
Since genetically modified organisms(GMO) have been introduced into the food supply, controversial debates have manifested in various communities over the economic, environmental, and consumer related problems GMO's create. The overall purpose of writing this research paper is to attempt to clarify any misinformation, and biased analytics present on GMO research to this day to find out whether GMOs achieve their goals or grow short. I am taking a neutral standpoint because I don't advocate for or against GMO products; However, I advocate the research of genetically modified organisms themselves in a more contained environment. I whole heartedly believe that the negative side effects of GMOs outweigh all positive components they put on the table. This is in an effort to expand societal knowledge on the genetic biodiversity of genetically modified organisms in and of themselves. 

Mankind has been manipulating the genes of crops through cross breeding for upwards of 10,000 years. However, biotechnology used for altering genetically modified crops' genes is the only technology of the sort that has been properly regulated since 1974 upon its creation. This technology has grown so precise that modifications can be performed at the molecular level Although the scientific technology behind altering genes has become far more advanced over time, the principle of editing genes has not changed. The overall goal of GMO crops, and products are to reduce environmental cost, heighten the rate and weight of production per capita, and feed a growing global populace of over 7.5 billion. The big question is do GMOs genuinely achieve these goals, or is the science behind it to young in origin to achieve such prospects. 

As far as the economy is concerned, fingers are quickly pointed in both directions stating that GMOs raise and lower total GDP. Each sides present a biased argument in favor of their own study, but actual facts tend to support an overall increase in nominal GDP. One problem with this statistic is nominal GDP is not adjusted for inflation, meaning that the real GDP may actually be lower after adjusting the inflation. In addition to real GDP not being properly calculated economists must take into account who is profiting from the raise in GDP. Instead of farmers making more money annually, companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Du-Pont, and Dow Chemical are raking in the profit. These profits are resulting from the farmers having to buy seeds that don't reproduce, new farming equipment, and additional herbicides all of which cost more than their natural counterpart. The only place farmers can acquire these products are through these large corporate companies. So, instead of the local economy and lower class benefiting from these easier to grow and maintain genetically altered crops, the companies who are producing them and the upper 1% are seeing the profits. In turn, GMO crops have thus far helped expand the already massive gap in America's income inequality and class disparity issues. The problem is the people who are dealing with these consequences are so small in number, they don't have a big enough voice to bring awareness to their hardships. Had crops been continuously produced naturally until GMO crops underwent thorough scientific research and regulation, these folks wouldn't be suffering the economic consequences. My reasoning is, issues would have been foreseen by the regulators, economists, and scientists before they were to occur on the global scale had testing and research been more thorough. 

Farmers are seeing a loss in profits from more than just companies dominating the GMO market. Farmers who don't buy the genetically altered crops are actually getting sued by these large companies for growing crops on their farms that contain patented GMO DNA. However, the only reason organic farmers crops contain the patented DNA is from a process called cross pollination that the organic farmers can't control. This generally occurs whenever two neighboring farms are growing separate types of crops, one GMO, one organic, and the weather patterns carry pollen into both farmers' fields. Therefore resulting in foreign DNA. In addition, contamination can occur from bees, pests, pollen, and shared equipment between the farms. The following cases : Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, Bowman v. Monsanto Co., and Monsanto Co. v. Rohm and Haas Co. are prime examples of greedy capitalistic companies taking advantage of smaller companies for copyright infringement that can't be avoided due to natures processes. I don't know about you, but a company with a net worth of $15 billion and counting does not have the right to sue farmers with a net worth barely topping six figures for something they have little to no control over. More than not, organic farmers ought to pursue cases against these GM giants for the mass devaluation of their crop from GM pollen contamination. After organic crops become contaminated, their market value drops by over 50%, once again heavily cutting into the farmers profits. As time has passed, the farmers who are negatively affected from GM crops have often times had to seek a different profession due to heighten prices for farming goods and slashed profits. 

