Isabella Revel

Professor Bryant

Rhetoric & Composition 1000

October 6, 2020

Are Genetically Modified Foods Harmful or Helpful?

When starting on my research project I knew I needed to do some basic research on

things I found interesting in order to decide what my topic was going to be. I researched prison

systems, climate change, social media, really anything that piqued my interest. Soon I started to

research food. My parents are both cooks so even though my cooking skills aren't exactly up to

par, food has always intrigued me. I had remembered learning about Genetically Modified Food

during my senior year of high school. I knew a little bit about it but when I started looking into it

on my own I knew I wanted it to be my topic. It tied in multiple things I was wanting to learn

about, like the impact on the environment and even the government. All around it was the perfect

topic.

After deciding my topic, researching became relatively easy. I have mainly been

using APP search which makes everything so efficient! I started by typing in Genetically

Modified Foods on its own without any other keywords. I wanted to do this to obtain an overall

knowledge before going into specifics. In doing this I learned a lot about the steps it took to get

to where we are today regarding GMOs. In the beginning, farmers began to alter their crops

when they realized they needed more food due to losing so many crops to bugs, so they began to

crossbreed plants. Once they found out this was attainable they took it one step further which led
to scientists and farmers working together to genetically alter crops in order to create a higher

crop yield as well as more appealing plants.

After researching the basics I started to use more in-depth keywords. The first term I

added was risks, this led me to a lot of information concerning environmental pollution and an

uptick in allergies. Some articles also talked about how little we know about GMOs and how the

lack of knowledge could lead to more health risks in the future. I think during this phase I

learned the most about environmental pollution. I had already known a little bit, but hearing

more information about runoff into rivers and streams and just how harsh the chemicals are that

they use to grow these plants was very eye-opening.

Knowing that I was going to need both sides of the story I then looked into the

advantages of GMOs using benefits as my keyword. A lot of what I found was actually from

studies about other countries. This was mainly due to the fact that a lot of the GMOs produced

go towards feeding third world countries. Like I mentioned earlier GMOs help farmers produce

higher crop yields which allow more food to go towards impoverished nations. GMOs have also

been found to help allergies, although I did find some conflicting information on this. Some

scientists say that GMOs are increasing allergies. While others believe altering the plant's genetic

makeup has (in some cases) allowed for people with certain allergies to eat without any reaction.

One of the last big keywords I used was consumers. I wanted to know how consumers

view GMOs and how it affects their production. GMOs are often used to make food look more

appetizing for the consumer, but in many cases, it does the opposite. The imperfections of most

produce are taken away when altering its genetic makeup, it’s even created things like square

watermelons in hopes that transporting and stacking them would become more efficient. The
consumers however often avoid buying GMOs, they are seen as less desirable than organic or

naturally grown food. That is where labeling comes in. Since consumers want to know what they

are buying, labeling has become a big factor in regards to GMO products being on the shelves.

Companies don’t always want to label their foods as GMOs because they are worried that they

won’t be bought, but customers are fighting for laws and regulations pertaining to these big

companies. They hope to make it illegal to not label GMOs as what they are.

After all this research I think I have a much better handle on GMOs. I have lots of

credible sources for my paper and good arguments to make throughout it.

(tentative) Thesis: Genetically Modified Organisms are beneficial in many ways but the

true health risks associated with them are still relatively unknown.
 Works Cited

Moghissi A. Alan, Lisa M. Jaeger, Dania Shafei, Lindsey Bloom. “Regulatory Science

Requirements of Labeling of Genetically Modified Food.” ​Critical Reviews in

Biotechnology​, vol. 38, no. 3, 2018, pp. 386-393.

The article “ Regulatory Science Requirements…” written by the above authors discusses

the processes that Genetically Modified Foods (GMO’s) go through to become FDA

approved. Moghissi also talks about the process that led farmers and scientists to create

GMOs. He goes into detail about the health risks of GMOs not only on humans but on the

environment. Things like runoff and the addition of new plant species into the ecological

systems of nearby farms are discussed heavily. The article seems to remain relatively

unbiased, each author uses many different peer-reviewed sources as well as showing all

sides of their argument not just their personal view. I think this article would be a great

source for my paper because it talks about multiple aspects of the GMO world.

Specifically, the process by which they are created. It helped me gain further knowledge,

not just about the risks and benefits but where they came from.

Anita Bakshi. “Potential Adverse Health Effects of Genetically Modified.” ​Journal of Toxicology

and Environmental Health, ​vol. 6, no. 3, 2003, pp. 211-225.

 The article “Potential Adverse Health Effects of Genetically Modified.” written by Anita

Bakshi essentially shows the pros and cons of Genetically Modified Food. She shows that

GMOs help third world countries by creating high crop yields. They do this by creating “

crops that are more resistant to pests and drought.” (Bakshi 1). She also discusses how

they contain more vitamins which can help these countries get the vitamins they need

more easily. She then moves onto the cons by discussing how some scientists believe that

GMOs can be less nutritious, as well as harbor toxic elements. She is very credible

because she is a professor, and has had her work peer-reviewed by others in her field. I

think this article will help greatly with both sides of my argument because it gives very

good evidence for the risks and benefits of GMOs, such as more fields for people in need

and lack of nutrients.

