Genetically modified foods have become a staple for many agriculture and commercial industries in the last several decades. The starving world has created a problem that scientists have been working hard to solve. To achieve the goal of providing food to everyone, worldwide scientists are working to develop new technologies which create some food safety issues (Kahn 6). GM foods are defined in “Are GMOs Really That Harmful to Eat?” as “Genetically modified foods contain DNA that scientists have modified in an unnatural way, such as by adding a gene from a different organism” (Miller). This means that most food that you purchase at the grocery store has some sort of GM food product in it. These GMO food crops were first introduced into the food supply in the 1990s. (Sax 631)  The scientific community has been quickly developing foods and organisms that have higher nutrient content and better resistance to pesticides, herbicides, and diseases ever since (Mattoo). This has allowed farmers to harvest higher yields of many crops because they are not being overgrown or eaten. The ability to grow a larger crop yield that has “better nutrient value” for consumers is pushing many agriculture industries to start mass production of newer genetically modified foods. The promise of higher nutrient content is promised but not always delivered in the crop yield. This higher nutrient factor is very important when considering the reasons behind GM food production; to increase crop yield to feed the hungry. “World population is increasing day by day which is a threat to food security.” (Kahn 6). There is simply not enough supply to meet the demands of our current or future population. “Conventional processes of crop breeding are insufficient to meet the demands of growing global population” (Kahn 6). Traditionally organic farmers are turning to GM crop production to keep up with the market demand. Genetically modified foods help provide the food supply for those who do not have access to the food and nutrients they need. “Even today, the two most cultivated GM crops are maize and soybean, which represent the staple constituents of many foods” (Kahn 7). However the increase in GM food production has had many negative impacts already on our society. These impacts should not be taken lightly either, considering the fatal consequences. These fatal consequences should lead us to the verdict of condemning the use of GM crops and products.

Negative impacts that have already occurred in several populations include antibiotic resistance, pesticide resistance, and allergic reactions. These risks as well as the unpredictable nature of genetic modification can lead to detrimental environmental and human health reactions (Kahn 8). Consumers should be concerned because of the risks that is being posed to their health. The effects of genetically modified are not limited to the generation that consumes these products today, but also the generations that follow due to the long term effects that the chemicals they are treated with cause. The effects that certain chemicals and pesticides have on the human body effect the development of fetus in those who are pregnant (Hayes). There are also sources that suggest that nutrient levels do not change and if anything decrease. “A study in the Journal of Medicinal Food conducted by Lappe and Bailey (1998) showed that certain GM foods have lower levels of vital nutrients – especially phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect the body from heart disease and cancer” (Kahn 8). These risks lead us to the conclusion that genetically modified foods are currently unsafe because of the lack of research that has been done to ensure the safety of them for consumers and the surrounding environments. The idea that genetically modified foods are currently unsafe because of the lack of research that has been done to ensure the safety of them for consumers and the surrounding environments is greatly supported. 

Though the risks outweigh the benefits, the lack of regulation has left the market victim to an overabundance of products that contain genetically modified foods. The easy production of these products allows the agricultural industries to mass produce genetically modified foods for much cheaper than organic crops. These foods contain pesticides and harmful chemicals in addition to the genes from foods that some consumers are allergic to. Consumers are left with the choice of seeking out more expensive organic choices to avoid the possible risk of chemical exposure or unintended allergic reaction. This can difficult for some consumers that do not have the access to organic markets or the budget to afford these products, leaving them victim to the chemicals in GM products.

The unpredictability of genetically modified organisms is the most pressing matter for most scientists. “The potential hazards are difficult to predict and identify immediately. Additionally, the United States regulatory system is set up to deal with problems occurring with GM foods only after they occur” (Stonebrook). This means that the most important matter for consumers is the risk of allergic reaction from products that are already on the market but are not properly labeled. In addition to allergic reaction, these products increase antibiotic resistance and pesticide resistance. These effects can in turn have effects on the health of the surrounding environments in addition to the health of human consumers. 

The priority of human health is closely followed by the concern for secondary consumers. Secondary consumers of GMO products include animals that feed off of the crops and animals that migrate and consume these crops. “Animal studies and farmers' observations have linked genetically modified feed with health problems in animals” (Miller). “A 2012 study in the Journal of American Science, for example, found rats fed GM corn lost or gained weight, or experienced other changes in their organs or biochemistry compared to rats fed non-GM corn” (Miller). These animals can then transport the modified genes to other ecosystems through migration, mating, and the effects of weather. “In 1994, FDA approved Monsanto's rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), a genetically produced growth hormone, for injection into dairy cows – even though scientists warned the resulting increase of IGF-1 (Insulin like Growth Factor-1), a potent chemical hormone, is linked to 400-500% higher risks of human breast, prostrate, and colon cancer” (Kahn 7). This hormone has now been banned in most countries because officials and health care professionals realize the risk and harm that this chemical has on those who have been exposed to it. European nations seem to banning more pesticide, herbicide, and GM crop use than most countries. The banning is mostly due to dispute rather than actual understanding but it is a start in the right direction. “However, the types of evidence and efforts necessary to inform the assessment of adverse effects on NTOs arising from unintended changes in GM plants for cultivation remain a contentious issue of debate in the EU” (Devos pg.2). These issues are more examples of how GMO production could lead to deadly effects on consumers without their knowledge and the uncertainty surrounding the non-target organism safety of this issue is the most pressing legal topic. The advancement of knowledge about GMO risks can over time uncover similar issues. The safety of non-target organisms should be considered in addition to the safety of human consumers. We currently cannot assure this safety.

