Genetically Modified Food Essay

Need to write a genetically modified foods essay? Take a look at this example! This argumentative essay on GM foods explains all the advantages and disadvantages of the issue to help you form your own opinion.

Introduction

  • The Benefits
  • The Drawbacks

Genetically modified (GM) foods refer to foods that have been produced through biotechnology processes involving alteration of DNA. This genetic modification is done to confer the organism or crops with enhanced nutritional value, increased resistance to herbicides and pesticides, and reduction of production costs.

The concept of genetic engineering has been in existence for many years, but genetic modification of foods emerged in the early 1990s. This genetically modified food essay covers the technology’s positive and negative aspects that have so far been accepted. Currently, a lot of food consumed is composed of genetically altered elements, though many misconceptions and misinformation about this technology still exist (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically modified foods have been hailed for their potential to enhance food security, particularly in small-scale agriculture in low-income countries.

It has been proposed that genetically modified foods are integral in the enhancement of safe food security, enhanced quality, and increased shelf-life, hence becoming cost-effective to consumers and farmers. Proponents of this technology also argue that genetically modified foods have many health benefits, in addition to being environmentally friendly and the great capability of enhancing the quality and quantity of yields (Kumar et al., 2020).

Genetically modified foods are, therefore, considered to be a viable method of promoting food production and ensuring sustainable food security across the world to meet the demands of the increasing population. This genetically modified food advantages and disadvantages essay aims to cover conflicting perspectives in the technology’s safety and efficacy. In spite of the perceived benefits of genetic engineering technology in the agricultural sector, the production and use of genetically modified foods have triggered public concerns about safety and the consequences of consumption (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically Modified Foods: The Benefits

Many champions of GM food suggest the potential of genetic engineering technology in feeding the huge population that is faced with starvation across the world. Genetically modified foods could help increase production while providing foods that are more nutritious with minimal impacts on the environment.

In developing countries, genetic engineering technology could help farmers meet their food demands while decreasing adverse environmental effects. Genetically modified crops have been shown to have greater yields, besides reducing the need for pesticides.

This is because genetically modified crops have an increased ability to resist pest infestation, subsequently resulting in increased earnings (Van Esse, 2020). Some genetically engineered crops are designed to resist herbicides, thus allowing chemical control of weeds to be practiced. Foods that have been genetically modified are perceived to attain faster growth and can survive harsh conditions due to their potency to resist drought, pests, and diseases.

Genetically modified foods have also been suggested to contain many other benefits, including being tastier, safer, more nutritious, and having longer shelf life. Though scientific studies regarding the safety and benefits of genetically modified foods are not comprehensive, it is argued that critics of this technology are driven by overblown fears (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically Modified Foods: The Drawbacks

To most opponents of the technology’s application in agriculture, issues relating to safety, ethics, religion, and the environment are greater than those that are related to better food quality, enhanced production, and food security. Genetic modification technology is perceived to carry risks touching on agricultural practices, health, and the environment.

The major issue raised by society concerning this technology pertains to whether genetically modified foods should be banned for people’s benefit. The gene transfer techniques are not entirely foolproof, thus raising fears that faults may emerge and lead to many unprecedented events.

There is a possibility that DNA transfer to target cells may not be effective. Alternatively, it may be transferred to untargeted points, with the potential effect being the expression or suppression of certain proteins that were not intended. This may cause unanticipated gene mutations in the target cells, leading to physiological alterations (Turnbull et al., 2021).

A number of animal studies have indicated that genetically modified foods could pose serious health risks/ Those include the tendency to cause impotency, immune disorders, acceleration of aging, hormonal regulation disorders, and alteration of major organs and the gastrointestinal system (Giraldo et al., 2019). It has also been demonstrated that genetically modified foods can act as allergens and sources of toxins.

Opponents argue that there is a lack of clear regulatory mechanisms and policies to ensure that genetically modified foods are tested for human health and environmental effects. Thus, human beings allegedly become reduced to experimental animals subjected to adverse toxic effects and dietary problems.

In animals, it has been argued that the use of genetically modified feeds causes complications, such as premature delivery, abortions, and sterility, though these claims have later been debunked (Xu, 2021). Some genetically modified crops, such as corn and cotton, are engineered to produce pesticides.

It has been demonstrated that this built-in pesticide is very toxic and concentrated as compared to the naturally sprayed pesticide, which has been confirmed to cause allergies in some people. Many studies have also shown the immune system of genetically modified animals to be significantly altered. For instance, a persistent increase in cytokines indicates the capability of these foods to cause conditions such as asthma, allergy, and inflammation (Sani et al., 2023).

Some of the genetically modified foods, such as soy, have also been shown to have certain chemicals known to be allergens, for example, trypsin inhibitor protein (Rosso, 2021). Genetic engineering of food may also result in the transfer of genes that have the capability to trigger allergies into the host cells.

