Vazquez 1

Luz Vazquez

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1103

7 November 2019

GMOs Can Save Our Planet

What are GMOs? Many people don’t know the answer to that question, but they rarely

fail to answer with responses like “I’m not sure but I know they are bad for us.” Genetically

Modified Organisms (GMOs) are organisms ranging from animals and bacteria to plants whose

genetic material has been altered. In a video done bycreated by Jimmy Kimmel an American TV

host, comedian, writer and producer had his crew go out in public asking people if they avoid

eating GMO foods and why. They would then proceed to ask them what GMO stood for. Out of

the eleven people interviewed, only one person knew what GMO stood for. That video was

shown to me in my agriscience class right before we began talking about GMOs. I myself was

like many not very well informed about what GMOs were and I never truly cared about them

until that class. It made me wonder why people were so against GMOs and what the big fuss was

about. I will admit that class was biased towards the use of GMOs but with good reason. In

Jonathan Ahl’s article a survey conducted by Washington University in St. Louis, University of

Colorado Boulder, the University of Toronto and the University of Pennsylvania asked 2,000

people from Europe and the United States how much they knew about GMOs and what their

opinion was about them. The results showed that more people strongly opposed against tohe use
 Vazquez 2

of GMOs had the lowest scores on their knowledge test about GMOs. The lack of knowledge

most people possess puts us at risk of losing our food security and worsening our climate.

Most people don’t know that GMOs are more than just food we can consume. GMOs

have the potential to improve the environment in a more efficient way. For example GMOs

include plants that have the potential to remove carbon out of the air. GMOs have been approved

by the FDA since 1994. It wasn’t until 1996 when ‘Roundup Ready’ crops developed by

Monstanto encouraged the use of glyphosates which is a probable carcinogen that the public

began to have an issue with them. Despite the ‘Roundup Ready’ crops, there hasn’t been other

real evidence about the risk of eating or using GMOs in today's world, only speculations. In

“Study: GMOs Are Needed to Feed the Planet in 2050.” a World Resources Institute (WRI)

report stated "there is no evidence that GM crops have harmed human health." Since 1996

GMOs have proven to be nothing but beneficial to our lives and the environment.

In fact, GMOs have even saved some species of plants. For example 1998 Hawaii’s

rainbow papaya experienced a 40 percent production fall due to a ringspot virus that lead to the

destruction of most of the crop. In the mission of saving the rainbow papaya Dr. Dennis

Gonsalves, a professor at the University of Hawaii engineered a rainbow papaya resistant to the

ringspot virus, ultimately saving the Hawaiian papaya agriculture industry.

Despite proving that they are beneficial, GMOs aren’t being implemented because the

public has been turned against them. Despite being told that GMOs are not harmful to us in any

way by scientist In spite of scientists telling us that GMOs are not harmful to us in any way, the
 Vazquez 3

public continues to bash them with speculations and claims. For example dairy farmers

inseminate dairy cows with artificial hormones known as rBST hormones. By inseminating cows

with rBSt they produce more milk than they usually do. This is done so that dairy farmers can

meet the demand for milk.

The public has become is now against drinking milk from cows with more rBSTwith

added rBST hormones because a Kraft mozzarella commercial insinuated that their children will

become more hormonal and begin puberty earlier if they drank milk from cows with added rBST

hormones. Dairy products such as Kraft are using this to their advantage by claiming that there

cheese is free of added rBST hormone but here's the catch. On the back of every milk gallon

label there is a statement saying that there is no significant difference between milk derived from

rBST hormone treated and non- rBST treated cows. Meaning that you won’t become more

hormonal if you drink milk from cows with added rBST hormones. There are many companies

that slap the label GMO free on their products even though they know that GMOs have no

harmful effect on us whatsoever and that the public is misinformed about GMOs on their own

account. For example Minute Maid Orange juice puts GMO free even when oranges aren't

Genetically modified.

Another reason as to why people are very hesitant about the use of GMOs is that they

think GMO engineering is new, when that is not the case. GMOs are organisms whose DNA was

modified to improve their performance, is something that has been done since the beginning of

time. For example ancient farmers cross bred a wild grass called teosinte give us the modern

crop of corn on the cob. Cross-breeding is the action of breeding closely related plants to
 Vazquez 4

produce a plant with desirable traits. Meaning GMO engineering in nothing new, the only thing

that has changed is the way it is done now. It is more precise and much faster than cross

breeding.

Some people also argue that GMOs are also thought to be less nutritious than non-gmo

food. In McFadden’s article he says “In fact, studies show that genetically modified foods are

nutritionally identical to their conventional counterparts.” When altering the DNA scientist tend

to focus more on making the food pest and disease resistant to help boost their yield production.

