasoning.
This article will serve as a crutch to emphasize the importance aspects of GMOs,
such as product transparency and the importance of offering consumers a choice, and
how a lack thereof fosters a sense of fear and distrust. Although mandating labeling
requires much more work in that testing for GMO presence in other foods is a time
consuming practice, I feel it is a necessary evil.
Rotman, David. "Why We Will Need Genetically Modified Foods." Technology Review 117.1
(2014): 28-37. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
David Rotman, states that the sufficiency of our future food production is in
question, as demand is predicted to rise considerably. A rising population is not the only
factor in which this dilemma is made worse, but additionally there comes the threat of

Le 6
blight and climate. Climate change means droughts and in some regions, wetter
conditions, which threaten crop yield with high heat and/or wetter conditions that dry out
and destroy crops or facilitate disease and insect infestations to the same effect. Rotman
brings to attention one particular advantage of genetic modification of crops, in that less
time is used in creating an adaptive variety of the crop via genetic engineering vs.
conventional breeding. In the face of blight, (which annually destroy about 15 percent of
the worlds agricultural harvest) this is particularly useful in that plants can be genetically
modified quickly to combat the disease at hand. However, the solution is much trickier
for drought and climate change, however, as multiple genes must be modified for
complex traits. Despite acknowledged criticisms that existing transgenic crops have done
little to guarantee future food security, in the face of increasing pressure on levels of
agricultural production, Rotman cites scientist-at Sainsbury-Laboratory Jonathan Jones
that it would be perverse to spurn using genetic modification as a tool.
David Rotman addresses the topic with logos. He does this by bringing the real
issues of increasing food demand and population in the face of disease and climate
change affecting crop production today, and detailing how genetic modification could
assist in dealing with these problems. However, he acknowledges that despite the
promising nature of GM crops, they have failed to as of current truly fortify the security
of food production. Furthermore, he notes that combating drought and climate through
genetic modification will prove to be a difficult task. Rotman does not try to tout genetic
modification as a end-all, magic solution, and in this he appears to be sensible and
level-headed, and thus is more credible.

Le 7
The points brought up in this article will be helpful in providing an introduction to
threats to our current food security, and why genetic modification may be an avenue
worth pursuing despite current qualms and criticisms. This will help frame my response
to questions relating to the need or benefit of GMOs.
Tudge, Colin. "Gmos: A Solution Or A Problem?." Journal Of International Affairs 67.2 (2014):
131. MasterFILE Premier. 136-39. Web. Nov 29. 2014.
Colin Tudge expresses opposition to GMOs not because of potential detriment to
human health. Rather, he claims that its touted potential to better feed a hungry
population is overshadowed by what Tudge asserts is a primary interest in profit. He
emphasizes that GMOs have failed to deliver on their promises as they have not
demonstrated in a serious way that they produce a significant increase in crop yield in
real field tests. He contends that the best means to produce food for the world, as opposed
to maximizing profits, would be to bolster traditional, small mixed farms, which are more
environmentally friendly and conducive to employment. He insists that there are other
ways to solve the issues that GMOs promise to address, such as encouraging horticulture
and market gardens in lieu fortification of food to deal with vitamin deficiencies.
Ultimately, Tudge proposes we should focus attention on enlightened agriculture, not
GMOs.
Tudge takes an interesting approach on refuting the merits of GMOs in that
incorporates a broader, capitalistic picture. The points he suggests are logical, and levelheaded. His rebuttals also avoid taking the emotionally-charged route, like some other
anti-GMO sentiments, which is lends to a better sense of credibility.

Le 8
This article was refreshing in that its criticisms of GMOs go beyond the (still
important) health and risk argument. The alternatives Tudge contends do sound
appealing, in some respect, and I can certainly agree that corporate profit is certainly a
factor in the dynamic of GMOs. The pairing of arising technology and corporate agendas
is to a degree, inevitable. In spite of this, I dont feel like this merits a complete dismissal
for this reason alone, as this is simply the reality of living in a capitalistic country. Many
technological advances today can be considered as having a profit-motived agenda, such
as medicine/pharmaceuticals. As unfortunate as this is, this does not necessarily
invalidate the benefits of said technologies, nor does it mean that profit-gain is the only
facet of these technologies. With this in mind, this piece will help diversify voices of
dissent within my synthesis.
Interestingly enough, one might find themselves hard-pressed to find any substantial
peer-reviewed data attesting to any sort of easily recognized health hazard in genetically
modified crops. Despite this, you still have fervent anti-GMO groups and individuals who will
swear against the very idea. Perhaps this can be evident of the idea that the response to GMOs
can be emotionally based, in a way that cannot be swayed just by throwing more data at it. While
an attempt to alleviate feelings of distrust can definitely be made on the industrys part by
making honest efforts to become more transparent and to maintain consumer choice, we the
consumers also must work to withhold visceral judgment as to become unclouded to factual data.
It is possible that as time passes new evidence will arise to incriminate the genetic engineering of
food and its safety. However, current and future food security is constantly under threat of an
ever increasing population, climate change, and blight. With this in mind, is it necessarily wise to
close off all avenues for what seems to be a promising tool in fortifying food security in respect

Le 9
to all of this? Ultimately, I have to say no.