Clowney 1

Lauren Clowney

Mrs. Crandall

AP Language-2nd

15 November 2019

Political Research Essay

The growing debate around GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, is passionate from

both sides. The major considerations when choosing a side in this debate is believing whether or

not GMOs harm the environment and our health. First of all, in order to pick a side, the

definition of a GMO needs to be established. According to the World Health Organization, a

GMO is defined as organisms whose DNA has been altered in a non-natural way. The first

genetically modified food approved for release was a tomato in 1994; this tomato was engineered

to have a longer shelf life. The BioTech company, Calgene, accomplished this feat by inserting

an antisense gene that delayed the tomato’s ripening. This was just the first of many foods to be

genetically modified. Since 1994, the overall percentage of genetically modified crops in every

product has grown by at least 600%. At least 90% of the key agricultural crops that are sold in

the United States have been genetically engineered in some way. At this point, it almost seems

impossible to find a non-GMO food item in your local grocery store. (hyperbole)

Some of the major issues surrounding GMO use are the impacts on human health and the

environment. Other issues include the sustainability of biodiversity, dangerous and unpredictable

side effects, and the increase in herbicide use. This debate is so controversial because even with

all of its risks, GMOs are very useful in today’s society. For example, “genetic engineering in

agriculture results in increased crop yields, reduced prices for food and drug production, reduced

need for pesticides, enhanced nutrient composition and food quality, resistance to pests and
 Clowney 2

disease, greater food security, and medical benefits to the world’s growing population” (Kent

Brafford 1). GMO use is like driving a car; you know when you drive somewhere you can be

harming the environment through air pollution, but is the alternative (not driving anywhere) a

better option? (simile)

The growing debate surrounding the controversial use and effects of GMOs is

undoubtedly contentious. The two opposing sides to this debate see the uses and effects of

GMOs quite differently, yet research supports arguments on both sides. With substantial

evidence being presented on both sides, it is arduous to figure out which side is the right side.

For example, widely known scientist, Bill Nye, “used to think genetically modified organisms

weren't a great idea” and he has since changed his mind (Ramsey 1). Nye visited Monsanto, a

corporation known for genetically modifying agricultural products. Nye, being a well-known

scientist, is a credible source when it comes to the subject of GMOs since he had the opportunity

to see the legitimacy behind the GMO process. Around that time, Nye told Real Time's Miles

Leicher that he had "revised [his] outlook" (Ramsey 3). This perspective provides a sense of

confidence in the reader because Nye not only saw first hand how the` GMO process works, but

also has immense experience in this field. If Bill Nye has changed his viewpoint on GMOs,

should we do the same? (rhetorical question)

Another article that supports the use of GMOs is “Why GMOs Are a Necessity” by

Karen Batra. Batra asserts that “GMOs benefit not only farmers and the public, but also

biodiversity, soil quality, water quality, carbon sequestration-in short, the environment” (38).

The author substantiates her claim by starting her article off with statistics: “Genetic

modification boosts crop yields by 21 percent and cuts pesticides by 37 percent” (1). This

organization of beginning her article with statistics allows Batra to argue her side of the issue
 Clowney 3

substantiated with convincing evidence. Batra includes numerous anecdotes and statistics

throughout this article in order to effectively persuade her audience without any bias: “In 2014,

for example, two German researchers at the University of Göttingen, Wilhelm Klumper and

Matin Qaim, consolidated the findings of 147 studies dating to 1996. They found that GMOs

increased crop yields by an average of 21% world-wide and reduced the use of pesticides by

37%. Farmers who adopted GMOs increased their profits by 69% on average, with the gains

going disproportionately to the developing world” (40). According to Batra’s extensive research,

GMOs appear to be beneficial for farmers, the public, and also biodiversity.

In the next article, “Here's The Real Reason Why GMOs Are Bad, And Why They May

Save Humanity”, Erik Kobayashi-Solomon suggests that “there are two very good reasons to be

wary about GMOs: implementation and efficacy” (22). The author includes graphs, charts,

statistics and personal anecdotes in this article in order to substantiate his claim that even though

scientific research proves GMOs are not safe, they are very beneficial to our growing population

(juxtaposition):“The moral of the story is that there is no reason to be frightened of the

technology behind GMO crops. You should, however, be very worried about the current

implementation of GMO due to its effects on cropland, the ecosystem, and human health, and

that research into GMOs is taking resources away from potentially much more helpful cross-

breeding projects in the short run” (78). Kobayashi-Solomon conveys that GMOs are harmful to

the environment and our health, but are necessary for our growing population.

Conversely, the opposing side of the GMO argument is introduced in “The

Environmental Impact of GMOs”. The author, Emily Glass, claims that “the problem of

environmental damage done by GMOs is much larger than simply potentially harming our

health” (Glass 56). Glass first starts off her article with what precisely a GMO is, as defined by
 Clowney 4

the WHO: “First of all, it is important to understand what a GMO is precisely. The World Health

Organization (WHO) defines them as organisms whose DNA has been altered in a non-natural

way” (Glass 4). Glass discusses the impacts of GMOs on different parts of the environment in

order to argue her claim that the environmental damage done by GMOs is catastrophic: “Finally,

biodiversity, while it is critical in all ecosystems and to the sustainability of all species, is put at

risk by GMOs” (Glass 66). Additionally, in “10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs”, Jeffrey Smith argues

that “numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996” (Smith 7).

Smith includes statistics and anecdotes from credible sources such as the FDA in order to

substantiate his claim that GMOs are unhealthy to humans and harmful to the environment:

“Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even

among the FDA’s own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side

effects. They urged long-term safety studies” (Smith 67).

