Davis 1

Bryce Davis

Professor Tyler

English Composition 2

1 Nov. 2020

What is the Impact of GMOs on Society?

The way GMOs are presented in society makes them out to be worse than they

truly are. The evil of these plants has been ingrained in many people's heads for their

entire lives. The word GMO brings up thoughts of unhealthy chemicals and scientists

messing with the foundations of life, but truly humans have been making GMOs for

thousands of years. When farmers use only the seeds from their best crops the year

before, they are creating a GMO. GMOs are simply more productive crops that handle

harsher conditions better. This is an important fact due to the crisis humanity is facing at

the moment. Nearly a billion people on Earth are malnourished, meaning they get less

than the needed calories every day (Weisser). When used correctly, GMOs can help

provide a safe, plentiful, and environmentally friendly solution to the growing world

hunger crisis.

GMO stands for a genetically modified organism, but when one talks about

GMOs they mean some sort of modified food. The most common way that food is

modified is through a process called mutagenesis. Mutagenesis is a process where

seeds are put through radiation/chemicals and the resulting mutations are observed.

The mutations that will improve the plant are isolated and exploited(Durland). These

mutations are used to improve the yield, resist disease, and improve the nutrition of the
 Davis 2

plant. It is through this type of modification that scientists and companies hope to create

a cure for hunger.

The safety of GMOs is the most debated topic in the grand scheme of GMOs. The

safety of GMOs is similarly related to the safety of vaccines. Both are biological

components that consumers must take into their bodies on the reliance of scientists

being correct. The safety of both vaccines and GMOs is something that the public just

has to trust without being able to see it. The tests and regulations that are imposed can’t

be seen by the everyday person. It is also similar in the fact that both, when done

correctly, are perfectly safe. The main areas of concern for GMOs are higher levels of

natural toxins, unintended negative changes to plants, and the actual health outcomes

of organisms that have consumed genetically modified plants.

One major area of concern is higher levels of natural toxins. All plants and

animals have natural toxins. They are used for an infinite number of functions inside of

an organism. The risk with GMOs is whether or not modifying the organism will increase

the levels of these toxins to an amount that is unsafe for consumption. In their 2016

report on Genetically Engineered Crops, The National Academies of Sciences provides

some much-needed clarification on this topic. Genetically modified organisms can

produce higher levels of natural toxins. Some of the experiments are bound to have

faulty results. Fortunately, these GMOs never make it to the dinner table. The FDA,

USDA, and EPA are constantly at work testing GMOs before they become public

products. Their high level of protection means that no GMOs that could be dangerous to

the public are released. The only GMOs that contain high toxins are those that are

beneficial to humans. The report gives a couple of examples where high toxins are good
 Davis 3

for consumers. For certain soybeans and clover, GMOs caused an increase in toxins

that help to prevent breast and prostate cancers as well as protect against

cardiovascular disease(NAS 175). One thing is for sure, the only GMOs with high levels

of toxins that will make it to the public, are ones that will improve health.

Unintended negative changes to plants is another worry that is associated with

GMOs. When scientists mess with the foundation of these plants, the changes that they

intend to happen may not be the only ones they cause. The Genetically Engineered

Crops report has information on this as well. The risk for unintended changes to plants

is real, but not dangerous. When a new breed of plant is created and tested, negative

changes are observed. While scientists may not have been able to predict the change,

the information gained from that trial will make it easier for predictions to be made in the

future. Another point for GMOs is that this risk isn’t a new one. Conventional breeding

that has taken place for centuries has the same risk as mutagenesis. So GMOs provide

no increased risk for consumers over traditionally grown products when it comes to

unintended negative changes(NAS 178). Once again even for the plants that do get an

unintended change, the federal agencies responsible for the safety of our foods will stop

these potentially dangerous plants before they reach the market. Between companies

monitoring the safety of new GMOs and the federal government there is no risk of

unintended changes affecting the general public.

