
How are genetically modified organisms affecting your life? Food plays a crucial role in the preservation of life forms. However, it is important for consumers to be knowledgeable about the way food has innovated within the past years. Genetically modified organisms have silently crawled their way through the multi-billion food industry in America. The negative connotation of the process 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 solution leads to the creation of genetically modified organisms. Humans have created this artificial process to change the food industry that will primarily affect consumers. How have genetically modified organisms opened new opportunities for bettering the lives of Americans? Genetically modified organisms have improved the lives of Americans through safety, knowledge, economy, labeling, health, environment, and The Formal President’s view.

A main argument from the opposition is that GMOs are unnatural and therefore unsafe, but that’s because the consumer are uneducated with process. The unnatural process is created by artificially changing an organism’s original traits to more desirable ones through genetic engineering (Folger). The result could make a fruit more nutritious or greater in size. However, consumers are concerned that the modified byproducts of this process could affect their health in a negative way. Questions arise about whether genetically modified organisms are safe. It is irresponsible to brush off consumers’ precautions over the safety of the food. It certainly is a poor excuse to offer if genetically modified foods are indeed proven to contain health hazards (Duncan 108). Consumers feel like the government is not taking the necessary procedures to assure the products’ safety. It is especially important for the government to play its role in protecting its citizens. The safety of the consumers is within the hands of the government. If the government fails to detect any problems before it is too late, the trust from the people would be broken, which would lead to forms of litigations. Consumers are also showing concern for the way these modified farms are negatively affecting the environment and ecosystem. The intense spread of modified farms leads to debates on whether crops in the future would be purely natural.

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. 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 genetic modification is created to speed up the process and create a better product.

GMOs have never been shown to be unsafe. The Federal and Drug Administration assures the safety of the byproduct for human consumption.  Genetically modified products are accountable for over half of the processed consumables being sold in grocery stores. The government agency is responsible for protecting the public’s health through consumables. Genetically modified products are defined as “normal” from the FDA and do 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 110). The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for the safety of consumables. The process of growing to eating genetically modified products is researched extensively. The government assures that modified products are no different than normal products. To assure this statement, the Center for Science in the Public interest assures that the FDA has your back when it comes to the safety of modified products. 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 2). The three agencies determine if the genetically modified product is safe to grow, safe for the environment, and safe to consume. These three agencies are well-known agencies that are respectable when it comes to regulating food and drugs in America. A great amount of money and plenty of time is dedicated into the research of modified products to assure its safety is priority and to protect the citizens. 

Information leaked by the media is somewhat skewed, which leads to consumers who are misinformed on the science behind GMOs. 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 846). The information on genetically modified products seems to be hidden from consumers. The reason for this is since the food industries think that it will turn consumers away. However, teaching consumers about genetically modified products could change their views from negative to positive. Statistics have shown that knowledgeable consumers are more likely to show acceptance toward the use of genetically modified organisms.

GMO’s are a booming business and good for the economy. Genetic modification has been around for quite some time. The modifications are usually natural occurring. Science sped up the process. 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 for agricultural businesses that sell 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 2). The boost in the economy could mean new jobs and wealthier Americans. If a ban was put into place on genetically modification it could be detrimental for the economy. 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 2). The increase in crop yield shows the effectiveness and efficiency of this practice. The increase in crop yield not only increases the wealth of the producers, but also provides for the growing population. 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 89). This new way of agricultural land use is heavily affecting the United States economy. The positive correlation between the increase of modified land boosts the economy. Thus, as more farmers are more aware of the agricultural practice, farms that are unmodified are converting to modified farms in attempt to generate more revenue. The agricultural industry must seize the opportunity to show other countries that modified land is the leading innovation that will better the future.

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 7). 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). Labeling is unethical because it would add unnecessary work to simply add a fine print and drastically increase consumer spending. This would negatively affect the food industry and the consumer. 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 7). GMO does not cause any harm, therefore, exempts from being labeled. Consumers are demanding the products to raise awareness of the “unnatural” product.  

The invention of genetically modified organisms has brightened the future for human health. 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 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 (Blatt 89). The few African countries are not viewing eye-to-eye with genetically modified crops. This leads to the problem of why these few countries are facing starvation and famine. If the adoption of genetically modified crops were put into use it would solve the greatest problems. The increase in crop yield and nutrition would replenish the African population.  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 (Blatt 101). To solve this horrible problem, scientists turned to the solution of genetic modification creating “golden rice”. The implementation of creating a more nutritious rice is detrimental to saving and preventing consumers from going disable. 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 (Blatt 101). The creation is a stepping stone that leads to the perfect solution, but has also lead to new imperfections. However, the imperfections are outweighed heavily by the beneficial results. If this modification was not put into place malnutrition, disability, and casualty would be an all-time high.

The reduction of pesticide and herbicide usage is beneficial for the environment. The exponential growing population in America is outweighing the speed of food production. Genetically modification has played a tremendous role in aiding the food industry in closing the detrimental gap between food production and population. The heavy use of genetically modification seeds have been modified to avoid the adversity in the growth process. Questions arises in whether the modified seeds are harmful to the environment due to its unnatural process.  However, a study show that the implementation of genetically modified seeds has reduce pesticides use and greenhouse gas emission. A study assessing the global economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops for the first nineteen years (1996-2014) of adoption showed that the technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 581 million kg and has reduced environmental footprint associated with pesticide use by 20%. The technology has also significantly reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture equivalent to removing 10 million cars from the road (Brookes). Pesticides is an unnatural substance that is used to protect the crops from pests. However, not only does it affect the pests, but it also affects the environment. The harmful substance is affecting the food chain system, overall, affecting the environment. The modified products are built to withstand pests in a more natural in which it does not harm the environment unlike spraying chemicals.

The formal United States’ President Obama holds the power to impact the way farms in America produce genetically modified crops. Genetically modified crops should be based on the science instead of the political debate. The topic is highly controversial between the two side of anti-GMOs and pro-GMOs. However, Formal President Obama approves the use of modified crops. There are areas where there are legitimate concerns and there are some areas where the science seems to indicate this is okay (Formal President Obama). The two sides need to be based on the science. Implementing the use of genetically modification in farm in America has far outweigh the drawbacks. However, in recent news Formal President Obama signed the bill S. 764 on July 28. The bill states the constituents of what food producers can and can’t not do in terms of labeling bioengineered and organic products. The bill requires food manufacturers to disclose the presence of bioengineered foods using text, a symbol, or electronic digital link. The bill prohibits meat products from being labeled as bioengineered solely because the animal consumed bioengineered feed product. The bill specifies that any food certified as “organic”, under the USDA National Organic Program, shall be considered sufficient to make a claim regarding the absence of bioengineering in the food such as, “not bioengineered”. “non-GMO”, or another similar claim (Senate Amendment). The was intentionally passed to create trust from the consumer to the food industry. However, studies show that the labeling system is a broken system because consumers want products to be labeled, but, in reality consumers buy the product for its content. The labeling system informs the consumer before the product is bought.

Genetic modification is a stepping-stone to ending the most severe problem such as world hunger and famine. 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. Within my research, I have specifically focused on the topics of safety, knowledge, economy, labeling, health, environment, and President’s views. 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.