The vast majority of evidence for the economy, in my perspective shows more harm than good. Large corporations continue to make giant economic gains rather than the local economy and middle class. These companies have proceeded to damage the local economy and the middle class by price gouging, and pursuing legal cases against less capable people. I do think this problem can be resolved with the proper legislation if both legal and scientific communities can cooperate with one another. The people have a voice in the economy, and must use it whenever unfair advantages or disadvantages are present. 

The environment has seen many changes since the introduction of genetically modified crops to the soil. Many of these changes are negative effects that are scientifically proven; However, there are a few environmental perks depending on your perspective. I would like to add that before GM crops ever went into the soil, large seed banks containing millions of seeds for thousands of species of plants were created in places like Antarctica for the preservation of life. One major environmental impact that is taking immediate effect is the destruction of species and their biomes. Of the species affected, one now currently makes the endangered list. The species affected include bees, moths, bats, and other birds. Generally, these species are seeking a source of food, and happen to stumble upon a GMO crop. From consumption of this crop, the organism contains large amounts of herbicides and pesticides that have become stronger over time due to crop and insect resistance. These chemicals reach a certain toxicity level inside these organisms until their central nervous systems shut down, killing them. This quickly becomes a larger scale problem for various reasons. One: by these species dying in large numbers, species who prey off of them will become more scarce as they have to search harder for food, destroying the local biome of an area. Two: Humans rely on bees to pollinate non GMO plants, without them many species of plants would die off, including 90% of food crops. This is a very scary problem that more attention needs to be drawn to. We are destroying thousands of years of natural evolution with genetically modified crops, by eliminating their predecessors. 

That isn't the only threat to the environment GMO crops are causing. Just like crops cross-pollinate in neighboring fields, GM crops also cross pollinate with weeds, and other surrounding wild plants (Williamson). One weed that has been found in 76 countries since its original release is Palmer Amaranth (Klintman). This plant has steadily become more resistant to "round-up ready" crops, as well as other types of GM crops. This plant managed to evolve to withstand glyphosate, and GM cotton. As a result, farmers yields are suffering losses of 50% and more because the weed can't be stopped by affordable weed killers. While this is a very disheartening disadvantage, weed immunization to herbicides and pesticides is natural. For example, many weeds are resistant to Atrazine, which is an herbicide that isn't used in or for GM crops(Williamson). A plant's resistance to a chemical that harms it is simply the plants natural response to progress the species, this concept is also known as natural selection. Essentially, the major problem here is originating from the large amounts of potent chemicals that are integrated into GM crops DNA. This to me seems to be an easily solvable issue with adequate scientific research, considering there are dozens of options to replace these harmful chemicals, many of which are far less dangerous for the environment such as diatomaceous earth.

Natural efforts for fighting insects and weeds like diatomaceous earth need to be cultivated more frequently. This of course, is in an effort to change the increase in pesticide use GM crops have brought about. Washington State University released a study linking a 400 million pound global increase in herbicides and pesticides to GM crops and super-weeds resulting from GM crops. This is a problem for very evident reasons, especially since one of GM crops selling points was that they were better for the environment. Pouring large amounts of chemicals over the landscape eventually damages the surrounding ecosystems and biomes from something as small as a lady bug, to as large as game animals. Overall, environmental damage caused by GM crops is undeniable and must quickly be reversed before permanent damage is done. 

This side of the GMO debate, is perhaps the most pertinent issue of them all from the general populaces perspective. Your health and overall wellness is a major part of what you consume in a day. If your diet is full of fresh fruits, vegetables, and proteins more than likely you will function at a higher level than if your diet lacked this nutrition. To date, there is no strong proof, or evidence showing that GMO foods contain any less nutrition than organic foods(Dona). In fact, it is very possible for the science community to make them more nutritious, as they have done with crops like golden rice in India. This was in an effort to alleviate malnutrition and starvation issues overseas, and it is working. This quote explains the science behind Golden Rice, "Vitamin A deficiency is widespread in the developing world and is estimated to account for the deaths of approximately 2 million children per year. In surviving children it has been identified as the leading cause of blindness. Humans can synthesize vitamin A from its precursor β-carotene, which is commonly found in many plants but not in cereal grains. The strategy of the Golden Rice Project was to introduce the correct metabolic steps into rice endosperm to allow β-carotene synthesis. In 2000, Ye et al. engineered rice that contained moderate levels of β-carotene and since then researchers have produced the much higher yielding ‘Golden Rice 2’. It is estimated that 72 g of dry Golden Rice 2 will provide 50% of the RDA of vitamin A for a 1–3-year-old child (Key)". As you can see from this medical journal excerpt, GMOs are saving millions of lives in less capable countries. Without these advances, the world could be losing thousands of young lives a day. Examples like this are what GMOs are all about, if we can feed starving populations with an equally expensive, more nutritious crop, the science community is doing the people justice. 

