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. The medical, media and scholarly communities have presented several case studies stating the impact of GMOs on the environment, farmers, and production. Although both the pro-GMO and anti-GMO sides have had their scientific break throughs, after researching, reading, and analyzing a multitude of articles and studies conducted by numerous scientists and well renowned doctors, I believe genetically modified organisms can have numerous positive impacts on the environment and humans, if used correctly. 

To begin, it is necessary to start the rhetoric with the environmental aspect of genetically modified organisms. Genetic modification of crops, especially maize, corn, and cotton, can lead to greater crop yield, less pesticide use, and increased farmer profits (Bennett). As Bennett stated, the main focus should be the GMO impact on the environment and agriculture instead of focusing on the human health effects. Bennet examines research done by a pair of German agricultural economists: Wilhelm Klumper and Matin Qaim. Klumper and Qaim. Their 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” (Bennett). What is most fascinating about the numbers is how the genetic modification increased crop yields by 22 percent, in turn increasing farmer profits by 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 in developing countries the poor, who make up most the country, spend 60-80% of their income on food. Taking these statistics into consideration, this indicates that GMOs have the capability to help significantly reduce the number of people who are affected by poverty. 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”. Genetic modification of crops, especially maize, corn, and cotton, can lead to several positive impacts on the environment. 

Some specific ways genetically modified organisms can positively affect the environment are keeping food prices low and creating vitamin rich crops. The use of genetically modified organisms is anything but a problem, in the eyes of Dr. Pamela 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). 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 the environmental field for over 20 years. To begin her article, GMOs are Nothing to Fear, 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”. Another key ability genetic modification has is the potential to infuse certain crops with vitamins to protect against disease or even make the crop more nutritional. Specifically, GMOs can save Florida’s oranges from deadly bacteria that could wipe the entire crop out or even save millions of malnourished children by infusing vitamin A into Asia’s rice paddies. If Florida’s oranges died out due to disease the economic impact would be severe putting several thousand workers out of jobs, not to mention the companies that would go bankrupt.  With millions of children malnourished around the world, even being able to save a fraction would be remarkable; therefore, GMOs could be the answer to saving close to all malnourished children with just a few modifications. Infusing rice with vitamin A gives scientists the ability to save millions of children around the globe. As Dr. Bailey talks about the proven safety of GMOs, having the ability to either save a certain crop or millions of malnourished children is merely supplemental. 

If genetically modified organisms were harmful to the environment, then surely a portion of the 9 billion agricultural animals, 95% of which consume feed containing GE ingredients, would begin to die off to rapidly (Entine). However, this is not the case; instead, this is an unethical attempt by the anti-GMO side to sway the public’s opinion.  Jon Entine’s article, The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillin-Meal Study, first quotes a common anti-GMO site, AlterNet, which claims: “Monsanto’s GMO Feed Creates Physical Ailments in Animals” (Entine). Entine renounces the “new research” and informs the reader 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). Furthermore, Entine reiterates that the lack of credibility continues as the evidence used to support anti-GMOs was taken from Anti-GMO crusader himself, Jeffrey Smith. 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 used 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). Through his research, Entine easily discredit the three poor examples of “evidence” by explaining some factual numbers, “Globally, food-producing animals consume 70% to 90% of genetically engineered crop biomass, mostly corn and soybean”; surely if any of the anti-GMO evidence was factual then there would be an outbreak of dead livestock worldwide that would not go unnoticed by any farmer (Entine). Furthermore, 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, especially for anyone who believes that genetically modified organisms are harmful; over 29 years of data was analyzed, and the study shows no unusual trends in animal health. Eenennaam is distinctly more experienced in the field of GMOs than any anti-GMO crusader; which prompts the question, why listen to the opinion of a clown when you can hear the opinion of a king? 

 The most compelling environmental evidence, in my opinion, the pro-GMO side has is due to Pamela Ronald, a plant geneticist. Ronald 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. 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.  

Environmentally, GMOs are proven to be safe; however, are GMOs safe for humans? Although some people believe genetic modification are dangerous to humans, the same people do not understand what about the modification is “dangerous”. In many cases, the “genetic modification” done is as simple as adding a single protein into the organism. One article that references an investigation done on protein manipulation was published by Society of Toxicology. The Center of Disease Control conducted the investigation. In the CDC investigation, the CDC focused 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). While the general public may believe GMOs are unsafe for humans, it is clear that the public’s opinion is simply not scientifically supported. 

To continue discussing the safety of genetic modification on humans, it is necessary to talk about the scientific research that has been done about the human effects of GMOs. “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’”, this excerpt was taken from 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” (Lynas). Mark Lynas, author of GMO Safety Debate is Over, discusses this “report” done by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. Lynas’ main point is clear, genetically engineered food is nutritionally equivalent to non-GE food; quoting the report once more for scientific support: “No pattern of differences was found among countries in speciﬁc health problems after the introduction of GE foods in 1990” (Lynas). Additionally, in an article written by Dr. Atli Arnarson, GMO Foods: Good or Bad?, 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 (Arnarson).  It is evident, from the numerous scientific studies and research conducted, that genetically modified organisms are have no negative effects on humans.  

Although I am in firm support of the pro-GMO side, I believe there is one extremely viable solution: Label all foods available for purchase. Labeling is simply writing on the package whither the food has been genetically modified or is strictly organic. This method will appeal to both the pro and anti GMO groups. Alexa Black, in her article What Do We Know About GMOs: A Comparison of Regulations and Labeling in the United States and Netherlands, discusses this 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”. The article offers insight on how other countries, specifically the Netherlands, handle genetic modification. Black compares the labeling requirements in the United States against the Netherlands, “In the United States there is no requirement for the labeling of GM foods”, while the Netherlands requires labeling of any food that contains more than 0.9% of genetically modified ingredients (Black). Also, to give the public an even more informed decision, in the Netherlands, companies can also elect to apply for a GM-free labels to further ensure consumers that standards have been met to ensure the purity of their food or feed (Black). There is a dramatic difference in the way the United States labels genetically modified foods compared to the efficiency in Netherland’s labeling policies of GMOs. The research that I have completed strongly recommends that if the United States adopted the policies of labeling that other countries have successfully implemented, GMOs would be more widely accepted and valued by the general population. 

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, the best solution to the GMO debate would be labeling foods that have been genetically modified (Black). Through the labeling of foods, the general population would be given the right to make an informed decision about the food they choose to consume. After examining extensive research done by several credible authors and veteran doctors, it is clear that genetically modified organisms can have beneficial effects on the environment and humans. 
