Nicholas Willbanks

English 2000
Dr. Rose Bunch
April 21, 2014
Genetically Modified Propaganda
The business of agriculture is unstable by nature and is heavily dependent on regional
climatic conditions. What if you could avoid tremendous loss just by planting one seed instead of
another? This is a real solution to a much larger threat and is the basis of research for genetically
modified organisms. Gene alteration in seeds can allow for more resilient crop that is less
dependent on growing conditions. Unfortunately, GMO products are feared by the general public
and face large amounts of scrutiny that hurt scientific advancement in todays society. The
reluctance to change is preventing advancement in third world countries, success in agriculture,
and is not based on scientific findings.
Genetically Modified Organisms could be used as a tool to reduce world hunger and
nutritional diseases. They allow for pest and disease resistant crops that provide larger yield and
nutritional benefits. The most common variations in crop genotype deal with resistance to
insects and the herbicides that are used to deter pests. The goal is to remove unfavorable
conditions that could destroy fields of crops. Because of genetic alteration B.t Maize is now
used worldwide alongside chemical resistant GMO seeds to prevent crop loss due to insects.
While the bacterium inserted into Bt crops is toxic to insects, it is not harmful to humans or the
environment (Mendelsohn, 1). Coupled with genetically modified traits like resistance to climate
and larger yields, GMO crops allow for increased food production in conditions that are not

Willbanks

suitable under normal circumstances. This allows third world countries to have a more constant
food supply that is not dependent on climate conditions.
By utilizing the potential of genetically modified seeds, scientists have developed
alternative solutions to other global problems like vitamin deficiency and malnourishment in
third world countries. These recent developments have gained attention in the United States, and
are slowly gaining acceptance globally. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations reports that some GMO foods have been engineered to be more nutritious in terms of
mineral or vitamin content. The United Nations advises that vitamin A-enhanced rice is helping
to reduce global vitamin A deficiencies (Duvauchelle). Golden rice, as it is globally referred to
as, is an example of a genetic modification that results in rice that is rich in vitamin A. Vitamin A
deficiency is a serious issue that effects nearly 250 million children under the age of 5 (Vitamin
A Deficiency). Third world nations could utilize golden rice to provide essential nutrients
through a crop that is produced and consumed in large quantities across the world. A single
bowl of this new golden rice can supply 60 percent of a child's daily requirement of vitamin A
(Charles). The addition of vitamin A is to rice is only a fraction of the possibilities available with
GMO products. If public opinion refuses GMO advancement, why has selective breeding been
widely accepted for centuries with regards to organic foods? Selective breeding can be
considered a traditional practice of genetic variation; cross breeding instead of gene splitting.
With advancements in science and technology, agriculture must develop in order to meet the
demands of the worlds population. Genetically modified Organisms have the potential to
increase the availability and nutritional value of the worlds food supply, but are seen as a threat
because of the general public is uninformed and shows no support for research in the field of
biological engineering.

Willbanks

Genetically modified organisms are already deeply involved in economies and agriculture
across the world. The use of genetically modified organisms could be paramount in the future of
agriculture industries. In the United States alone, almost 90 percent of soy is genetically
modified to resist herbicides and increase yield (Agricultural Statistics Board). Farmers across
the world already utilize GMO technology in prominent cash crops as well as the soy that is used
to feed livestock. While genetically modified variants of crops are more successful in developed
countries like the United States, the popularity of GMO products can be seen worldwide. Of the
29 biotech crop countries in 2010, 19 were developing countries compared with only 10
industrial countries. ("ISAAA Brief 42-2010"). Because of inherent survivability traits inserted
in genetically modified seeds, the use of genetically modified seeds has risen in developing
countries. Genetically modified seeds are popular because they are made to be successful. They
are more readily available in the United States because as a country we are industrially focused
and more likely able afford the startup prices of GMO seeds, which have shown to return
favorable results. Economic gains at the farm level of ~ US$65 billion were generated globally
by biotech crops during the period 1996 to 2009, of which just less than half, 44%, were due to
reduced production costs (less plowing, fewer pesticide sprays and less labor) and just over half,
56%, due to substantial yield gains of 229 million tons (ISAAA Brief 42-2010"). Profit in
agriculture is not limited to plants alone. Genetic modification can take place directly and
indirectly amongst animals as well. These genetically modified animals come to public attention
because of a lack in regulation of GMO meat and a fear of human involvement in genetic
construction. If regulated and labeled accordingly, products from GMO animals would allow for
extended breeding seasons and faster development, specifically seen in genetically modified
salmon. With the year-round production of growth hormone, the AquaBounty fish grow to