Artemis Dona, Loannis S. Arvanitoyannis. “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods.” ​Critical

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition​, vol. 49, no. 2, 2009, pp. 164-175

Dona and Arvanitoyannis talk about the health risks of GMOs in the article “Health

Risks of Genetically Modified Foods.”. The main points for concern that they discuss are

that GMOs are toxically affecting certain organs in animals. The authors discuss how

understanding why it's happening in animals would be a good way to know if they are

harmful to humans. Dona and Arvanitoyannis say “may cause some common toxic

effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the

hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.” This shows the extensive

nature of the damage that could be caused by GMOs. They are both professionals in their
 fields which builds their credibility, although their research is a little more one-sided than

most of my other sources they still have a counterargument. This article will definitely be

a big part of my paper regarding my health risk argument. It will help to show how little

we know about GMOs and how this can be harmful when putting them on the market for

consumers.

Maria K. Mangusson, Ulla Kaiser. Hurtsi. “Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified

foods.” ​Appetite,​ vol. 39, no. 1, 2002, pp. 9-24.

In the article “Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Food” authors

Mangussom and Hurtsi write about a survey that was targeted towards men and women

ages 18-65 to discover their outlook on GMOs. They reported that younger men

specifically with higher education were the most likely to think highly of GMOs. They

also discovered that women, people with lower education, and older people were more

likely to think negatively of GMOs. Although they did find that when shown the benefits

of GMOs on the environment most people who were against GMOs had a slight change

of mindset. The authors are both professors who build their credibility as well as their

article being peer-reviewed. I think this article will be an interesting perspective to have

in my paper. It will help show how certain groups of people think differently about

GMOs based on what they think they are but when shown more information they tend to

change their thinking. Especially when the environment is involved. I think it shows how

people would rather change their mindset than be seen as someone who doesn't care

about the environment.

Bevan B. Moseley, “ How to Make Foods Safer - Genetically Modified Foods.” ​Allergy​,

vol. 56, no. 67, 2001, pp. 61-63.

In the article “How to Make Foods Safer” Bevan Moseley discusses the health benefits

associated with GMOs. He goes into specifics regarding the creation of hypoallergenic

plants. Moseley shows how the plants are being genetically modified in order to lower

the risks of allergies. Similar to how hypoallergenic dogs allow people with dog allergies

to own a dog, people who would normally be allergic to nuts would be able to eat this

new variety due to the varying genetic makeup. Bevan shows the GMOs are not just

some horrible hybrid of what used to be a plant. They have proven to have real benefits.

The article seems to be quite unbiased and credible, the author is a trusted professor. He

also uses multiple arguments and tons of credible resources to back up his findings. I had

no clue they could make plants hypo-allergenic, so I think this article could be very

useful in my paper considering it has already shown me a completely new outlook on

GMOs that I did not have before.

Benjamin Onyango, Brian Schilling, William Hallman, Adesoji Adelaja. “Product attributes,

consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods.”​ International

Journal of Consumer Studies,​ vol. 27, no. 5, 2003, pp. 353-365.

In the article “Product attributes consumer benefits and public approval of genetically

modified foods.” Onyango, amongst others, discuss the importance of biotechnology,

specifically GMOs, on the future of food production. They mainly talk about consumer

relations regarding biotechnology and how evidence that biotech is useful improves the
 approval of said biotech. The importance of consumer relations is huge because without

public approval it will be a lot harder to get Genetically Modified Food on the shelves.

On top of discussing consumer relations, they also show studies either they have

performed or that others have performed on the subject. The article overall is very

beneficial to my paper mainly because there are actual studies and evidence to pull from,

they show charts and graphs on each study with in-depth explanations on each. This also

helps their credibility. They provide evidence to back up their arguments, as well as

showing multiple sides of their argument.

Steve L. Taylor, Susan L. Hefle. “Will genetically modified foods be allergenic?”. ​Journal of

Allergy and Clinical Immunology, v​ ol. 107. No. 5, 2001, pp. 765-771.

The article “Will genetically modified foods be allergenic?” discusses how genetically

modified foods have been accused of breeding new allergies. The authors Taylor and

Hefle explains how GMOs actually have a smaller percentage chance of being allergenic

at all, let alone creating new allergies. They describe how the process makes it nearly

impossible for new allergies to be produced due to scientists not using genes from

allergenic sources to create GMOs. Both authors seem very credible considering they

both have Ph.D.’s and focus heavily on genetically modified sciences. I think this article

will be very useful in my paper when talking about the benefits by showing that foods

that have been genetically modified are carefully selected as to not create any potential

for new allergies. Which makes them safer for consumers to buy.

Gina Waterfield, Scott Kaplan. “Willingness to Pay versus Willingness to Vote: Consumer and
Voter Avoidance of Genetically Modified Foods.” ​American Journal of Agriculture

Economics,​ vol. 102, no. 15, 2020, pp. 505-524.

In the article “Willingness to Pay versus Willingness to Vote: Consumer and

Voter Avoidance of Genetically Modified Foods.” Waterfield and Kaplan discuss how

consumers view GMOs. They go in-depth about the effects that labeling has on what

consumers are willing to pay for. They also talk about more environmental effects that

GMOs have on the planet, and how that also factors into the willingness of consumers to

buy said products. They specifically mention “ pesticides, irradiation, and the use of

artificial growth hormone in milk”. The authors seem to remain unbiased; they are both

professors and they once again show both sides of their argument. They do lean more

towards the risk factor but still remain credible. I think this article would be a great

source to use when talking about consumer relations with GMOs and the environmental

impacts of GMOs.