Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Lauren Clowney
Mrs. Crandall
AP Language-2nd
15 November 2019
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 people’s health. To begin, in order to pick a side, the
GMO is defined as organism DNA which 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
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; one knows when one drives somewhere one can be
harming the environment through air pollution, but is the alternative (not driving anywhere) a
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,
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). Beginning
her article with statistics allows Batra to argue her side of the issue substantiated with convincing
Clowney 3
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
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 extremely beneficial to our
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 people’s health, but are necessary for the growing
population.
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
Clowney 4
health” (Glass 56). Glass introduces her article with what precisely a GMO is, as defined by 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
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
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
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 it is believed 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 the 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 people 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 the
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
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 bodies 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
Clowney 7
substantiates my 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.
United States(Granlund).
Clowney 8
Why should someone care about the possible effects of GMOs? (rhetorical question).
One should care about the possible effects of GMOs because of the potential health risks they
could inflict upon someone’s 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 people going to continue eating genetically
modified food and hope for the best or completely avoid the risk of harming their body and
environment?
Clowney 9