Opal Dillard

February 10, 2015

GMO articles
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been a controversial topic of discussion
for decades. The question is if we should or shouldn't modify organisms DNA and whether or
not its beneficial. We see a lot of opposition against GMO's but what are the reasons? The
literature that GMO's could be beneficial to many people, especially those living in third world
countries who are lacking the necessary nutrients. Peter Singer goes as far as saying that not
allowing the development and distribution of GMO's is killing thousands of children. After
reading the literature I can see the potential for GMOs and the fears that stem from them.
In the article Does Uganda really need GMOs? by Tom Onrio he makes a point against
GMOs by claiming that the people of Uganda dont want them. The people claim that they
want to keep their traditional seeds. They fear that GMOs are ticking time bombs that will
eventually harm their health; and the farmers worry that the introduction of GMOs would
cause a reduction in their organic foods and make them dependent on importing fertilizers,
insecticides, and equipment from multinational companies who own and sell the GMOs.
Another worry that is growing over here in the United States, is that the small farmers are being
kicked out of the agriculture business by large corporate companies like Monsanto.
There may be great benefits that come from growing GMOs like golden rice. We can
modify plants to give us more nutrients which would be beneficial to third world countries
where nutrient rich foods are lacking. In the article A clear case for golden rice Peter Singer
wrote:

...Golden rice specically addresses vitamin A deciency, and the rst eld trials were
conducted a decade ago. But it is still not available to farmers. Initially, there was a need
to develop improved varieties that would thrive where they are most needed.
However changing the DNA of an organism can be quite controversial, especially if it is for
consumption. The worry about how an organism that has been altered by people affect us
comes into question.
The argument that GMOs are bad for people and the environment is discussed by
Adrian Dubock. Duback takes the side of GMOs, claiming that there is no scientific evidence
that can be used to prove that GMOs are harmful for people to consume. And to avoid
anything bad from happening to the environment or people we have in place laws that protect
us. By 2011 all representatives of the european community governments privately admitted
that there was no scientific justification for their opposition to GMO-crops. There are
regulations in place that puts GMOs through many and extensive tests. Despite the GMOs
having no effect on our health the pesticides and loopholes companies like monsanto use
could cause harm.
When GMO's first came onto the market in the 1980's, they were tested by the FDA and
approved for consumption. We have yet to see any effects from consuming GMO's. However
now that corporate companies have their hands in the biotech industry, the FDA no longer
check the GMO's as they did in the beginning, and have been following the no proof no harm
rule. But it isnt the genetics that we should be worried about but the pesticides and chemicals
being used on the seeds and fields. An example would be what is currently happening in Kuai.

The idea that corporate companies are going to monopolize the farming industry does
not seem too off the mark. We can see how they are patenting seeds, taking advantage of
small farms and small biotech companies. This is a cause for concern since this could one day
lead to corporate companies having majority control over the food supply, which means control
over the cost of produce. This concern was shown with the people of Uganda, who are
currently fighting against GMOs being introduced into their country. The organizations that
are trying to bring GMOs into Uganda are saying that it will help them grow more food.
However, the people of Uganda argue that they do not want to rely on a company from
another country for their food supply since they have crops that can grow now. They have
survived thus far without the use of GMOs so far, so is there a need for them to use them
now? Even though this could be true Michael J Ssali writes, However, over the years, because
of Banana Bacterial Wilt (BBW), Ugandas annual $550m production of bananas has reduced to
$350m, according to Jerome Kubiriba, head of the Banana Research Project. he also goes on
to talk about Cassava also being under attack by the cassava mosaic disease and the cassava
brown streak disease, causing reduced yields. Maize production is also declining due to
droughts. With this being the case it makes sense that the Ugandan government has been
investing in biotechnological research and development, including genetic engineering, for the
last 15 years. If their research is successful they will not have to import seeds, and if they
modify the crops to not need pesticides, insecticides, or expensive equipment then the fear of
having to import things from multinational companies can also be dispelled.
Although Uganda may still be able to avoid the grasp of large agricultural companies,
the United States has already been invaded. The large companies are causing harm to the

people through their testing fields, like in the case of pesticide use on the Hawaiian island
Kauai. This quote from an article On the front lines of Hawaiis GMO war by Mike Ludwig
explains the extent of the use of pesticides.
In communities on the west side of Kauai, the most immediate controversy is not over
genetic engineering, but the considerable amount of chemicals sprayed on the GMO
development plots. The GMO seeds produced on Kauai are not considered food items,
so the agrichemical companies are allowed to use more pesticides than traditional
farmers. Together, the four biotech and agrichemical companies use an estimated 18
tons of "restricted use" pesticides on their plots each year, and local doctors and
activists worry about the chemicals drifting in the air and water. Some of the 22
restricted-use pesticides in use on Kauai, such as atrazine, are linked to serious health
problems and are banned in European countries, and federal law requires that they be
applied by or under supervision of workers with special training. Sometimes the
pesticides are combined, or "stacked," with general-use pesticides in cocktails that have
never been tested officially for safety.
The effects from inhaling these chemicals are already being seen in the community through the
health of the people, and birth defects in children. They have taken action by creating a bill
that requires the major biotech companies to disclose the details of their pesticide applications
publicly, create buffer zones around school and health clinics and comply with an
environmental impact analysis of pesticide use in the area. However, the fight for change is not
easy when they have the local people working at the GMO plants and would be out of jobs if
they fought for this bill.

So if we take the corporate out of GMOs what do we have? The potential to modify
organisms for our personal gain. The large biotech companies already seem to be doing that
for profit, so whos to say it cant be used for the benefit of actually feeding people nutritious
food. Again using golden rice as an example, the agribusiness giant Syngenta did assist in
developing the genetically modied rice, the company has stated that it is not planning to
commercialize it. Low income farmers will own their seeds and be able to retain seed from their
harvests. claims Peter Singer. Hopefully meaning that they pay for the seeds and then after
that the seeds, the plants, and anything that comes from the plants are theirs to regrow, keep,
or sell. However, if this were the case then farmers could grow nutrient rich GMOs without the
worry of getting sued or having to continually pay for new seeds. More food could be produced
by more farmers.
It seems that most of the fears that relate to GMOs that cant be dispelled by research
seems to be tied to companies rather than GMOs themselves. Either they are covering
information up from the public, fast tracking through FDA testing leaving us unsure about the
risks, buying up or destroying small businesses and farmers, and causing harm to the people
living near their testing fields. This creates a distrust of these companies thus creating a
distrust in the product they sell, GMOs. Also extensive effort on the part of NGOs and some
government organizations also add to the negative views of GMOs. For example, the UN
environmental programme spent more than $100 million on training developing countries on
risk assessment associated with GMO-crops but see little to no effort on educating people on
the benefits of GMOs. These organizations do not necessarily have solid evidence to back up
their negative view of GMOs. So in the end, while I agree that GMOs should be regulated,

there is a greater need to regulate the companies that sell them. If there is great effort to warn
people of the risks of GMOs, there also needs to be an equal amount of effort to show people
the potential benefits. Instead of fearing the change of the DNA people implant in crops we
should worry about the way companies and governments use them.