They do nothing to the nutritious value of the food.

Last but not least there are the concerns that GMOs are harmful to the environment.

People are concerned that GM plant genes will spread to conventional crops and other wild

plants. McFadden states that “Whilst various studies in 2005 and 2008 have shown that very

small amounts of DNA can transfer between plants and bacteria, its risks are effectively

negligible on the whole.” and that nations have adapted very strict regulations to reduce the

amount of mixing done.

Meaning yes GM plants gene have spread to other plants but there are already

precautions being taken to prevent any further mixing. Such precautions include GM and

conventional crop field separation and calls to make GM plant pollen sterile. Risks will always

be present when trying new things but is the destruction of our plants really worth doing nothing.

There are many reports done by reliable sources stating that GMOs are not harmful to

human health. Not to mention the amount of money that goes into testing GMOs. In McFadden’s

article he states that “On average it takes around 13 years and $136 million in testing prior to
 Vazquez 5

each and every new GMO seed getting approval.” GMOs aren’t just put out without any testing

and why would anyone spend 136 million dollars for something that wasn’t worth it. We have

the information readily available for us, we just choose to believe what is told to us. The article

also states that “Extensive studies, like those conducted by the National Academies of Science,

Engineering, and Medicine, have also conclusively shown that consuming GMO food is

perfectly safe.” Once again supporting my case that GMOs are not harmful to us.

The benefits of GMOs

Due to all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere we are experiencing a drastic n increase

in temperature which is having a major impact on our lives and environment. One of the most

impactful problems is global warming. The Earth's temperature has increased one degree celsius

above the preindustrial levels. This increase in the temperature over the past decade is having a

tremendous effect on our agriculture industry. In a 2010 World Bank report says that climate

change will depress agricultural yield in most countries by 2050. Glaciers are melting, sea levels

are rising, ecosystems are being destroyed and our food security is declining. Scientist have

found that with the use of GM plants we can solve most if not all of those problems.

Plants already take up carbon dioxide in the process of photosynthesis but unfortunately

it’s not much and most of the carbon it released back into the atmosphere. In an article written by

Laura H. Kahn, a scientist named Joanne Chory, a plant biologist and geneticist, director of the

Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences

created a ‘super plant’ that can store carbon for longer periods of time and absorb more carbon

than most plants through the production of more suberin a carbon rich compound known as cork.
 Vazquez 6

Chory's ‘super plant’ is created through the use of cross-breeding one of the slowest methods of

producing GMOs. Obviously there are faster ways to produce GM plants such CRISPR, a tool

used for editing genomes, allowing researchers to easily alter DNA sequences and modify gene

functions. Chory knows that CRISPR exist but is hesitant to us it because she wants to avoid

political opposition to genetically modified organisms.

Capturing carbon is the best solution to global warming and with Chory’s super plant the

problem could be solved. Chory estimates that if five percent of the world's cropland were super

plants they would capture about 50 percent of the current global carbon emissions. By

implementing the use of Chory’s ‘super plant’ we have the ability to remove carbon dioxide from

the atmosphere helping with the decline in our agriculture industry.

Agriculture is something that will always be needed therefore if our agriculture industry

begins to decline so does the amount of food available. Chory’s ‘super plant’ would not only

remove and store carbon they would be a nutritious source of food. Allowing it to have the

potential to solve the world's food crisis. In Cathy Siegner’s article a WRI report states that

creating a sustainable global food system is going to be challenging but with the use of GMOs

we can overcome it. By 2050 the earth's population is estimated to be 10 billion people if

agricultural yield keeps declining we won’t have enough food for the future.

Crops are being genetically modified to resist pests and viruses. Kahn’s article also states

“Besides being edible and nutritious, any super plant would need to tolerate floods and droughts

and be able to survive in a wide variety of climates ranging from arid regions in north Africa to

temperate regions in northern Europe.” Allowing for cabron to be captured most parts of the
 Vazquez 7

world. The super plant would also be pest and virus resistant, allowing them to live for a longer

period of time. Crops are being genetically modified to resist pests and viruses. That will allow

for a larger yield amount. because more of the crop is surviving and will reduce the usage of

pesticides and herbicides that pollute our water sources.

Our fresh water source is not the only thing a risk with the increase of carbon dioxide and

increase of temperature in the atmosphere.

The climate change is also affecting our ecosystems Chaffin Mitchell, a Digital Journalist

for AccuWeather included a study from the University of Arizona that found that local

extinctions related to global warming have already occurred in almost half of the species studied.

