Are Genetically Modified Organisms safe for humans and for the environment? This question has been heavily debated by scientists, doctors, politicians, and the public for the past 25 years. Authors and doctors such as Drake Bennett, Dr. Pamela Bailey, and Jon Entine have all presented several case studies on how and why GMOs have positive impacts on the environment, farmers, and production while still being safe to consume and staying nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO foods. Sources such as The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology and What Do We Know About GMOs: A Comparison of Regulations and Labeling in the United States and Netherlands delve into the process of creating a GMO and discuss possible solutions on how to please both the pro and anti GMO sides. Pamela Ronald, in her TED Talk, discusses how significant and environmentally friendly genetically modified organisms can be if used correctly. My final two sources include Mark Lynas’ article in the Cornell Alliance of Science, which examined hundreds of scientific papers written on the subject, listened to hours of live testimony from activists and considered hundreds more comments from the public, and an article written by Dr. Atli Arnarson, which breaks down the process of genetic modification. Although both the pro-GMO and anti-GMO sides have had their break throughs, after researching, reading, and analyzing multiple articles and studies conducted by numerous scientists and well renowned doctors I believe the strongest evidence presented has been in favor of the pro-GMO side. 

Drake Bennet’s article in the Bloomberg News focuses mainly on the impact genetically modified organisms can have on the environment and agriculture instead of focusing on the health effects. Bennet cites research done by a pair of German agricultural economists: Wilhelm Klumper and Matin Qaim. Klumper and Qaim completed a meta-analysis concentrated on the three main genetically modified crops: maize, corn, and cotton. As Bennet dissects the research done it is apparent that genetic modification is clearly beneficial for the environment and agriculture. Bennet discusses what the meta-analysis uncovered, “GM technology increased crop yields by 22 percent, reduced pesticide use by 37 percent, and increased farmer profits by 68 percent”. What is most fascinating about the numbers is how the genetic modification increased crop yields by 22 percent, this increased crop yield lead to the increased farmer profits of nearly 70 percent. The numbers show why genetically modified crops are more beneficial for farmers and the farmland used to produce the crops. Another interesting feature of this study was that yield and profit gains were greater in developing counties rather than already developed countries. This could be because developing countries have an exponential growth of small-farm farmers giving the developing countries a larger sample size rather than a developed country whose crop production comes from a much lesser variety of farms. Bennet puts one last exclamation point on his research, “the studies in the meta-analyses that were published in peer-reviewed journals showed more dramatic effects, both in yield and profit gains, than those published elsewhere. Put another way, the more rigorously vetted a study, the more likely it has been to find benefits for GMOs”. After reading and rereading Bennet’s article, it is made extremely clear that genetically modification of crops, especially maize, corn, and cotton, can lead to greater crop yield, less pesticide use, and increased farmer profits. 

Dr. Pamela Bailey discusses in her article, GMOs are Nothing To Fear, the safety behind genetically modified foods and some of the positive ways genetically modified organism can affect the environment. Before getting into what Bailey talked about it is important to know who Dr. Pamela Bailey is; Dr. Bailey is a credible author, she obtained a doctorate from the University of Texas Medical School and has been in this field for over 20 years. This extensive time in the field and her high academic accolades establishes credibility in her article. To begin the article, Bailey quotes a group of Italian scientists, “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically modified crops”. Bailey goes on to say “There has never been a single credible scientific study showing GMOs to have harmful effects on humans, animals, or our environment” (Bailey, U.S. News). The use of genetically modified organisms is anything but a problem, in the eyes of Dr. Bailey, farmers have been using genetic modification for nearly twenty years now which has helped keep food prices low, without GMOs prices could go up anywhere from 15-30 percent (Bailey, U.S. News). Environmentally, genetic modification has the potential to save Florida’s oranges from deadly bacteria that could wipe the crop out as a whole or even save millions of malnourished children by infusing vitamin A into Asia’s rice paddies. Although Bailey only discusses these two examples of the environmental advantages of genetically modified technology, clearly having the ability to either save a certain crop or millions of malnourished children should give pro-GMO side the upper hand in getting public support. 