This safety has many different aspects. Antibiotic resistance is an issue that has been becoming more prevalent in the scientific community in the last two decades. Due to the evolution of bacteria and viruses scientists have had to develop newer antibiotics in order to help our immune systems fight off newer strains. Part of this is due to the use of genetically modified organisms. Altering the DNA of these crops and animals allows large scale farming to have larger crop yields but increases the overall antibiotic resistance in our ecosystems. GM crops and animals are better equipped to withstand natural threats but also have higher resistance to antibiotics, herbicides and pesticides. The uncertainty and unpredictable nature of the situation raises many concerns surrounding GMOs. Essentially antibiotic resistance is due to the altering of genes and by doing this synthetically, farmers are expediting the process of antibiotic resistance. “GM maize plants use an ampicillin resistant gene. In 1998, the British Royal Society called for the banning of this marker as it threatens a vital antibiotic’s use. The resistant qualities of GM bacteria in food can be transferred to other bacteria in the environment and throughout the human body” (Kahn 7-8). In this instance the use of an ampicillin resistant gene negatively impacted human health by making it impossible for the consumers of the GM maize to use the antibiotic. With the agriculture industry experimenting with genetic markers for antibiotic resistance, pharmacists and doctors are given the hard task of adapting to the antibiotic resistance. Even since they started using antibiotics, bacteria and viruses have been adapting to resist drugs. The use of these genes and the breeding of them can create major problem concerning human health by expediting the rate at which bacteria and viruses evolve to resist antibiotic treatment. 

In addition to the resistance of antibiotics, doctors and the health care community have concerns about potential allergic reactions of consumers. Scientists have concerns about exposure to the protein product of an inserted foreign gene or increased expression of a natural allergen or toxin that can cause reactions (Sax 631). “In 1996, Brazil nut genes were inserted into soybeans by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred” (Kahn 7). Research found that those genes could cause allergic reactions. Though no fatalities occurred the risks of allergic reaction for consumers with nut allergies were very high. This is not the only incident that has led to close calls.

Antibiotic resistance and allergic reactions go hand in hand with pesticide and herbicide resistance. The altered genes makes crops more resistant to pesticides in an attempt to kill most weeds and pests that lower crop yields. “According to an article by Goldburg (1992) scientists predict that herbicide use will triple as a result of GM products” (Kahn 8). The genetic modification of foods in addition to the increased use of herbicides and pesticides can cause negative effects to the soil as well as consumers. Studies showed that essential soil nutrients were killed, robbing the soil of nitrogen and killed nitrogen capturing fungi (Kahn 8). The following is an excerpt from an academic journal that describes the epidemic of stink bugs in several southern states.

“Lab tests indicate that common plant pests such as cotton boll worms will evolve into Superpests immune from the BT sprays used by organic farmers (Bates et al., 2005). The recent epidemic in North Carolina and Georgia seems linked to bioengineered plants that the bugs love. Now seed companies like Monsanto, on their Farm source website, is recommending spraying stink bug affected areas with methyl parathion, one of the deadliest chemicals.” (Kahn 8)

This journal shows that genetic modification has negative impacts due to the hazardous use of pesticides. The herbicide and pesticide issue is even as far stretched as New Zealand. There “These super deadly trees are non-flowering, herbicide-resistant and with leave exuding toxic chemicals to kill caterpillars and other surrounding insects – destroying the ecology of forest life” (Kahn 8). Entire ecosystems are being changed and modified which increases the rate of extinction of many animals. These extinctions and ecosystem changes will negatively impact human health and the wellness of the agricultural industry.

The unpredictable nature of these organisms also plays a role in the rise of concern surrounding these products. “Edwin Mathews of the FDA's toxicology group wrote that genetically modified plants could "contain unexpected high concentrations or plant toxicants," (Miller). The unpredictable nature of such organisms can lead to deadly allergic reactions in consumers. Miller specifically mentions a comparison between GMO production and the smoking trend in the 1950s (Miller). Even though GMOs are not proven to be unsafe, they are not proven to be safe either. The possibilities of negative side-effects that can come with the extended use of GMOs could be as deadly as the imaginations of those opposed. “For example, insertional effects may lead to the introduction of new plant characteristics, loss of previously expressed plant characteristics or expression of characteristics that are outside the range of what is typically observed in the plant species” (Devos pg.1). These unknown possibilities should not be taken lightly, and so far there has been little to no evidence of the long-term effects GMOs will create. Even with current methods of genetic modification there are risks during the process. “While the gene-editing templates match a specific sequence, it is possible that the same sequence occurs elsewhere in the genome or they will match similar sequences, and the DNA will be sliced in those places, too, with unknown consequences” (Chang). The possible unintended changes could cause bizarre effects in the organisms that undergo modification. The unpredictability of these modifications ties directly into the concerns surrounding allergic reactions.

