Genetically modified organisms have silently crawled their way through the multi-billion food industry in America. The negative connotation of the process of being “artificial” has drastically increased consumer opposition to this process. However, the world is changing at an exponential rate. The rate of change is taking the agriculture and food industry by storm. The counterintuitive role leads to the creation of genetically modified organisms. How have genetically modified organisms opened new opportunities for bettering the lives of Americans? To answer this sophisticated question, I will provide specific insights on how genetically modified organisms have improved the lives of Americans through safety, knowledge, economy, labeling, and health.

Consumers are more accepting of the natural process than the artificial process. Lately, growing consumer concern is on the rise due to the rise of unnatural byproducts being sold. The word genetically modified organisms have created controversial arguments of the unnatural process. The unnatural process is created by artificially changing the original traits to a more desirable trait. The results could make a fruit much more juicer or greater in size. Consumers are concerned that the byproducts could affect their health in a negative way. Questions arise to whether genetically modified organisms are safe. To brush off precaution on the convenient argument that there is not enough evidence to prove that genetically modified food is indeed harmful is sheer irresponsibility. It certainly is a poor excuse to offer if genetically modified foods are indeed proven to contain health hazards (Duncan). Consumers feel like the government is not taking the necessary procedures to assure the product’s safety. 

We can all agree that safety is a huge concern in the world of genetically modified organisms. Consumer awareness is growing, and genetically modified byproducts are taking over grocery stores. Government agencies are sitting back in their chairs as they watch these byproducts being tested on human guinea pigs. Consumers feel helpless in creating change for the better as genetically modified byproducts are dominating natural products. It is not ethical for big companies and the government to take advantage of consumers due to power and wealth. However, if we look at studies on genetically modified organisms, there have been no deaths or illnesses from consuming genetically modified byproducts. Natural crops are also far different than their pre-domesticated stage. The use of genetically modification is created to speed up the process and creating a better product.

 Genetically modified products are accountable for over half of the processed consumables being sold in grocery stores. The Federal and Drug Administration assures the safety of the byproduct for human consumption. The government agency is responsible for protecting the public’s health through consumables. Genetically modified products are defined as “normal” (non-GMOs product) from the FDA and does not need a separate safety assessment. The CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) reminds us that the FDA is the agency assigned the responsibility for ensuring that all the food we eat is safe (Duncan). The process of growing to eating genetically modified products is extensive. Heavy research and studies are put into place by the United States Department of agriculture, Environmental Protection agency and Food and Drugs Administration to guarantee safety. Genetically modified seeds take an average of $136 million and 13 years to bring to market because of extensive research and regulatory reviews conducted by up to three U.S. government agencies, including the USDA, EPA and FDA (Get to Know the Health and Safety of Gmos). The three agencies determine if the genetically modified product is safe to grow, safe for the environment and safe to consume. Progression of time in the 21st century continues and more byproducts are released in grocery stores. These government agencies are actively covering the safety of the byproduct and protecting its citizens.

Consumers are relying upon the media to accumulate “reliable” information. Information leaked by the media is somewhat skewed, which leads to misinformed consumers on the scientific reasoning behind genetically modified organisms. The result creates a detrimental gap between the fine line of knowledgeable and unknowledgeable consumer awareness. The importance of knowledge could change the consumer's attitude from disapproval to acceptance. Attitude toward GMO safety may be a result of limited awareness, because it was not stable for some consumers; after reading that over 50% of foods available in grocery stores contained genetically modified ingredients, 20% of participants who originally found GMOs unsafe changed their answers (Wunderlich and Gatto). Statistics have shown that knowledgeable consumers are more likely to show acceptance toward the use of genetically modified organisms.

The modification of genetic material of agricultural crops has been around for centuries. However, in recent years the use of genetically modified food is rising rapidly. America’s exports sales of genetically modified seeds and crops are turning into a billion-dollar industry. The booming economy shows a positive result in the beneficial use of genetically modified products. Over the period from 1996 to 2014, the authors estimate that the economic benefits of genetically modified crops have reached USD $150 billion (Smyth). Canola, corn, cotton, and soybeans are being genetically modified on a massive scale to meet with the demands of the economy. To meet with the consumer’s demands genetically modification is put in place to increase crop yield. Studies show the differences of crop yield between neutral, positive, and negative changes. The results were stunning showing a massive increase in crop yield benefiting the economy. The first of these was conducted by carpenter, which examined 168 studies on genetically modified crop yields, finding that 124 of studies reported yield increase, 32 no change, and only 13 reporting lower yield (Smyth). The use of pesticides declined and the yield and profit growth inclined. The declination of pesticides usage increased the health reason of modified crops. The U.S contains the largest percent of land area that plants genetically modified crops, trailing behind are Argentina and Brazil. The percent is drastically increasing because of the profitability. The percentage has been increasing at an average of 13 percent a year between 1996 and 2006 (Blatt). 