Jon Entine’s article, The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillin-Meal Study, takes a different approach in discussing the safety of genetically modified organisms. To begin his article, he first quotes a common anti-GMO site, AlterNet, “Monsanto’s GMO Feed Creates Physical Ailments in Animals” (Entine). Entine goes on to explain the “new research” that this article claims as credible. The first piece of evidence that the anti-GMO article presents is a retracted GM corn study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini (later republished a nonreviewed anti-GMO journal), claiming rats fed genetically engineered corn developed grotesque cancerous tumor (Entine). The second piece of evidence was taken from Anti-GMO crusader Jeffrey Smith’s personal website. Smith lists more than a dozen cases in which he claims animals fed GMOs exhibited abnormal conditions, including cancer and early death. He also references his own self-published book, and anecdotal evidence that pigs fed GM feed turned sterile or had false pregnancies and sheep that grazed on BT cotton plants often died (Entine). And the final piece of evidence deriving from The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, an alternative medicine group that rejects GMOs and believes that vaccines are dangerous, claims, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” some of which include infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system (Entine). Entine goes on to easily discredit all three of these pieces of “evidence” by explaining some factual numbers, “Globally, food-producing animals consume 70% to 90% of genetically engineered crop biomass, mostly corn and soybean. In the United States alone, animal agriculture produces over 9 billion food-producing animals annually, and more than 95% of these animals consume feed containing GE ingredients”; surely if any of the anti-GMO evidence was factual then there would be an outbreak of dead livestock that would be extremely apparent to any farmer (Entine). Then to discredit the AlterNet article even more, Entine cites a study completed by University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam, also recipient of the 2016 BIO Future Maker Award, who reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed. The results were surprising for anyone who believes that genetically modified organisms are bad, over 29 years of data the study shows no unusual trends in animal health. Although Entine writes in conclusion, “the debate over the risks associated with GMO food is effectively over” I believe there is even more compelling evidence to why genetic modification is beneficial for both humans and the environment.  

Switching gears, one article that offers insight into genetic modification was published by Society of Toxicology and references an investigation done by the Center of Disease Control. In this CDC investigation, the CDC works on reports of human illnesses associated with StarLink corn product. StarLink genetically modified its corn by inserting the protein Cry9c into the product. The experiment done was to detect if the genetic modification of the protein causes a human allergen. After the experiment was completed, the results were released in an executive summary, “These findings do not provide any evidence that the reactions that the affected people experienced were associated with hypersensitivity to the Cry9c protein” (CDC). 

Although I am in firm support of the pro-GMO side, Alexa Black, in her article What Do We Know About GMOs: A Comparison of Regulations and Labeling in the United States and Netherlands, offers insight on how the Netherlands handles genetic modification. Black compares the labeling requirements and how genetically engineered foods are regulated in the United States against the Netherlands, “In the United States there is no requirement for the labeling of GM foods… The regulation of GMOs is a coordinated effort of several government agencies. The Plant Protection Act (PPA) stipulates that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has the power to regulate the movement of any organism in order to prevent ‘introduction into the United States or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States’” (Black), although the process of regulating GMOs might seem effective it does not even compare to how Netherlands regulate; “An application must be submitted to a competent national authority. The application must include information such as toxicological reports, all relevant studies, and plans for post-market monitoring.  The national authority has two weeks to make a decision and if the application is approved, it is then sent to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The EFSA performs a risk assessment and makes a summary of the application available for the public to view. The EFSA assigns the environmental risk assessment (ERA) to an EU member state if the application covers cultivation. The ERA report is then sent to the EFSA for review. Risk of the GMO is assessed by the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms in three major categories: effect on human health, the environment, and safety of animals (“GMO Authorizations”, 2016)” (Black). Also, Black states that in the Netherlands, farmers and producers are required to label anything that contains more than 0.9% of genetically modified ingredients (Black). As one can tell, there is a drastic difference in the way the United States labels and regulates GMOs then how the Netherlands goes about it. In her conclusion, Black discusses a possible solution, “Although labeling in itself cannot protect everyone from any potential side effects genetic modification may have, it would give Americans the chance to make an informed choice about their food, which is a right that all people should have”. Although I believe GMOs are safe I agree with Black’s point in that everyone has the right to make an informed decision. 

