Do you know what a GMO is? Did you also know that you eat them almost every day if you eat at any of USC’s dining halls or shop at grocery stores in Columbia? GMOs, genetically modified organisms, may or may not be labeled when you go to the grocery store making them very difficult to avoid. They are in most of the food that you eat whether you know it or not. They are produced and consumed all across the globe with only a few exceptions to this rule and have worked their way into the food systems of humans and animals alike. 

Overall, a lot of skepticism exists because GMOs have not been around for a long enough time for people to fully gauge all the impacts they cause especially the long term ones. There is fear of insufficient testing leading to adverse health effects. Controversial questions are introduced about the possible health and environmental impacts that the use of GMOs could cause. State and federal agencies in the US are working towards labeling GMOs when they appear on the grocery store shelves but many consumers are worried that until that happens they could consume more than they would like to. Even if they are labeled consumers are still worried about the health impacts they’ll have if they’re consumed. Other countries have simply banned GMOs altogether preventing the need for this. 

Another controversial topic is if chemical inputs are reduced or increased by using GM crops. Chemical inputs are a cause for concern for residents near the chemical factories or in areas near crops that are sprayed. Some also bring up the concern over the economic impact that GMOs will cause. 

In most cases governments of impoverished countries encourage GMOs as a solution to food shortages. If they will be the solution or cause more distress is still up for debate. If so, a further concern is if they will be distributed as needed and provide the nutrients when they are consumed. Many lawsuits bring farmers’ rights into question. It becomes controversial when there are patents placed on the modified crops they grow putting restrictions on them. Controversy surrounds the fact that a living organism is patented and how this effects people when GMO seeds are blown onto their land. 

Scientists either are of the opinion that GMOs are the next best thing or they are potentially dangerous and the testing is not sufficient. On the other hand, economists agree that genetically modified food could be the best answer for a developing county but some think the newfound food source won’t be distributed correctly or cause other economic problems. The many conflicting opinions that exist raise many valid questions about the increasing use of GM products. The use of GMOs globally causes negative health impacts, economic distress where they are grown and imported, and raises several environmental concerns. 

Genetically Modified Organisms were increasingly invented in the twentieth century due to great advances in technology. They are now produced to increase seed efficiency and improve crop productivity. While plants are the most commonly genetically modified organisms, animals’ genetics can be modified as well. A GMO is created by altering an organism’s genetics using a process called genetic engineering. A desirable trait from an organism is isolated and then inserted into another to produce a hardier or more desirable organism. This method can directly manipulate the traits that an organism portrays while it is growing and once it reaches its adult stage. Many different traits can be altered including a plant’s resistance to insects, pesticides, or the addition of certain vitamins. One of the most common genetic modifications is the addition of BT. BT, or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a trait that is added to crops because it is generally resistant to many pests (Bhargava 1402). One of the largest global producers of GM seeds is Monsanto. The multinational company is also a chemical giant and offers a product called Roundup ready seed. These GM seeds that were invented by Monsanto are able to resist the company’s herbicide allowing it to kill weeds without affecting the crops (Barlett 322). This allows farmers to spray their whole field including their crops with Round-up and only the weeds will die leaving their crop unaffected. Almost any gene can be replaced leading to a variety of different options when it comes to genetic engineering.

These organisms are usually produced in labs by scientists they usually try to protect their technology by patenting their products. In fact, in the 1980s GMOS became the first living organism to be patented. The Supreme Court ruled that DNA that exists in an organism is not patentable but once it is altered in a laboratory it can be patented (Olson 283). Patenting GM seeds has caused issues in the past because of seeds being dispersed on the property of landowners that did not purchase the seeds. Many lawsuits have been brought about because of seed distribution and the fact that patent holders have certain rights over their technology. Patented seeds are usually modified for only a single use to force the purchasing of seeds every year. Single use seeds are created by causing the plant to be sterile making them unable to create offspring. 