Like every good thing however, there is a down side. There is strong evidence of GMO foods causing negative effects in both humans and animals (Martin). Some of these health issues include, allergic reaction, liver toxicity, altered pancreatic function, and many more (Zeljenková). These symptoms were found in both lab rats, and humans. In addition, medical tests being ran on pregnant women are finding traces of pesticides circulating in the fetus and mothers bloodstream ( Zeljenková). This is a direct result of GM plants DNA being altered with pesticide chemicals to make them resistant to insects. Like many of other pesticides, they are extremely toxic to humans. So, for chemicals of these substance to be circulating in an unborn child, major health defects and infertility can occur. Causing a mental or physical disorder in the fetus, or even causing something as extreme as a miscarriage. 

Now, knowing problems of this magnitude exist we continue to manifest pesticide DNA into GMO crops DNA. This brings light to yet another major concern surrounding GMOs, the mislabeling of products that contain them. This problem needs to be resolved by the FDA and likewise agencies across the globe. Not labeling GMO foods and products is a clear crime. If you are buying a product that is not of natural composition, and you are doing so unknowingly, it is a moral fallacy committed by the company whom produces and sells it to you. For example, you wouldn't want to accidentally purchase fruit that may contain chemicals you are allergic to. You have a right to know what you are putting into your body, and you should have a right as a market participant to have a full understanding of the goods you are purchasing. Mislabeling, and hiding ingredients is a legal matter that generally finds the perpetrator at fault for the ensuing results. GMOs can take lives, just as quickly as they can save them. If we don't solve these problems on the consumer level, we could potentially cause ourselves more harm than good in the long run. We have a voice in the matters that surround us, you simply have to find it and utilize it to the best of your ability. 

Upon examining each of these three problems that surround GMOs, I have reached a much better understanding on their overall effect, and future potential in coming years. GMOs impact the economy, environment, and consumer in many ways, some of which are positive, others not so much. We must embrace the problems that are at hand and devote substantial research into finding a positive solution. 

On the economic level, it is clear that we need to create new legislation to keep up with growing agricultural technology. Large companies monopolies on GM seeds and goods needs to be dismantled to allow for a more competitive market. In addition, small farmers and companies need to be treated more equally instead of living in their large counterparts shadows. If we want GMOs to genuinely boost production, and real GDP, we need to work together as one. 

Secondly, we must continue to protect our environment. Since the introduction of GM crops, many other crops, wildlife, their ecosystems have been hurt. This is not an irreversible issue yet, though it needs to be resolved shortly. When all else fails, all we have is mother nature. To continue to destroy it through malevolent practices is brash. We are far to intelligent and nurturing to let these things continue, and in order to provide for coming generations we must act quickly. 

Last of all, the consumerism and health issues with GMOs is of concern. For it to be acceptable by our FDA to not label GMO goods, is atrocious. When human life and ones well being is at stake, nothing can be more serious. In addition, further studies need to allocate more evidence on GM foods long tern effects on human health. If there are chemicals or proteins we can prove harm us, we can remove them with the same gene-splicing technology we use to insert them. 

By doing these things, we can move forward in the field of biotechnology and continue to make positive advances with GMOs. In doing this, everyone globally will benefit. We must allocate our resources and work together to achieve this, rather than ping fingers and spreading more misinformation. We are all human, with the same goal of progressing the human race.  In conclusion, there is many contradictory evidential points surrounding GMOs in every aspect, hopefully we can sort through the mass misinformation in an effort to better humanity and overall global well being. 