Willbanks

market size in 16 to 18 months instead of 30 (Pollack). By cutting growth cycles nearly in half,
Salmon would be readily available and provide supply of product that would not be dependent
on seasonal conditions. This would impact breeding in the same sense as farming, we are
creating products that are advantageous to us as humans, because advancement in science allows
us to.
Opponents of genetically modified organisms claim that research is insufficient and
declare that GMO products are actually not beneficial to third world countries. While there is
truth in those claims, the publics fear of genetically modified organisms is what is making it
unaffordable for third world countries and is stalling the advancement of biological science. With
more advancement in the GMO industry competition would force GMO seed prices to be
competitive, according to basic to economic principles. Current GMO seeds are so expensive
because of a lack of diversity in the market. The top 3 companies (Monsanto, DuPont,
Syngenta) together account for $10,282 million, or 47% of the worldwide proprietary seed
market (About GE Foods). Because of the publics fear of genetically modified organisms,
the market is limited and GMO products are not researched to their full potential. With more
research and development potential allergens could be identified and properly labeled, which
would regulate one of the biggest concerns associated with genetically modified products. More
regulation would be established and guidelines for labeling would protect consumers from
potential threats. Allergen testing is already one of the most basic areas evaluated when GMO
products are assessed for public safety, and when paired with proper labeling allergens can easily
be avoided. The research that has already been conducted on genetically modified organisms has
been influenced by bias on both sides and could greatly benefit from basis in legitimate scientific
research.

Willbanks

Opponents claim that positive reviews of genetically modified organisms are influenced
by big business or government and are not conclusive studies. Proponents of genetically
modified organisms claim that harmful effects of GMOs are overstated and the scientific backing
fails to meet research standards. Misinformation can clearly be seen in the Sralini affair of 2012.
Gilles-ric Sralini, a known opponent of GMO advancement, studied the toxic effects of
herbicide resistant form of maize on Sprauge-Dawley rats. The problems with Sralinis study
come from an apparent bias behind testing conditions, as the species of rat chosen already has a
predisposition to the cancerous tumors that he expected as a result of being fed GMO maize.
Spontaneous endocrine tumors were found in 81 of 100 Sprague-Dawley rats (42 males and 39
females) which survived for more than 2 years (Suzuki, 187). By limiting the testing groups to
10 tumor prone rats and restraining peer review during experimentation, Sralini was able to
create the results that appealed to his predisposition. When Sralinis results were published in
the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, Russia and Kenya enacted immediate GMO
regulation policy, inciting similar discussion of policy amongst European nations. Once
publicized the trials were heavily scrutinized by scientists and media alike. In 2013 Elsivar, the
publishing company of Sralinis work, retracted the study after Sralini refused to withdraw the
publication himself. It is now disregarded in the scientific community, but has ultimately
damaged the publics perception of genetically modified products.
Genetically modified organisms have the potential to benefit society in a multitude of
ways, but are restricted by the public fear that always follows advancements in science and
medicine. We trust pharmaceutical companies to create drugs that dont occur naturally, but
using advancements in science to create GMOs is far less acceptable. The reluctance to change
is preventing advancement in third world countries, success in agriculture, and is not based on

Willbanks

scientific findings. Genetically modified organisms deserve more attention in the ever-changing
world that we live in.

Willbanks

Works Cited
"About GE Foods." Center for Food Safety. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Charles, Dan. "In A Grain Of Golden Rice, A World Of Controversy Over GMO Foods." NPR. NPR,
n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
Duvauchelle, Joshua. "Pros & Cons of GMO Foods." LIVESTRONG.COM. LIVESTRONG.COM, 13
Jan. 2014. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
"ISAAA Brief 42-2010." Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:
2010. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
Mendelsohn, Mike, John Kough, Zigfridais Vaituzis, and Keith Matthews. "Are Bt Crops
Safe?" NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 23 Apr.
2014.
Pollack, Andrew. "An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 21 May 2012. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
Suzuki, Mohr, and Kimmerle. "Spontaneous Endocrine Tumors in Sprague-Dawley Rats." Journal of
Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. Springer-Verlag, 01 Oct. 1979. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
"Vitamin A Deficiency." Golden Rice Project. Golden Rice Project, n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.