In the past 50 years, the world population has over doubled in size, growing from approximately 3 billion to the current calculation of 7 billion. (Total Population) Current projections show no indication of population growth slowing down, as the global population is expected to reach just under 10 billion by the year 2050. (Total Population) With this astronomical jump in population, we must consider how we provide our species with the basic means to survive such as food, shelter, and water. Scientists, lawmakers, and agriculture companies have turned to food science, specifically genetically modified organisms, to bridge this gap.  Genetically modified organisms are not an environmentally friendly or reliable means of sustaining food at our current population growth rate. Modern technology has allowed us to seek scientific ways to generate enough natural resources to support our population, but at what cost? There are many negative side effects we experience with the use of genetically modified organisms in our ecosystems and environment, pertaining not only to the agriculture, but to humans themselves. Unfortunately, the significance of food technology is not common knowledge, when it is something that everyone should be interested in, as it affects us every day. 

Ever since I took AP Environmental Science during my freshman year of high school, the topics of Environmental and Food science have always interested me. In class, we watched many documentaries, the most significant of which being Food, Inc. which introduced me to this whole entire side of food production that I didn’t even know existed. Since then, I have always been interested in it, but it was not until my senior year of high school when I was given an important reason to be interested in food science. I had been having some random stomach problems for a while including constant stomachaches and headaches but could never figure out the reason behind it. Assuming I was just lactose intolerant, I thought nothing of it until I went in to get allergy tested, and found out that I was allergic to wheat, rice, black pepper, and a slew of other things that made up nearly everything I was eating. This diagnosis has caused me to have to examine everything I put into my body and has made me much more aware of the food technology industry. Though I have subsequently learned how to make healthier and better informed choices, I have also learned of many negative aspects of the food science industry. This paper has allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of these processes, and again sparked my interest. 

While researching in a desperate attempt to figure out how this happened to me, the most common topic I found popping up was Genetically Modified Organisms. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are defined by Monsanto as “taking a copy of a desired gene or section of genetic material from one plant or organism and inserting it into another plant.” Many farmers and food production companies have turned to genetically modified organisms to increase their crop yield and boost profitability. Genetically modified organisms are found in 85% of grocery store foods, which makes them impossible to avoid when purchasing goods for consumption. (Schmitz) A big argument in support of GMO’s is that they produce a higher crop yield, however, studies have shown that this is not always the case. Although these GMO’s may seem resourceful, the growth in crop yield is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and the positives are trumped by the negative affects it has on our health and environment. In an article written by Danny Hakim for The New York Times, he discusses the argument that GMO’s are as effective as some claim. Hakim says, “An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany.” As Hakim says, there is no evidence substantial enough to confidently claim that GMO’s are doing what is promised for our society. 

Most arguments in support of genetically modified organisms contain two major components. The first component is that it produces a higher crop yield, and the second that it makes the crops resistant to insects and pesticides that frequently kill non-GMO plants. (Hakim) Unfortunately, over time, weeds have grown to become resistant to the weed-killers that GMO’s are supposed to protect against, so spraying the crops with pesticides only adds on to the negative effects that the crops have from the prior gene modification. This has become a sort of “double-jeopardy” as GMO’s are so normalized in our society that it is unlikely to grow a product without using them, but seeing as they are “Round-Up Ready” we must also heavily treat them with pesticides to kill weed and insects that prey said crops. (Michaelis) 

Another negative effect we have seen since the widespread use of GMO’s begun is an increase in the diagnosis of allergies and other autoimmune disorders. (Porterfield) When foods are chemically changed from their original state, our bodies must break them down in different ways than they are used to. Studies have shown that living in the US increases the likeliness that you will develop allergies in your lifetime, as opposed to living in countries such as the UK, where GMO’s are not currently produced. (O’Brien) Unfortunately, some people’s bodies are unable to adjust to this, and instead attack its immune system to protect against the foreign object. This is an extremely dangerous situation, as allergies can cause anaphylaxis, closing of the throat, as well as other dangerous reactions. Modifying the genetic integrity of a product is unnatural, and removes certain nutrients such as Vitamin D, Omega-3, and antioxidants that our bodies need to function normally. (Why is Allergy Increasing?) 

On the Autoimmune topic, Michaelis cites Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel quote with the claim that, “glyphosate, contributes to most of the diseases associated with the Western diet.” (Michaelis) Glyphosate is an ingredient found in Round-up, a pesticide commonly used to treat GMO plants. Monsanto, one of the largest GMO producing entities and users of Round-Up, claims that glyphosate is safe to ingest, and has no effect on the human body as we theoretically break it down in different ways. However, in a study on the effects of Glyphosate on humans, there was significant evidence of Glyphosate wreaking havoc on the subject’s endocrine systems. In multiple cases when provided in large enough doses Glyphosate was found to be toxic. We ingest plants daily, and therefore possess the same microbes in our body that are affected in plants, and were proven to become toxic over time. (Gasnier) Obviously, these chemicals have the potential to become detrimental to our health, and should subsequently be taken out of production immediately. 