Fifty-seven percent of Americans believe that it’s generally “unsafe to eat genetically

modified foods”, and I would have to agree with them (Saletan 3). The World Health

Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the

American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that there is no good

evidence that GMOs are unsafe. Endless studies substantiate that conclusion. However, many

people, including myself, do not trust what is being said. We believe there is more to the story,

“that some studies have found risks associated with GMOs, and that Monsanto is covering it up”

(Saletan 4). The saying “better safe than sorry” truly becomes relevant within this controversial

topic. I agree that taking extra, relatively simple precautions is the best response in this situation.

According to abundant research on the opposing side, GMOs are in fact a danger to human
 Clowney 5

health, so my opinion is why take the risk? (rhetorical question) We should follow the extra

precautions and avoid the risk of harming our body.

In the past five years, well-known companies have submitted approximately 27,000

products to the Non-GMO Project. This project certifies goods are free of GMOs. Last year, the

sale of non-GMO products tripled. Large corporations such as Whole Foods and Chipotle have

taken initiative as well. Whole Foods in the near future will require all GMO products to be

labeled within each store. Additionally, Chipotle has sworn off the use of GMOs in their

restaurants. Many companies want to go even further: “Hundreds of organizations, including

Consumers Union, Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Center for

Food Safety, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, are demanding ‘mandatory labeling of

genetically engineered foods.’ Since 2013, Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut have passed laws

to require GMO labels. Massachusetts could be next” (Saletan 2). Vermont claims the main

purpose of its labeling law is to help people ‘avoid potential health risks of food produced from

genetic engineering’ (Saletan 3). This issue is undoubtedly complicated, but I believe that the

concerns surrounding GMO use are valid and should not be taken lightly.

However, on the opposing side, many will argue that GMOs are an absolute necessity.

Recent data proves that “genetic modification boosts crop yields by 21 percent and cuts

pesticides by 37 percent” (Batra 1). In terms of the environment, advocates for GMOs will also

claim that “little evidence was found to connect GE crops and their associated technologies with

adverse agronomic or environmental problems. In some cases, ‘planting Bt crops has tended to

result in higher insect biodiversity,’ by reducing pesticide use” (Batra 6). Others will argue that

the technology behind the GMO process is completely safe and is necessary for our growing

population. Although I agree with Batra to a point, I cannot accept her overall conclusion that
 Clowney 6

GMOs are necessary for our growing population because there are safer alternatives to feed the

masses.

Though I concede that the use of GMOs boost crop yields and cut pesticide use, I still

insist that we need to invest in safer alternatives that still accomplish the job. My view is that

GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine

ecosystems, and soil organisms. GMO crops “reduce biodiversity, pollute water resources, and

are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose

populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects

in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptors, and organ damage in animals even at

very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California,

threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds” (Smith 8). Additionally, GMOs

cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is virtually impossible to completely clean up our

contaminated gene pool: “The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future

generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO

farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure” (Smith 2). In terms of human health, The

American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO

diets for all patients. In a recent study, animals had severe organ damage, gastrointestinal and

immune disorders, infertility, and accelerated aging when they consumed GMO products.

Human studies have shown that material can be left inside of us from consuming GMO products.

After GMOs were introduced in 1996, numerous health problems became more prevalent: “The

percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9

years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive

problems, and others are on the rise” (Smith 2). All of this plentiful research substantiates my
 Clowney 7

claim that GMOs are not safe for human health or the environment. There needs to be other

alternatives put into place in an attempt to keep ourselves and our environment safe.

So many of the foods we consume on a daily basis have been

genetically modified in some way. Up to 92% of corn, 94% of

soybeans, and 95% of cotton is genetically engineered in the

United States(Granlund).
 Clowney 8

Why should you care about the possible effects of GMOs? (rhetorical question). You

should care about the possible effects of GMOs because of the potential health risks they could

inflict upon your body and the overall well-being of our environment. The concerns surrounding

GMO use are valid and should not be taken lightly. There needs to be other alternatives put into

place in an attempt to keep ourselves and our environment safe. GMOs do much more harm than

good, so with this insight, are you going to continue eating genetically modified food and hope

for the best or completely avoid the risk of harming your body and environment?
 Clowney 9

Works Cited

Granlund, Dave. “GMO Food Label Laws.” Photograph. 29 August 2013.

Ramsey, Lydia. “Here's the Critical Reason Bill Nye the Science Guy Changed His Mind

on GMOs.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 13 July 2015,

https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-nye-explains-his-stance-on-gmos-2015-7.

Kobayashi-Solomon, Erik. “Here's The Real Reason Why GMOs Are Bad, And Why They May

Save Humanity.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Feb. 2019,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2019/02/15/heres-the-real-reason-why-

gmos-are-bad-and-why-they-may-save-humanity/#5d062d864877.

Glass, Emily. “The Environmental Impact of GMOs.” One Green Planet, One Green Planet, 29

Oct. 2018, https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/the-environmental-impact-of-

gmos/.

Saletan, William. “The Misleading War on GMOs: The Food Is Safe. The Rhetoric Is

Dangerous.” Slate Magazine, 15 July 2015,

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case

_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html.
 Clowney 10

Batra, Karen. “Why GMOs Are a Necessity.” BIOtechNow, 4 Oct. 2016, https://www.biotech-

now.org/food-and-agriculture/2016/10/why-gmos-are-a-necessity.

Smith, Jeffrey. “10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs.” Institute for Responsible Technology, 16 Jan.

2017, https://responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs/.