The final issue with the safety of GMOs is the actual outcome of organisms that

have consumed genetically modified plants. Knowing on a biological level that

something is safe is nice, but hard proof of what GMOs do to an organism is even

better. According to a 2013 study published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, there

 Davis 4

are no significant hazards related to the intake of GMOs(Wendel). This source also

states that nearly every major scientific body on the planet has done some sort of

testing on GMOs so there is not a lack of evidence behind the safety of GMOs. Details

of this can be found in the National Academy of Sciences report on Genetically

Engineered Crops. In this report they detail a number of short and long-term trials that

have been done on rodents with genetically modified foods. Some of the shorter trials

showed some differentiation in the health of the GMO and non-GMO groups. However

due to the duration of these trials the variation was not enough to be statistically

significant. No real conclusion can be made from the short-term trials. Long-term trials

on the other hand are statistically significant. The majority of long term trials found no

evidence of adverse health effects caused by the intake of genetically modified

food(NAS 197). Overall this shows that when put to the test, GMOs caused no

significant health effects when compared to traditional foods.

Behind the safety of GMOs, the actual output of GMOs is the next most split part

of the debate. Even if GMOs are safe, why spend billions of dollars on them if they don’t

increase the yield of crops. The world hunger problem comes down to two areas,

developed and developing countries. Developed countries are not the area where

GMOs need to make their mark. GMOs need to be distributed and grown in developing

countries where the bulk of the hunger problem resides. If GMOs don’t grow at a faster

rate in those conditions, much of the effort will have been wasted.

First is the use of GMOs in developed countries like the United States. Even if

GMOs cannot be used in developing countries, they could still be grown in developed

countries and shipped. Not the ideal situation but one that is better than the present.
 Davis 5

Southern Idaho is an area where GMO crops have been put to the test. The vast

majority of corn grown there is GMO related. ”Thirty tons per acre is a good crop for

organic corn, he said. With GM seeds, the output increases to about 35 tons per acre

and up to as much as 40 tons”(Weeks). That is an extremely significant jump, one that

makes it all seem worthwhile. One advantage that these developed countries have is

access to expensive chemicals. Fertilizers, herbicides, and many other chemicals help

farmers increase crop yields drastically. So the question remains whether that jump in

production carries over to areas of the world where those chemicals aren’t so readily

available.

The majority of people who are suffering from malnourishment aren’t in the

countries where GMOs are being developed. The countries that these people live in do

not have the resources and technology that developed countries have. A large factor in

why these countries suffer as much as they do is due to their geological location,

countries' resources, and technology when it comes to farming. GMOs need to be able

to perform to the high standards that they have set in developed countries, without the

aid of advanced technologies and nicer climates. In his brief, ​The Future of Farming and

Rise of Biotechnology,​ David Weisser discusses the success of GMOs in different areas

of the world. As it turns out, through the same pathways that scientists altered plants to

produce higher yields, they can protect plants from harsher climates. Not as productive

as first world countries but much more than the previous production in those countries.

Genetically modified plants can be made to repel insects and decrease the usage of

fertilizer and pesticides. Theoretically, a genetically modified plant should grow

 Davis 6

significantly better than a regular seed without the assistance of fertilizers and

pesticides.

This theory was put to the test in India with genetically modified cotton. While not

a food crop, it is a cash crop that provides the money for many Indian families to buy the

food they need to survive. The study showed that when genetically modified cotton was

used, it increased the yield per hectare and decreased the cost due to the lack of

pesticides needed. This was seconded in Brazil with a study on the growth of

genetically modified sugarcane. Brazil is estimated to lose more than half of its yield

every year due to drought and insects. Both a food and energy source, sugarcane is a

key part of the well being of Brazil. The use of genetically modified sugarcane is

projected to increase the yield per hectare by 20 tons per year from current rates. Both

of these studies show that GMO products can help developing countries drastically.

They prove that regardless of the location of the crops, GMO products will increase the

production of plants and therefore food.

