Pham 1

Silvio Pham
Ali M. Meghdadi
Writing 39C/ Section 33337
23 January 2015
Controversy over Genetically Modified Crops
Genetically modified (GM) crops, agricultural products that have had their DNA
modified by genetic engineering techniques, began to be commercially planted in the 1990s. By
the process of adding new strains of DNA into a particular crops genome, GM crops are
artificially refined to exhibit new traits that are not present in conventional versions of the same
kind of crop. Genetic modification allows commercial crops a diverse set of traits that make
them easier to grow and boost their output. The ultimate goal of using genetic engineering in
agriculture is to produce enough food to feed the worlds population and solve the issue of world
hunger. The development and use of GM crops has been a heavily debated topic in todays
society. Since the introduction of GM crops to agriculture, the public has been split on its
judgment of whether to endorse or reject GM crops over concerns of safety and necessity.
Directly conflicting claims from both sides of the argument has left consumers puzzled over how
GM crops should be approached.
Experimentation with genetic engineering started in the 1970s when researchers created
transgenic bacteria and a transgenic mouse the first genetically modified organisms. It is the
process of altering a target organisms DNA by recombining genetic material from foreign
organisms and inserting the material into the target organism. The target organism benefits by
possessing specific traits of foreign organisms newly introduced to its own DNA. Although the
scientific community recognized the potential of genetic engineering, the risks of directly

Pham 2
manipulating of DNA were also acknowledged. To discuss these concerns, the 1975 Asilomar
Conference was held, bringing together over 100 biologists. They set guidelines on how to
perform research on recombinant DNA to prevent potential hazards from any kind of experiment
(Asilomar Conference). This conference proves from the start of genetic engineering, safety of
humans and the environment has been a primary concern. Yet, the public then and now have had
mixed opinions over the growth of GMOs and their availability in the marketplace. As a result of
this conference, many regulations in research exist to prevent harm to the health of humans and
condition of the environment. Safety is not the biggest issue with GMOs like many believe. The
biggest issue with GMOs is their role in society. Scientists mostly support GMOs considering
their potential to feed the worlds population while critics oppose GMOs saying conventional
crops are just as adequate.

Figure 1. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops by U.S.

Farmers Has Increased Steadily for Over 15 Years. Genetically Engineered Crops in the
United States. USDA-ERS, 2014. Web.

Pham 3
Since the first GMOs, applications of genetic engineering have expanded into other
industries in the 1980s and 1990s, one of which is agriculture. GM crops have revolutionized the
way food is grown in the U.S. Wherever possible, commercial crops have been modified to be
easier grow and produce greater output. The expansion of genetic engineering into agriculture is
affecting the diets of most people in the U.S. According to Figure 1, GM corn and soy acreage
make up over 80% of all corn and soy acreage, and there is now widespread use of GMOs
among commercial farmers. With corn and soy ingredients present in almost all process foods, it
is probable that most people in the U.S. consume GMO products on a daily basis. As GM foods
have been brought in to mainstream culture, the two opposite choices among consumers have
been to welcome it or steer away from it.

Figure 2. Suszkiw, Jan. Tifton, Georgia: A Peanut Pest Showdown. Agricultural

research magazine. USDA-ARS, 1999. Web.
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops are one type of GM crops that has been adopted on a
global scale. They are known for their pest control. Bt crops have been designed to produce
enzymes that selectively kill insect predators (Burkhardt 455). They are one example of the
capabilities of GM crops. With the inherent ability to kill specific predators, Bt crops can defend
themselves from large-scale damage by insects. Growing without the obstacle of predators, crops

Pham 4
grow quicker and in higher quality. Figure 1 shows the difference between damage by insects of
a conventional crop (left) in comparison to a Bt crop (right). The leaves of the Bt crop appear
healthier, fuller, and greener than the infected, brown, and brittle leaves of the conventional crop.
Bt crops prove to be successful in combat against infection by insects and the Bt potato is one
such example: Potatoes were among the first successful transgenic crop plants (An et al. 1986).
Genetically modified potatoes expressing Bacillus thuringienus delta-endotoxin that is toxic to
[predatory insects] were registered and sold in the U.S. (Alyokhin 13). Because Bt crops ward
off selected pests, they are easier, cheaper, and safer to grow. Farmers do not need to stress about
controlling pests and spraying heavy amounts of insecticide that may be more costly or more
ecologically harmful. GMO supporters hope the cultivation of GM crops like Bt crops will
contribute to addressing the worlds food needs.
However, support of GMOs is balanced by mistrust by GMO opponents. Although wellreceived at first, [Bt potatoes] were discontinued after only five years because of consumer
concerns about genetically modified crops (Alyokhin 13). The Bt potato, like many other crops
of its kind, have been discontinued because consumers are fearful of its perceived threats. GM
crops have always raised concern, especially in the debate of whether or not they are needed in
todays society for feeding the world population and whether the potential hazards have been
adequately studied.
The concerns have contributed to notion that organic and GM foods need to be separated
and labelled and that they are unneeded. Popularity has increased for supermarkets such as
Sprouts and Whole Foods that are committed to stocking only organic products. The Non-GMO
Project has taken the initiative to verify and label organic products as Non-GMO to make
consumers aware about the choices they are making. For critics, the end goal of differentiating

