Nguyen 1

Hoa Nguyen

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1104

9.26.18

The Genetic Genocide

The genetic landscape is vast and abundant, spanning from cloning monkeys to making

strawberries able to survive year round. Many health critics devise desperate measures for the

future of produce. The organic epidemic has plagued the United States. The notion that organics

cure all diseases and will remove all chances of all illnesses. The lack of knowledge by

Americans on GMOs shines a light of naivete and lack of awareness. The underwhelming

amount of knowledge creates an incentive. I will be explaining the extensive conditions of

genetically modified organisms, from short to long term effects. Additionally, comparing these

effects with countries that signal products that are genetically modified.

The acronym GMO derives from genetically modified organisms. The fundamental

premise behind GMOs are organisms that their genetic makeup have been altered. These genetic

alterations are primarily made for the benefit of the organism. A common example of genetic

modification is in the medicine bacteria, insulin for diabetic patients.

The United States is a country where the declaration of a genetically modified organism

is not required. In May of 1992, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made it clear that if

two organisms are practically the same, there should be no incentive to label them different. The

FDA derived that unless a GM material compound has change, there should be need for a label.
 Nguyen 2

This could also be restated as unless an apple is no longer an apple because of genetic

modifications, then it should be label. The latter is an extreme example of the methods behind

the FDA’s thinking. To play devil’s advocate; when the policy was announced, GMOs were at

their infancy. The mere image of GMOs were only beginning to rise beyond the horizon.

The case was revisited by the FDA in 2015, restating the previous argument that if two

organism are essentially the same, then there should be no incentive of a label. The FDA would

change their decision on labeling in 2016, where they realigned their views with their European

counterparts. This would make way for a fair and regulated landscape of specifically described

products. In recent times, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) declared that

special GMO labels are in the works. This announcement makes way for a more educated

citizenry on GMO. People will go to their grocery store and ponder about the label. This will

motivate the populist to research and examine their favorite products.

GMOs like many controversial scientific advancements come with moral differentials.

Critics of GMOs define it as playing the role of God, having the ability to modified things to the

minutiae. These arguments provide the idea of fear into the minds, reestablishing the notion that

there should not be a perfect organism. The notion that a perfect organism created would be

morally wrong cannot be argued, but the idea that a more efficient organism can be created

should not be ignored.

Many genetically modified foods are modified for easier harvest or higher reward.

Increasing the amount of crop that can be harvested. An example could be genetically modifying

a bigger fruit for an increase in content. The rhetoric presented by this modification is that it’s

unnatural and supernatural, as if manifested. This is insignificant by the fact that both crops are
 Nguyen 3

grown similarly, the GM crop might take less effort for surplus of harvest. The undefined factor

of GMO is the lack of clarity.

I work part-time at a grocery store, many parents enter the store selling the idea that

organic products are significantly “healthier” than nonorganic. A study from Cornell University

defines that genetically modified products are too inconclusive to fully understand the vast

consequences of. The study expanded by stating that many of pesticides and industry biosafety

data are not public, and could significantly affect the outcome of the study. This means that the

benefits and negative consequences of non-organics are unclear, which means that organic

products are most a biproduct of marketing.

The premium that consumers must indulge into purchasing a bag of organic apples is

ridiculous in comparison to a non-organic bag. To me, this seems to be much of a scam. If these

produce manufacturers are supposed to promote a healthier style of living, then why charge a

premium for simple produce. The idea that you’re charging more to have less genetic

modification is mind numbing. For example, many poor neighborhoods in the United States have

only one grocery store in a small radius. These stores carry the essentials of living, a small

selection of products, but these stores charge 99¢ for soda and $3 for water. In this instance, a

poor person would be more inclined into purchasing the soda rather than the water.

To furthermore investigate the uneasy landscape of GMOs and how they significantly

impact the daily lives of civilians, I will research studies deriving the benefits of consuming

organics. How beneficial are organics in comparison to non-organics? I will research the

logistics on why many poor sections of the United States cannot supply a healthy selection of

living.
Nguyen 4