Another crisis our world is facing is that of the environment. With a drastically

growing population, as more time goes by the problem only intensifies. Any edge that

humanity can gain is a welcome one. Two major portions of the environmental problems

facing humanity are the release of carbon dioxide gas by burning fossil fuels and the

use of pesticides in farming. Both of these areas can be helped with the use of

genetically modified plants. GMOs allow farmers to grow much more corn and

sugarcane than before. Through the use of biofuels from corn and sugarcane the

amount of carbon dioxide released can be decreased and with the use of GMO plants,

fewer pesticides are used.

 Davis 7

One of the biggest components of the climate crisis is the burning of gasoline and fossil

fuels for power. With an increasing population that also means more power will be

needed. So an easy path toward improving the situation would be to eliminate the

burning of fossil fuels. The usage of biofuels from corn and sugarcane are great ways to

decrease those emissions.

Fig 1. This chart shows the carbon dioxide output of different biofuels compared to fossil

fuels. Specifically it shows corn ethanol has a 35 percent decrease in CO2 production

and sugarcane ethanol has a 50 percent decrease.(Bentivoglio)

As stated earlier by David Weisser, GMOs drastically increase the production of

sugarcane in Brazil. A drastic increase in a product like sugarcane or corn will also lead

to an increase in the availability of biofuels. With the continued use of genetically

modified sugarcane and corn hopefully more of the gas-burning world will switch to

using biofuel.
 Davis 8

Another problem with our environment is the usage of pesticides. Pesticides are

used to keep insects and pests from eating and rendering crops unusable. While this

may seem like a good thing sometimes they do their jobs too well. For starters,

pesticides can affect more than just the bugs they are supposed to repel. Many of the

chemicals in pesticides have adverse effects on humans. While in general those who

are affected by pesticides are those who manufacture them, there is some evidence

that pesticides can enter humans through eating food treated with pesticides. Pesticides

also contaminate the soil and local waterways. This contamination leads to many

animals and plants dying because the pesticide is designed to kill them. ”More than 90

percent of water and fish samples from all streams contained one, or more often,

several pesticides”(Aktar). Overall pesticides may be good for plant growth but they are

terrible for the environment around them. One of the biggest benefits of genetically

modified plants is that they require fewer pesticides than traditional plants. In the

ISAAA’s report on the effect of GMOs on the environment, it details the effect of GMOs

on pesticide use. A study from 1996 to 2016 on the environmental effects of biotech

crops showed that GMO plants had reduced the environmental effects of pesticides by

almost 20 percent. The study then stated that that was the equivalent of taking almost

20 million cars off the roads. In China, a country that is not well known for being

environmentally friendly, the use of genetically modified cotton decreased the usage of

pesticides by 25 percent. All of this is great information but what needs to be seen is if

this has a positive impact on the environment. According to ISAAA’s report, it did have a

positive impact on the environment. One study showed that farmers were less likely to

get pesticide-related illnesses from farming. Another showed that in the United States
 Davis 9

and Australia there was an increase in the diversity of beneficial insects.(ISAAA) With

fewer pesticides being used it seems like the environment can breathe a little easier.

The debate over GMOs is not a one-sided one. For as many people that believe

GMOs are the future of the planet, there are just as many as think it might end the

world. For each of the points presented there is another side to those arguments. Those

are that there is a safety risk that comes with using genetically modified plants and that

genetically modified plants do not produce enough to outweigh the increased risk over

traditional plants.

First is the safety risk, as addressed before the opposition to GMOs is worried

about the same potential health effects. That GMOs have higher levels of dangerous

toxins that will get out to the public, that unexpected mutations will occur and the federal

oversight will miss them, and that overall the research done has shown that GMOs do

have a negative effect on those that consume them. They argue that not enough

research has been done for truly concrete evidence to be presented. There are some

studies that claim a significant negative outcome from the use of GMOs. Anti-GMO

supporters believe that any statistic that shows GMOs are harmful is risky enough that

they shouldn’t be allowed at all. However, the fact of the matter is that the research

done that supports the anti-GMO agenda just isn’t credible. Of the research done by

unbiased scientific bodies, the vast majority has concluded that GMOs do not have a

negative health effect on those that consume them. The risk is also so small that it just

doesn’t make sense to avoid it. The potential for saving lives from hunger is worth the

small risk that GMOs present.