The article also talks about the destruction of coral reefs as a result from the rising temperature

and an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Britt Parker, senior climate and

international specialist said it best “In addition, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

means more carbon dioxide is adsorbed by ocean waters. This makes the water more acidic,

which makes it harder for corals to build and maintain their skeletons,” if coral reefs go extinct

25 percent of marine animals will lose their home and 40 million people will lose a source of

food because of certain fish and shellfish that depend on coral reefs. Implementing Chory’s super

plant can help reduce the risk of losing coral reefs.

Why should they be implemented

In the article Will Genetically Modified Plants Save Us? Martin Bunzl a professor at

Rutgers University, who studies the philosophy of science and climate change policy said that

“This is a seductively interesting option, because you get a self-replicating system which will
 Vazquez 8

continue once the changes propagate through living organisms to improve carbon dioxide

uptake.” In other words the use of GM plants is the best solution to our climate change problems

because with chemical and mechanical systems there is the maintaining of the machine and they

are more expensive. GM plants would consist of perennial, plants that live up to two or three

years without having to replant. Chory’s super plant would also be modified to be fraught

resistance allowing them to be planted wherever they are needed.

In other words the use of GM plants is the best solution to our climate change problems because

with chemical and mechanical systems there is the maintaining of the machine and they are more

expensive. GM plants would consist of perennial, plants that live up to two or three years without

having to replant. In Khan article she says that “Perennials—plants that live year after

year—provide a potential strategy to combat climate change by storing carbon dioxide longterm

in their roots.” With mechanical and chemical solutions you have to constantly be checking up

on the system and if something breaks you have to spend more money to fix it and if it can not

be fixed then if will have to be replaced. Ultimately GM plants such as Chory’s super plant have

the potential to better the planets condition and over time save the planet and us from our wrong

doings.

Climate change is bringing great problems into our environment. Most people don’t

understand the risk that comes with doing nothing. M.I.T. professor Kevin Esvelt says in Will

Genetically Modified Plants Save Us? “And the greatest danger we could face is to assume that

not doing anything to nature is the safest course.” Meaning the longer we wait the more damage
 Vazquez 9

that will be done to the environment. Chemical and mechanical solutions are way too expensive

and aren’t as efficient and reliable. Kahn said it best “Working with nature to address the damage

we have inflicted is a smart strategy.” Plants are necessary for the planet and are readily

available making GM plants a cheaper solution to climate change.

We have the resources to save the planet, but many people are blinded by ignorance that could

lose it all. We don’t have time to waste, this has been going on for a decade and it's not going to

improve if we do nothing about it. Global warming should be a priority there is a lot a stake.

How much further are we willing to let this go on for?

for?

Works Cited

Ahl, Jonathan. “Study: People Opposed To GMOs Don't Know As Much About Science As They

Think.” Harvest Public Media, 27 Jan. 2019,

https://www.harvestpublicmedia.org/post/study-people-opposed-gmos-don-t-know-much

-about-science-they-think. Accessed 25 Nov. 2019.

Diehl, Paul. “Genetically Modified Food Timeline and How We Got Here.” The Balance, 23
 Vazquez 10

Dec. 2018,

https://www.thebalance.com/genetically-modified-food-how-did-we-get-here-375719.

Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.

Kahn, Laura H.. “A Plant That Could Save Civilization, If We Let It.” Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientists, 11 Sept. 2018,

https://thebulletin.org/2018/06/a-plant-that-could-save-civilization-if-we-let-it/.

Accessed 16 Oct. 2019.

McFadden, Christopher. “7 General Myths and Misconceptions About GMO Foods.” Interesting

Engineering, 25 Feb. 2019,

https://interestingengineering.com/7-general-myths-and-misconceptions-about-gmo-food

s. Accessed 3 Dec. 2019.

Mitchell, Chaffin. “How Climate Change Is Hurting Ecosystems across the Globe.”AccuWeather,

1 July 2019,

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-climate-change-is-hurting-ecosyste

ms-across-the-globe/363648. Accessed 3 Dec. 2019.

Ronson, Jacqueline. “Will Genetically Modified Plants Save Us?” Inverse, 11 Jan. 2017,

https://www.inverse.com/article/26296-bunzl-genetically-modified-plants-geoengineerin

g-climate-change. Accessed 16 Oct. 2019.

Siegner, Cathy. “Study: GMOs Are Needed to Feed the Planet in 2050.” Food Dive, 18 July

2019,
 Vazquez 11

https://www.fooddive.com/news/study-gmos-are-needed-to-feed-the-planet-in-2050/5590

04/. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.

Warren, Hayley. “Half the World’s Coral Reefs Already Have Been Killed by Climate Change.”

Bloomberg, 11 Oct. 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-coral-reefs-at-risk/.

Accessed 3 Dec. 2019.