Should Genetically Modified Foods Be Banned? Essay

Genetically modified food might be everywhere in our supermarkets and restaurants. Most of us probably have no idea how much of it we’re eating — or how much it’s affecting our health. In the past two decades, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have completely infiltrated farm fields, grocery stores and kitchens — so much so that most people can’t say with any certainty how many GMOs they actually consume daily. If you eat corn chips, cook with canola oil, drink soymilk, or indulge in the occasional muffin made with baking powder, for instance, chances are you’re eating GMOs. Twenty-five years ago, plant genetics was an obscure science and far from the center of the food chain. But today, more than 54 percent of crops in America, for example, contain GMOs and roughly 70 percent of processed foods harbor at least one genetically modified ingredient, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit education and advocacy organization. Not surprisingly, a lot of money is at stake. Monsanto, team-GMO’s biggest player, reported $13.5 billion in sales last year, up 14 percent from the year before. The sales figures are easy to track and enumerate.

Far less certain is the impact that GMOs are having on our health. The fear, among many health experts, is that GMOs are fueling an increase in food allergies and other gut-based ills. British researchers found a 50 percent jump in soy allergies after the introduction of GMO soy into the country’s food chain. Consequently, the European Union banned genetically modified foods in 1999. The moratorium was lifted in 2004, when strict labeling requirements went into effect. In the United States, GMO proliferation has corresponded with upticks in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Crohn’s disease, leaky gut, and, especially in children, allergies. Coincidence? Perhaps, but Don Huber, PhD, professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., doesn’t think so. “The introduction of GMOs into the food supply”, - says Huber, “has been not only a massive human experiment, but a large-scale ‘betrayal of the public trust’” In fact, a genetically modified organism is one in which the genetic composition of that organism has been altered — meaning that specific elements of the DNA have been removed or added to achieve certain ostensibly desirable traits. Critics of GMOs point out that there are a number of flaws inherent in breeding analogy. For starters, they say, genetic modification allows the transfer of any gene across any species in ways that traditional farmers never imagined. Plants and organisms unable to physically reproduce can become unnaturally intertwined. Crops that are genetically modified will create seeds that are genetically modified. Cross-pollination is possible between GMO crops and non-GMO crops as well, even when specified farming practices are followed. A novel gene may be cobbled together from a plant virus, a soil bacterium and a petunia plant, for example — creating a kind of botanical Frankenstein.

Opponents of GMOs have been unceasing in their campaign to vilify genetically modified foods by describing them as ‘Frankenfoods’ thus implying they are not natural and are potentially harmful. “The practice of introducing new DNA and chemicals to seeds or animals (Aqua Advantage has developed a GMO fish) is similar to how Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein created his monster—through piecing together lots of different organisms”, - wrote the Organic Authority on its website. “We all know what happened when the monster turned on Frankenstein, and many critics of genetic engineering have likened the inevitable backlash of GMO technology to the destruction and murderous rampage of Frankenstein’s monster”. Therefore, the nickname ‘Frankenfoods’ given to GM foods could be justified. Many anti-GMO articles that warn of the dangers GM crops are often accompanied by an image of a fruit or vegetable with syringes sticking out of them. Very often it is a fruit or vegetable for which there is no current GM equivalent such as a tomato. This depiction is used to reinforce the notion that GM foods are created in laboratories and not by nature and therefore are dangerous to consume. One of the earliest concerns with GMOs was their potential to introduce new allergens to our food supply. In an episode of Bulletproof Radio with Jeffrey Smith, founding executive director of The Institute for Responsible Technology, he warned that altering DNA may cause unforeseen changes downstream in the genetic code, such as mutations that change the function or expression of genes. Studies have linked GMOs with a rise in food allergies, serious organ damage, nervous system disorders and even certain types of cancer. The pesticide resistance of GMO seeds has led to the excessive use of chemicals like Monsanto's Roundup, which has increased in use more than 15 times since GMOs were deregulated. It is now found in ground and rain water and air samples and in 93 percent of pregnant women in a recent study. And, bugs and weeds resistant to glyphosate are requiring the use of even more potent pesticides, like 2,4-D, a chemical in Agent Orange, which bring additional environmental and health risks to virtually all ecosystems exposed.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

There is also concern that genetic modification, which can boost a crop's resistance to disease or make it more tolerant to herbicides, could affect the ability of people to defend against illness. Some GMO plants contain genes that make them resistant to certain antibiotics. This resistance could pass on to humans. There is growing concern globally that people are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics. There is a chance that GMO foods could be contributing to this crisis. For instance, antibiotic-resistance genes are used in some genetically modified plants as a marker of genetic transformation. Despite repeated assurances that the resistance genes cannot spread from the plant, many commentators believe this could happen. Of greater concern is the effect of the genetic modification itself on the food. For example, potatoes have been engineered with a gene from the snowdrop to produce an agglutinin which may reduce susceptibility to insects. In April 1998, a scientist, Arpad Pusztai, from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely announced on television that experiments had shown intestinal changes in rats caused by eating genetically engineered potatoes. He said he would not eat such modified foods himself and that it was “very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guineapigs”. A storm of publicity overtook Pusztai. He was removed from his job, a sacrifice that did not quell public alarm in the UK or in Europe.

Personally, I have qualms about consuming GM foods. I think that genetically engineering foods is new practice and still little is known about the long-term effects or safety and more time, research and investigation needs to be undergone to decisively prove if GM foods are safe and healthy to eat. The most worrisome aspect of GMO production is all that is unknown. One of my arguments against GM foods is that insects may be able to resist toxic products from GM foods. This means that eventually, they may grow to difficult levels and we will be unable to handle their numbers and effects years down the line. Perhaps one of the most worrisome aspects of GM foods is the concern that they may harm human health. Worries of allergic reactions from mixing genes are a reality.

In conclusion, I think that GM foods should be banned for the greater good of mankind due to human health hazards, environmental risks, as well as exceedingly high costs for cultivation. GM foods have not been proven to be entirely safe for consumption, as proven by multiple cases of dangers wrought through its intake as well as utilization. Therefore, in an attempt to restrain the increasing popularity of GM foods, various parties must play their respective parts and take a stand in this issue. We, as humans capable of thought and logic, must progress with caution and prudence lest we bring destruction to ourselves and to the environment. Only by doing so can the future of mankind be guaranteed and the lives of our future generations spared from unnecessary dilemmas.