 Davis 10

There are also those who have concluded that genetically modified plants do not

produce the expected output that was predicted. There are some studies that show that

while GMO products have a higher maximum output, they are much less consistent

than traditional crops. This while it may be true, it is the result of a learning curve. When

something is first released to the market it never performs at a consistent level. With

years of practice and research, the consistency will be there for GMOs. Another

concern with the production of GMO crops is the production in developing countries.

Some opponents to the GMO cause claim that GMO crops require fertilizers and

advanced watering technologies that are not available to these poorer nations. This

however is just incorrect. Studies have shown that crops that were genetically modified

to not need fertilizer and be drought resistant did extremely well in these harsh

conditions. Genetically modified plants produce more than traditional plants do in both

ideal and non-ideal circumstances.

When it comes down to it genetically modified plants and the food that comes

from them are nothing but good news. In a world where one in seven people face

malnutrition every day, humanity needs an advantage. GMOs are the advantage we

have been looking for. GMOs are safe for consumption and in some cases are even

safer and healthier than their traditional counterparts. GMOs also produce vastly more

crops than those that are not modified. They do this in developed and undeveloped

countries, no matter the circumstances. Finally, GMOs also help address the growing

environmental issues facing the planet. With GMOs, we can start down the path to

being truly environmentally friendly. Genetically modified plants when handled correctly
 Davis 11

can produce vast amounts of safe, healthy, and environmentally friendly crops that will

help solve the growing hunger problem in this world.

 Davis 12

Works Cited

Aktar, Md Wasim et al. “Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and

hazards.” ​Interdisciplinary toxicology​ vol. 2,1 2009: 1-12.

doi:10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7

Bentivoglio, Deborah​. “​Biofuel Policy-Estimated Emissions versus Fossil Fuel

Emissions”​ J​ anuary 1, ​ 2015,

www.researchgate.net/figure/Biofuel-policy-estimated-emissions-versus-fossil-fu

el-emissions-1_fig1_308718566.

Durland J, Ahmadian-Moghadam H. “Genetics, Mutagenesis”.​StatPearls,​ Sept 20,

2020, ​NCBI​, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560519/

“Genetically engineered crops experiences and prospects”.​National Academy of

​ 016, ​National Academies Press,​

Science, 2

https://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/1

​ ctober, 2018, No.4,

“GM Crops and the Environment”. ​ISAAA, O

http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/4/default.asp

Weeks, Andrew. "Genetically Modified Crops Help Farmers." ​Genetically Modified Food​,

edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At Issue. ​Gale In

Context: Opposing Viewpoints,​

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010259245/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xi

d=794fa122. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020. Originally published as "Farmers Say

GMOs Give Them Competitive Edge," ​Times-News,​ 28 Apr. 2013.

 Davis 13

Weisser, David. "Genetically Modified Foods Can Help Address the Global Food Crisis."

Global Sustainability,​ edited by Dedria Bryfonski, Greenhaven Press, 2016.

Opposing Viewpoints. ​Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints​,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010988208/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xi

d=ac90bd38. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020. Originally published as "The Future of

Farming and Rise of Biotechnology,", no. 152, 21 Oct. 2014.

Wendel, JoAnna. "Genetically Modified Foods Have Been Studied and Found Safe to

Eat." ​Genetically Modified Food​, edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven

Press, 2015. At Issue. ​Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,​

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010259251/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xi

d=6d27cf4a. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020. Originally published as "2000+ Reasons

Why GMOs Are Safe to Eat and Environmentally Sustainable,"

GeneticLiteracyProject.com​, 8 Oct. 2013.