With GMO’s, we are producing food that is not naturally found in the environment, so why should we assume that it safe to eat? The recently released “Artic Apple” was created in hope to create an apple that never browns. (Hart) This apple is accompanied with herds of speculation on whether it is safe to consume. This apple does not occur naturally, and in my mind, modifying it so drastically takes away the fact that it is natural food. When looking at its safety through a scientific lens, I discovered that the United States Department of Agriculture does not even have a standard for testing new products such as the Artic Apple that use RNA modification instead of the typical DNA modification. (Mellon) The USDA had no testing requirements for RNA modified foods such as the apple to meet, so it was passed quickly. The problem with this is that the new means of modifying genes requires certain genes to be “silenced” to stop their effect on the produce. In theory, this should be safe, as you are just modifying a few of the many genetic components. This is not the case, as certain genetic strands rely on others to function correctly, and silencing those they directly relate to can have a negative effect on unintended genes. (Mellon) To safely approve such produce for human consumption, we must first look to the United States Department of Agriculture to establish standards that must be met to ensure safety. 

Genetically Modified Organisms are currently not allowed in the UK, but will likely soon be allowed. The British public believes that allowing GMO’s will be good for their economy, but an article by Robert Hart discusses how the British are largely unaware of the downsides to these GMOs. With Brexit currently working its way through British parliament, a main argument is for genetically modified foods to finally be allowed on a greater scale in the British farming industry. Currently, the only GMO product that the UK can produce is a weevil-resistant strain of maize. By eliminating the restrictions against GMO’s, the UK hopes to increase their trade with countries such as the US who they were unable to trade with before. (Hart) Certain foreign products are banned in the UK as they are produced with genetically modified organisms, and the British are working hard to pass legislation allowing wholesale in their country. Most of those working to get this approved are not adequately educated on the safety risks associated with genetically modified organisms, and are unaware of the negative affect they will have on the environment. 

A main component of why people are so in support of genetically modified organisms are because they are uneducated on the pros and cons, and believe what the media tells them. Often, it can be hard to dictate such science heavy information into a form that most people can understand, so things can get lost in translation. Some companies use this to their advantage to make it seem as if they are more environmentally and health friendly than they are. There are also very few requirements for labeling genetically modified foods, which can make it harder for the public to determine if they are making health and environmentally safe choices. In the past few years, many anti-GMO organizations have pushed for labeling to be required on packaged foods and produce to allow the consumer to make an educated choice. Monsanto, one of the largest agriculture companies in the United States has recently begun putting more focus in a group they fund called ‘GMO Answers.’ This organization was created by Ketchum in response to allegations that they and other agriculture giants have not been explaining the science behind their products in a transparent way. Ketchum has been caught influencing news coverage prior to the creation of GMO Answers in a 2005 scandal in which they paid a commentator to promote the No Child Left Behind law. (Thacker) Because Monsanto controls this organization and its scientists, they have influence over the information that they spread to the public, once again leading us to question the integrity of what we are being told. An organization called U.S. Right to Know is investigating GMO Answers, Ketchum, and Monsanto as they believe the scientists who converse with the media are being told to omit certain parts of their information and spin the information so it is more appealing to the public. (Thacker) 

Monsanto and the other large farming corporations have a large influence in the media, and can present their audience with facts in support of GMO’s, while hindering those who have differing views. Many articles I found also point towards relationships between Monsanto and the US Government. In an article written by Global Research, they include an interesting graphic that shows the relationship between politicians and their affiliations with Monsanto. Over 20 politicians are listed, including Justice Clarence Thomas and Former FDA Deputy Commissioner Michael Taylor, two high-ranking politicians with lots of sway in government matters. (Huff) These relationships have led many to question the integrity of the relationship between the US Government and Monsanto. Considering the governments stand on relationships with private industries, it is surely suspicious that the two seem to interact with each other so frequently, and share such a large number or executives. Smaller companies that are against genetically modified crops often don’t have enough funding to oppose GMO’s as strongly as many of the larger companies, especially when these large companies have a sway in everyday government operations. 

It is important to note the positives of genetically modified organisms as well. With the increase in food technology, we have been able to create many new types of foods, as well as species that are able to resists certain climate threats, and grow better in a wider range of soil. GMO foods have the ability to contain more nutrients, as they can insert them into the genetic strains of the crops. Consumers have also reported preferring the taste of genetically modified foods over organic, which is appealing to the consumer. Foods are much easier to transport as well, as they have been modified to last longer in unfavorable conditions to ensure they consumers are presented with the most visually appealing product on the market. The industry also creates a decent amount of jobs worldwide, as they are always looking to develop more cost efficient and safer ways to produce foods. 

Considering that 85% of foods in grocery stores contain GMO’s, they are not easy to avoid. (Michaelis) At this point, we may have invested too much in this industry, and may not be able to fully return to our original, non-GMO society. We can surely take measures as a society to become more conscious of what we are investing our money and health in. Labeling genetically modified foods is an easy progression that will surely benefit the public as they can make better informed choices in food related matters.  The GMO movement has greatly come about in the last 3 decades, which in the grand scheme of things is not a large amount of time, and in theory, should be easy to revert.  Our society has a lot to gain from becoming more health conscious and eliminating genetically modified organisms is a promising start. 