The use of labeling is to inform the consumer about the use of genetic modification. However, labeling is not required since genetically modified crops are not any different than normal products. Even if the public opposes, labeling is not mandatory. Labeling a byproduct “Genetically modified” will not stop a shopper from buying the product. Consumers usually buy the product for the content instead of the process to create product. However, in recent studies show that there is a high percentage of consumers who think it is ethical to have the byproducts labeled. The desire for labeling is echoed in other national surveys, including a 2012 survey of the U.S. votes in which 91% favored mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Even when presented with arguments for and against GMOs labeling, 89% of participants still supported the mandatory labels, indicating that the desire for transparency in the food system is deep-rooted (Wunderlich and Gatto). Mandatory labeling is required only if the product affects the consumer or environment in a negative way. Genetically modified product does not affect negatively to the consumer or environment therefore it is unnecessary to label. If labeling becomes mandatory there would be an increase in price for the product. The price fluctuation will prevent buyers from paying for the product. Having a series of different and conflicting state and local GMO labeling mandates will increase grocery price for consumers by hundreds of dollars per year. Grocery cost for a family would increase by an average of $500 per year under GMO labeling mandates (Lee). Mandatory labeling is required for non-genetically modified purposes. The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, state that only material information (that which would lead to health issues, environmental risks, or misinterpretation of nutritional content, usage, or information if omitted from a label) needs to be included on a label (Wunderlich and Gatto). 

The invention of genetically modified organisms has brightened the future of agriculture. GMOs are described to be safe from recent studies but have not been perfected. Over the past years, GMOs have played a tremendous role in indirectly providing health benefits for society. The big aspects of GMOs are that they allow farmers to grow sustainable crops and the solution to malnutrition. Ethical problems relate to a few African countries that are denying the use genetically modified crops leading to the problem of famine. They are considered to be so dangerous by some African countries (Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe) that even though they are facing starvation, they have refused to import these foods unless they are first ground into powder so they cannot be planted (Harvey). One of the most influential and successful genetically modified crop is the “golden rice”. Rice is a product that is eaten daily by almost half of the world’s population. Most of the rice that is produced and consumed is in the country of Asia. It is a crucial calorie intake for the Asian population. However, the rice itself lacks nutrients which leads to the malnutrition. Therefore, the rice is leading to problems with the digestive system and vitamin A shortage. Rice contains far less iron than any other cereal grain and contains large amounts of a compound that binds iron from other sources in the digestive system, preventing the physiological absorption of as much as 98 percent of all iron digested. In addition, rice is the cause of vitamin A deficiency in about four Million children in the world. This deficiency could kill up to two million people a year and leads to blindness in 500,000 others in developing countries (Harvey). To solve this horrible problem, scientists turned to the solution of genetic modification creating “golden rice”. This was created by inserting genes from two diverse entities to solve the vitamin shortage. GM golden rice contains two genes from a daffodil and one from a bacterium to generate rice that contains high levels of beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A, which gives the rice its golden hue. (Harvey) The creation is a stepping stone that leads to the perfect solution, but has also lead to new imperfections.

Humans are evolving and growing exponentially. Scientists did not create genetically modified organisms without a specific purpose.  That specific purpose was not to harm consumers but to create a solution to bettering the lives of humans. It is a stepping-stone to ending the most severe problem such as world hunger. Within my research, I have specifically focused on the topics of safety, knowledge, economy, labeling, and health. The topic of genetically modified organisms is controversial between pro-gmos and anti-gmos. I have stated in my research the opposing position, statement of understanding, and my personal stance. To create a solution for both the opposing position, I demand that labeling and intensive research from government agencies is required. This is ethical because consumers are willing to spend money out of their pockets. Simple changes could easily change the views of opposing sides, but it’s the willingness of the government and people to accept the changes.
