1

Misilei Brown
Section 714
Biology 1010
Winters
April 27, 2015
Genetically Modified Organisms
Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are just a step in a long line of crop
manipulations according to Eric Hoffman, a food technology expert. He explains that
anciently, farmers gathered seeds from the best tasting, highest yielding and most
nutritious plants. By planting these selected seeds year after year, coupled with naturally
occurring cross-pollination, crops modified and improved. This form of conventional
breeding eventually led to the development of hybrid crops which involved crossbreeding two genetically different lines in the same genus and usually the same species.
These changes in the plants were limited to the genes already present within the plants.
Hoffman goes on to describe the next step in plant manipulation. This all changed
dramatically with the advent of genetic engineering in the 1970s and 1980s. Genetic
engineering allowed the transfer of genes between species, and even species of different
kingdoms and court decisions allowed, for the first time, patents on life. I perceive that
the two differences he has described between previous crop manipulation and GMOs are:
1) genetic engineering is now transferring genes between kingdoms which is an
impossible occurrence in nature and 2) Biotech companies have been awarded patents on
this form of life.

2
The controversial information about these crops is immense. Amy Harmon from
the New York Times, reports on a city councilman in Hawaii, Greggor Ilagan, who when
a bill to ban all GMOs on the island was brought before the council, did extensive
research to help decide his vote. Initially he found only information criticizing GMOs but
when he dug deeper he discovered that most of the research showed benefits of GMOs,
and little evidence that they pose more health risks and negative effects on the
environment than conventional crops. He was concerned about the possible involvement
of biotech companies on the research but was convinced that the benefits these crops
could provide outweighed the possible threats. He voted no to the ban but wanted any
GMOs allowed on the island to be studied independently for possible adverse effects.
Despite his opposition, the bill passed and as of now the large island wont let any new
GMO crops to be grown.
In researching this topic, like Ilagan, I have found many benefits regarding the
development and use of GMOs. The first advantage being, the amazing foods that are
grown. The crops can be made to grow larger, with more nutrients, can withstand pests,
survive weed killers and can be grown with less water in less time. With the worlds
population over 6 billion and the projection of it being over 9 billion by the year 2050, we
could really benefit from these types of crops. We see evidences, through the media and
other sources, of the struggle to feed the world and we know that the need will
exponentially rise. Many see GMOs and other ways of modifying our crops as solutions
to end world hunger. With access to GMOs - countries, which have relied on outside
food sources due to less than desirable growing conditions, will be able to grow their own
crops. These are good reasons to continue developing and allowing GMOs into our food

3
supply chain. So if this is all true and the research confirms it then why is there such
harsh criticism and outcry against this new science?
Martha Crouch may have some of the answers. Crouch, who worked as a plant
microbiologist when plants were first being patented, found that the research allowed was
so controlled and limited that she doesnt trust the research that has been done. She wrote,
Legally, the only way to study an engineered crop, commercialized or not is to go
through the company that owns the patents. If the company is willing, it will offer
researchers or more likely today, their institutions- confidential agreements with the
terms under which research can be conducted. In other words the companies that stand to
profit or lose from the results are ultimately in control of who gets to do research and
who doesnt. Crouch said that she was dismayed at how few independent studies of
GMOs get done against the framework of these companies. Her findings were especially
true for results in how GMOs affect humans, weeds and pest insects. One student told her
that he was offered a grant if he dropped his current project in favor of another after one
of his preliminary results pointed to an issue with crop performance. Other concerns
included researchers who did persevere and found unfavorable results, were then refused
further access to the seeds. They also faced attacks on their published works saying that
their work should be discounted for deficiencies in their studies. She also brought up her
fears about the growing practice of private money and guidance in agricultural research
due to the lessening of public grants in our research universities countrywide. This has
led to an increase in industry sponsored endowed chairs, graduate student fellowships,
undergraduate teaching grants, internships and other partnerships that give corporations
access and intrusion. Crouch would like to see seeds of genetically engineered crops put

4
into the common domain where they can be used freely in research so scientists will be
able to report transparent, reliable information about these powerful, new technologies.
Going back to Hoffman, he brings up some worrisome data on the GMO gateway
to other methods of manipulating crops. These include, but are not limited to,
synthetically modified foods. Synthetic biology enables the writing and rewriting of
genetic code on a computer. He asserts that what is different and possibly more hazardous
about SMOs is that the DNA sequences and genes being used are increasingly different
than those found in nature. Hoffman states, Biotechnology is already poorly regulated
and the current system will not work with an SMO which has genes that have never
existed before in nature and whose parent is a computer. He also claims that so far there
hasnt been any scientific effort to assess the risks of any synthetic organism. He affirms
that they can have tens or hundreds of completely new gene sequences. The rate that
science is moving with all of these new technologies seems faster than our understanding
of them can keep up with. With all of these contrasting voices on the subject it is hard for
me to decide how I feel about GMOs.
Andrew Revkin gives what he calls a level-headed assessment of GMOs and
encourages study of what is available because there is so much fear on the side against
GMOs and eye rolling on the side in favor of GMOs. He addresses issues that seem to
bother the public the most. These include: regulation, academic freedom, health,
environment, money, policy, and labeling. Revkin is of the opinion that if people will
study the reports on these topics they will find legitimate data that will put fears to rest.
He does admit that there is room for improvement and that this technology will not be
trouble free.

5
In conclusion I find that the practices of the biotech companies have lacked
transparency and, coupled with the lack of time-tested evidences, cause considerable
doubts about the use of these products. Biotech companies are few and very large. I
think there are legitimate concerns about the control these companies have over our food.
Theres a saying, If you control the seed, you control the food; if you control the food,
you control the people (Harmon quoting Margaret Wille). Historically large
companies have made decisions that will increase their economic bottom line and it is
reasonable to question whether or not our health will be their main concern. Improving
our food over the generations has been a common practice without much backlash. Now
we have backlash; the modifications have gone beyond what many people are
comfortable with. Research shows that GMOs seem to be as safe as conventionally
grown food. Whether we can rely on this information and whether or not we get a choice
about these products ending up on our tables seems to be the concerns of the critics of
GMOs. These are also my concerns and though I admit I am impressed with the
technology and the improvements and abundance these crops may provide, I feel safer in
supporting a conventional route until time tested effects of GMOs and SMOs are realized.

6
Works Cited

Crouch, Martha Patented Seeds vs. Free Inquiry Genewatch, Council for Responsible
Genetics. Volume 26 #1 Jan-March 2013 pages 8-9

Harmon, Amy A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops New York
Times 4 January 2014.n.page.Web

Hoffman, Eric Food; Made From Scratch Genewatch, Council for Responsible
Genetics. Volume 26 #1 Jan-March 2013 pages 13-15

Revkin, Andrew Food, Genes and the Feeling of Risk Dot Earth, New York Times
January 4 2014.n.pg.Web