Pham 5
between organic and GMO is to completely eliminate GM foods from the market by posing them
as superfluous. The aim of GM foods is to feed the worlds population, but skeptics claim GM
foods are not the answer to that problem: Massive hunger and starvation in the world have had
far more to do with political and socioeconomic factors and distribution problems than with
gross agricultural shortfalls (Avise 73). Shortages in food around the world are not due to lack
of food supplies. They are due to political conflicts and poor distribution schemes. For example,
the U.S. produces agricultural surpluses every year, but many impoverished citizens do not get
the food they need and much of the surplus is wasted as welfare programs fail to distribute
enough. The supply of food produced around the world is enough to meet hunger demands, but
current distribution methods are too ineffective to make use of surplus supplies, and therefore
much of the supplies are wasted. Because the world already has more food than it can properly
handle, critics of GMOs stress the need for GMOs is nonexistent.
The controversy over the need of GMOs has created a dilemma of misinformation to the
ordinary consumer. The arguments for the development and use of GMOs directly conflict with
the arguments against as supporters state GMOs are necessary for the worlds food needs and
opponents state GMOs are unnecessary. Both sides continue to fuel their claims with propaganda
and make assertions to influence consumers. Consumers are exposed to propaganda of GMOs
and are taught with incorrect or inadequate information that urge them to believe only one side of
the debate. Misinformation about the topic of GMOs is spread before a scientific consensus is
agreed on.
An example of this conflict in the past is found in the purchase of milk from GM cows in
comparison to the purchase of GM Flavr Savr tomatoes in 1994, the time when GM crops were
first commercialized. Many preferred conventional milk from normal cows, but many also

Pham 6
indulged in Flavr Savr tomatoes (Phillips 673). There was a split among consumers as some
avoided GMOs and others were satisfied with GMOs. Although the products were FDA
approved for safety after many tests and consumers were eating GM tomatoes without any
consequences, critics remained doubtful and wary of GM products claiming the effects of genetic
modification are not yet understood. Both sides present opposite, conflicting assertions, and each
side challenges the others adequacy of research. The milk from GM cows contain higher levels
of the Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), and critics attack the milk saying IGF-1 can increase
the chance of breast cancer, while the FDA says IGF-1 is safe because it is fully digested in
humans (676). Contradicting claims confuse consumers on who to believe about GMOs.
The same kind of misunderstanding about GMOs is still prevalent today. In 2012,
California voted on Proposition 37, which if passed would require GM foods to be labeled.
Those in favor of Proposition 37 wished to know the ingredients in their foods and opposed
GMOs as a fundamentally failed technology on the grounds that GMOs are unnatural,
unbeneficial, and unessential (McLure 719, 722). Those against Proposition 37 wished to
preserve the reputation of GMOs rather than have labels demonize [GMOs,] a technology with
enormous potential benefits (719). The claims continue contradict each other as one side
downplays GMOs as failures and the other side preaches of their possible success. It makes it
difficult for the consumers, who lack expertise for their own assessment, to decide on which side
to support. It is even more difficult to see the motives and aims of each side.
Misinformation affects the choices consumers make from what kinds of agricultural
products they buy on a daily basis and in how they vote to impact the future of their society.
Depending on the one-sided propoganda they are exposed to, consumers may be contributing to
the promotion or downfall of GMOs in agriculture. The progress or decline of GM foods has

Pham 7
been slowed by wavering public acceptance due to widespread misinformation from both sides
of the debate. An estimated two-thirds of Americans are confused about what to believe about
GMOs (720). Since the commercialization of GMOs in agriculture, little has changed when it
comes to properly informing consumers. As long as a truth is not agreed upon and both sides
contradict each others studies and claims, consumers will be no better off in their judgment of
GMOs. It is important that consumers are equipped with sufficient knowledge to make the
decisions that affect their lives and their future.

Pham 8
Works Cited
Alyokhin, Andrei. Colorado Potato Beetle Management on Potatoes: Current Challenges and
Future Prospects. Fruit, Vegetable, and Cereal Science and Biotechnology 3 (2009) :
10-19. Web.
"Asilomar Conference." World of Microbiology and Immunology. Ed. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner
and K. Lee Lerner. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 36. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web.
Avise, John. The Hope, Hype, and Reality of Genetic Engineering : Remarkable Stories from
Agriculture, Industry, Medicine, and the Environment. New York: Oxford University
Press. 2004. Web.
Burkhardt, Jeffrey. "Genetically Modified Organisms and Biotechnology." Encyclopedia of
Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman. Vol.
1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009. 453-458. Gale Virtual Reference Library.
Web.
McLure, Jason. Genetically Modified Food: Should labels be required? CQ Researcher 22.30
(2012): 717-740. Web.
Phillips, Susan. Genetically Engineered Foods: Do They Pose Health and Environmental
Hazards? CQ Researcher 4.29 (1994): 673-696. Web.