All of these risks involved can have effects on today’s generation. However there is also concern for future generations that coincides with unpredictable nature of genetic modification. Scientists are unsure of the results of GMO’s in addition to the length of time that these results will affect human and animal consumers. “And given the life of many of these chemicals, generations, years, dozens of years, that means that we right now are affecting the health of our grandchildren's grandchildren by things that we're putting into the environment today” (Hayes). The research surrounding GMO’s supports each of the claims above. The studies that have been conducted do not give much confidence in the long term safety of GM products and the chemicals used on them. The unpredictability as well as the already known effects of such organisms define the problem clearly. The potential for positive results should be driving the scientific community to further research for the effects of GMO’s instead of ignoring the negative impacts that have already harmed communities.

The more recent development of GMO’s has also contributed to the overall lack of legal regulations in first world countries and over production in third world countries. “While some labeling requirements are mandated, such as those required under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, other content on labels is created by the manufacturer” (Sax 630). The labeling of genetically modified organisms is a very tricky topic. Most are not labeled with exact specifications as to which genes from which organisms were inserted into the original crop. Even after a law passed by Congress last year to disclose genetically modified ingredients takes effect, consumers will not fully understand or be able to identify the differences in their GMO products (Chang). The lack of information being given to consumers is unacceptable and demands for more research and proper labeling.

Scientists even have concerns with the safety assurance of GMOs. “A 2015 article in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe signed by over 300 scientists called “No scientific consensus on GMO Safety”” (Miller). This is not the only source that explains the concern scientists have for GMO safety. “Over two hundred scientists have signed a statement outlining the dangers of GM foods and the Union of Concerned Scientists (a 1000 plus member organization with many Nobel Laureates) has expressed similar reservations” (Kahn 7). Even “The prestigious medical journal, Lancet, issued a warning that GM foods should never have been allowed into the food chain” (Kahn 7). The scientific community has yet to put its stamp of approval on GMOs, so why should consumers consider them safe?

In addition to the need for research in the scientific community, the skepticism surrounding GMO’s in the consumer community shows that scientists are not the only ones concerned. “Sectors of the public and consumer advocacy groups are increasingly calling for a variety of food labeling measures,1 particularly regarding food derived from genetically modified organisms/genetically engineered (GMO/GE) and the use of the label “natural”” (Sax 630). Many consumers have found ways to steer clear of genetically modified foods, and instead favoring organic. “Organic products cannot contain GMOs” (Sax 631). However there is growing concern for the spread of GMO’s to organic food crops. “At the present rate of proliferation of GM foods, within 50-100 years, the majority of organic foods may no longer be organic” (Kahn 9). Consumers answered a survey and below is the chart showing the results (Sax 634).

The mean rating that consumers had for health, safety, and environment is shown. There is an obvious biased against GMOs among consumers; and for good reason. “In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically altered version of the food supplement – Ltryptophan” (Kahn 7). This is yet another example of the lack of regulation to protect consumers. Consumers are choosing organic over GMOs because of the known risks and unpredictability. “According to the Organic Consumer Association, the demand for organic food is greater than the domestic supply” (Sax 631). This increases the price and lowers the availability of such products, further creating a problem for concerned consumers. The higher priced organic foods are unattainable to those who come from lower economic status regardless if they wish provide the safety that organic products currently give to consumers. 

With scientists and consumers both weary of GMO production, the use of these products seems too immoral considering that both parties know that catastrophic consequences could become a reality for those who consume GMOs. “Biosafety issues of GM food is most hot topic of world because if on one side it has benefits then on other side provokes concern about health and environmental risks” (Kahn 7). These health concerns obviously be addressed to provide safety to the consumer. The potential positive impact should also be addressed, that way the entire purpose of GM foods, to feed the hungry world, can be explored. Further research will allow consumers to enjoy the many benefits possible from GMO production, while ensuring their own safety.

The risks involved with genetic modification of today’s food supply obviously outweigh the benefits that have been seen thus far. The effects that pesticide and herbicide use will have on non-target organisms will also cause ripple effects among the ecosystems near agriculture areas. We will in essence be crippling our source of organic meat as well as organic crops for generations. The need for research and regulation around genetically modified foods is great in order to ensure the safety of consumers. Consumer safety should always be top priority for the agricultural industry.