Many of the GM crops that are grown go towards feeding livestock but GMOs do make it onto the shelves of most grocery stores especially in the US. In fact, in the 1990s, the Food and Drug Administration ruled that genetically modified foods are the same as garden variety crops (Schwartz E1). Most of today’s genetically modified organisms are produced by only a few large corporations such as Monsanto. They are tested to ensure safety then sold into the market, mostly to farmers. There have also been several lawsuits regarding testing because some consumers claimed that there were various issues with the testing before they were released to the market. Skepticism about GMOs has grown increasingly since their entrance into the global food system in the twentieth century. Presently, some countries have banned the growing of GM crops and some don’t allow GM products to be sold in stores Controversy surrounds almost every aspect from the production of GM seeds to their place on grocery store shelves. 

The use of GMOs causes many negative impacts on human health, the environment, and the economy. First, human health is impacted in a variety of ways. Increasing output of food using the implementation of GMOs does not mean it is a solution for world hunger. In fact, food shortages in most developing countries are due to allocation and distribution problem. In addition, many of the GM crops produced are allocated to feeding livestock never making it to people in need (Naylor 575). There are also nutrient deficiency issues when it comes to consuming GMOs. Golden rice, a genetically engineered rice modified to contain extra vitamin A, has been used in developing countries to prevent vitamin A deficiency (Potrykus 1158). According to Gale Johnson, GMOs can’t be the solution for nutrient deficiencies when a family mostly consumes food that they produce themselves (1). Allergen reactions also become a cause for concern when conducting genetic engineering. For example, in one case a gene from the Brazil nut was inserted into soybeans and caused some allergenic reactions in those that consumed it (Bhargava 1402). GMOs can also cause various other medical issues. In the 1990s the Food and Drug Administration even went as far as to say that genetically modified foods are equivalent to regular garden variety crops (Schwartz E1). However, in one case a GM corn variety was linked to serious medical problems and once they were discovered the company responsible calculated that its removal from the market would take almost four years (Bhargava 1402). GM crops can cause considerable damage to human health and may not be the solution for a food source for developing countries. 

Overall, assessing the environmental impacts of GM crops is very difficult. First, the use and amount of chemicals used is highly debated. Aristidis Tsatsakis claims that by growing herbicide and pesticide resistant crops chemical inputs have decreased (114). However, this decrease may just be the initial effect of the tolerant crops and not a long lasting effect. Lindsay Naylor, argues that the evidence of chemical reduction is difficult to calculate due to the evidence of super weeds and super pests developing resistance to the chemical inputs (574). Pushpa Bhargava also claims that there is evidence that the crops that were engineered to be pest or herbicide resistant such as Bt cotton are no longer as effective as they first were leading to a later increase in chemical inputs (1402). Chemical inputs can also have negative effects on non-targeted species such as butterfly populations of which some are endangered (Moseley 580). In fact, the same chemical inputs could interfere with good symbiotic relationships or destroy useful insects (Bhargava 1403). GM cultivation can also impact land and soil quality. In one case, hybridization of GM rye and a variety of wild rye produced a crop that cause the land to later be unusable for the cultivation of rye (Bhargava 1403). Another negative impact is the decrease of genetic diversity and unnatural gene flow between GM crops and garden variety crops (Tsatsakis 109). The use of fertilizers with nitrogen have also been proven to cause nitrogen rich runoff which pollutes rivers and has led to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico (Paarlberg 385) Monoculture, the mass growing of a single crop, is very common for genetically modified seed users. Using monoculture can rapidly deplete the soil of certain nutrients therefore degrading the land if the same crop is repeatedly planted year after year. Overall, the many negative environmental impacts can have a devastating effect due to the use of GMOs. 

Finally, GMOs negatively impact the economy. Many countries don’t have the initial capital to invest in GM technology because the initial cost is so high. Farmers in developing countries often can’t afford the financial risk of purchasing GM seeds when they live solely off of what they can grow themselves (Moseley 579). If they invest too much in the GM technology and it fails, then they are unable to support themselves. Farmers have also suffered at the hands of GMOs. In many cases farmers have to endure long lawsuits brought on because of the patents that protect GM seeds. Farmers have to pay high fees during the lawsuits leading to hardship.