Pamela Ronald, a plant geneticist, gives a TED Talk about the use of genetically modified organisms and what her mission is: Nourish growing population, without further harming the environment. Ronald goes on to explain two specific field studies done that show definite evidence about why GMOs are important. I believe both field studies done are the most compelling pieces of evidence I have compiled throughout my research in favor of genetically modified organisms. The first field study was on the rice crop. She starts out by stating, “40% of potential harvested rice is lost to disease, flooding, or infection every year” (Ronald).  Ronald goes on to explain her field study done to eliminate rice lost due to flooding. With most rice not being able to survive more than three days submerged, and with the increased climate change flooding is expected, which provokes the question how should we go about saving the rice crop? Ronald’s experiment consisted of regular rice and genetically modified rice, infused with the sub1 gene, being submerged for 18 days. The results showed how the genetically modified rice grew fine while the conventional rice died; however, this was an in-lab experiment and for there to be concrete evidence some actual field experiments were necessary, which is exactly what Ronald did. The field experiment results were shocking, after 98 days of observing each crop deal with the climate the genetically modified rice thrived and produced 3.5 times more grain than the conventional rice (Ronald). The second field study was done on the papaya crop in Hawaii. In the year 1950, papaya crop was infected with the “papaya ring spot virus” which nearly whipped out in the entire papaya crop in Oahu, Hawaii. Dr. Dennis Gonzales, Hawaii native, realized something had to be done. Gonzales genetically modified the papaya crop by injecting viral DNA into the papaya crop, Ronald compares this to receiving a vaccine. A field trial showed that the genetically modified papaya was immune to the disease while conventional papaya was severely infected and could not grow. To this day, there is no organic method to fight this disease, instead the same modification used by Gonzales back in 1950 that saved the papaya crop is still used today (Ronald). After Ronald’s explanations of both field studies done, it is apparent that genetically modifying crops extremely help, or can even save, struggling crops.  

My final two sources include articles written by Mark Lynas and Dr. Atli Arnarson. Both sources discuss why genetically modified foods are just as safe as non-GMO foods. In the first article, GMO Safety Debate is Over, Mark Lynas cites the prestigious National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, who issued what is probably the “most far-reaching report ever produced by the scientific community on genetically engineered food and crops”; “The conclusion was unambiguous: Having examined hundreds of scientific papers written on the subject, sat through hours of live testimony from activists and considered hundreds more comments from the general public, the scientists wrote that they ‘found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops’” (Lynas). In the “report” done by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, they state “No pattern of differences was found among countries in speciﬁc health problems after the introduction of GE foods in 1990” (Lynas). Additionally, in the article written by Dr. Arnarson, Arnarson concluded that there is no sufficient evidence to suggest GMOs are unsafe (Arnarson). Also, Arnarson states, “About 70–90% of GMO crops are used to feed livestock, and more than 95% of all food-producing animals in the US consume GMO feed”, this reminds the audience, whither pro-GMO or not, that most food is genetically modified in some way. Both sources, when paired together, work hand in hand to stress the same point: “GMOs are safe”. 

Genetically modified organisms have the capability to increase crop yield, increase farmer profits, reduce pesticide use, save malnourished children, or even save entire crop populations. Although the positives severely outweigh the negatives, I believe a solution to GMO debate would be labeling foods that have been genetically modified, as talked about by Alexa Black. After close examination of all eight sources, it is made clear that genetically modified organisms can have beneficial effects on the environment and humans. 