There are only a couple companies that produce GMOs and they are very large Multi-National Companies. This could put the control of the agricultural market in the hand of the MNCs if GMOs are largely produced in a country (Schwartz E1). This could cause food supply issues. Another problem is that many stakeholders internationally are skeptical of GMOs. In one survey of a diverse group more than 50 per cent were concerned and fearful of the potential risks associated with GMOs (Mbabazi 54). This is due to the fact that GMOs are not easily traced from the farmer to the consumer once it has been transported across markets. Countries do not always know exactly what and where the crop came from when it is imported. This has led to a ban on imports in certain situations. For countries that produce GM crops this means they may not have a market to sell their product in (Johnson 2). Overall, there are many negative impacts that genetically modified organisms can have on the economy including lawsuit costs, high financial risk, and lack of a market to sell their product in. 

The solution to the negatives associated with GMO use is much larger than a one-step fix. The most obvious and simplest option is to discontinue the practice of genetic engineering. However, with the advancement of technology it is highly unlikely that discontinuing the use of them fully will be widely accepted so there is a second more reasonable option. In general, the three-part solution if GMOs will continue to be used starts with efficient technology, proceeds to thorough testing, then comes down to traceability. 

First, the solution to decrease negative environmental impacts comes down to technological improvements. To reduce the amount of chemical runoff which has many negative environmental impacts smart technologies should be implemented. Chemicals should be input at the base of the plant instead of sprayed from the air over a large amount of area. This will not only save time and money but also reduce the amount of harmful chemicals runoff that enters rivers and then the ocean (Moseley 580). Beneficial organisms will not be as heavily affected as they are when mass spraying takes place. When chemicals such as herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers are injected into the soil at the base of the plant they are more effective because they are directly absorbed by the roots of the plants. In addition, this allows for less of the chemical to be input because it is a more effective distribution route. Because of the lessened amount, the financial burden placed on farmers for the purchase of these chemicals is also relieved. This technology could also be implemented for watering which would especially help farmers in areas where there is a frequent shortage of water. Another simple technological advance reduces land degradation. Farmers should plant smarter instead of planting all of the same crop year after year. Crops should not be monoculture but should include a variety of different species. Planting species side by side that add and remove different nutrients from the soil will ensure that there is a nutrient balance. Doing this can encourage a variety of good organisms to habituate the area and increases genetic diversity preventing rapid spreading of diseases if an organism is infected. Moving away from monoculture to a variety of genetically different crops side by side is very beneficial to the environment because it decreases land degradation. Overall these simple technologically advanced practices can lessen chemical runoff, land degradation, and prevent negative impacts on surrounding species.

Second, modified organisms must be thoroughly tested before they entered the market to ensure the safety of all consumers. They should be tested by the manufacturer of the GMO and by a third party to ensure accurate results and prevent falsification of data. In addition, the testing should be short and long term as well to make sure the negative effects for both are found and corrected before the modified organism is grown for mass use. The testing should also include allergy testing to allow for proper labeling to prevent accidental allergic reactions (Johnson 3). Modified organisms should be evaluated for nutrients and necessary nutrients added when they are discovered to be deficient. Once the perception that GMOs are unsafe is removed there will be a good market for them leading to demand. Uniform labeling should be implemented allowing consumers to know exactly what they are purchasing for their own safety. However, labeling further relates to the topic of traceability.

Lastly, traceability of GMOs should be relatively easy from the time that the crop leaves farmland to being placed on a grocery store shelf. A mandatory uniform standard for labeling GM products should be created like the one the EU currently uses (Tsatsakis 115). The label should not only include the information that the product contains GMOs but should also include the origin of the product and what organisms’ genes are included in the final product. This will allow people with allergies to avoid the products they shouldn’t consume and inform them what is in their food. Once this is done many countries that have placed a ban on GMOs will be able to import them because they will know the origin and makeup of the product. 

If these three actions are taken, then genetically modified products could be safely consumed by all with very little environmental impacts. Once GMOs are proven safe, consumers can easily identify them, and it is well known that they do not have a worse environmental impact the negative connotation associated with them will cease to exist. They will then be a feasible option for a food source and can be a profitable option for those who wish to grow them. It will also drastically change what is seen on a trip to the grocery store. Consumers will be more aware of what they are purchasing and will be able to trust that it is safe.