Furthermore, most of the DNA transferred into genetically modified foods originates from microorganisms that have not been studied to elucidate their allergenic properties. Similarly, the new genetic combinations in genetically modified foods could cause allergies to some consumers or worsen the existing allergic conditions. Various cases of genetically modified foods causing allergic reactions have been reported, leading to the withdrawal of these foods from the market (Kumar et al., 2020).

Genetic modification of crops could also increase the expression of naturally occurring toxins through possible activation of certain proteins, resulting in the release of toxic chemicals. It is argued that sufficient studies have not been carried out to prove that genetically modified foods are safe for consumption (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically modified foods are also associated with many environmental risks. Issues relating to the manner in which science is marketed and applied have also been raised, challenging the perceived benefits of genetically modified foods. Many opponents of genetic engineering technology perceive that genetic modification of food is a costly technology that places farmers from low-income countries in disadvantaged positions since they cannot afford it (Kumar et al., 2020; Leonelli, 2020).

It is also argued that this technology cannot address the food shortage issue, which is perceived to be more of a political and economic problem than a food production issue (Liang et al., 2019).

Political and economic issues across local and global levels have been suggested to prevent the distribution of foods so as to reach the people faced with starvation, but not issues of agriculture and technology. Politics and economic barriers have also been shown to contribute to greater poverty, subsequently making individuals unable to afford food (Kumar et al., 2020).

Some bioethicists are of the view that most genetic engineering advances in agriculture are profit-based as compared to those that are need-based. It challenges the appropriateness of genetic modification of food in ensuring food security, safeguarding the environment, and decreasing poverty, especially in low-income countries.

This argument is supported by the costly nature of genetic engineering technology and the yields from the application of this technology. The economic benefits of genetic engineering of foods are usually attained by large-scale agricultural producers, thus pitting the majority of the population who are involved in small-scale agricultural production (Kumar et al., 2020).

With the widespread adoption of genetic engineering technology, regulatory policies such as patents have been formulated, subsequently allowing exclusively large biotechnological organizations to benefit (Kumar et al., 2020).

Though biotechnological firms suggest that genetic modification of foods is essential in ensuring food security, the patenting of this technology has been perceived by many as being a potential threat to food security (Leonelli, 2020).

Patenting of genetically modified foods gives biotechnology firms monopoly control, thus demeaning the sanctity of life. This technology has also enhanced dependency, whereby farmers have to continuously go back to the biotechnology firms to purchase seeds for sowing in subsequent planting seasons.

Genetically modified food is believed to be unsafe, allegedly because sufficient tests have not been carried out to show that it would not cause some unprecedented long-term effects in another organism. Despite possessing positive attributes, such as health benefits and food safety, many consumers are wary of these foods because of a consistent belief in a lack of proven safety testing (Fernbach et al., 2019).

There are also fears that the genetic material inserted into genetically modified foods often gets transferred into the DNA of commensals found in the alimentary canal of human beings. This may lead to the production of harmful genetically modified chemicals inside the body of the human being, even long after ceasing the consumption of such foods.

Prior to the widespread adoption of this genetic engineering technology in agriculture, many scientists and regulatory agents raised health concerns. Some argue that genetically modified foods are inherently harmful and can trigger allergies, toxic effects, gene transfer to commensals in the gut, and can lead to the emergence of new diseases and nutritional problems (Deocaris et al., 2020; Seralini, 2020).

Despite multiple rigorous studies, it remains unknown whether genetically modified foods could be contributing to the rising cases of various health conditions such as obesity, asthma, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and reproductive problems. In most cases, the testing that has been performed involves the evaluation of the growth and productivity of the modified organism, and not in terms of environmental and health impacts (Agostini et al., 2020).

Gene transfer may affect the nutritional quality of foods as the transfer is likely to reduce the amounts of certain nutrients while raising the levels of other nutrients. This causes a nutritional variation between conventional foods and similar foods produced through genetic modification techniques.

Furthermore, few studies have been carried out to show the effect of nutrient alterations brought about by genetic engineering in relation to nutrient-gene interactions, metabolism, and bioavailability (Hirschi, 2020). Critics of genetically modified foods argue that little information is available to show how the alteration of food contents affects gene regulation and expression as these changes occur at rates that far overwhelm scientific studies.

Genetic modification of food involves the transfer of genetic material even between organisms belonging to different species. To biotechnology firms and other proponents of genetically modified foods, this approach helps in maximizing productivity and profits. However, many consumers, environmental conservationists, and opponents of genetically modified foods perceive gene transfer across different species as causing a decrease in diversity (Turnbull et al., 2021).

With the reduction of diversity, benefits such as resistance to diseases and pests, adaptation to adverse weather conditions, and productivity also diminish. Critics of genetic engineering technology, therefore, suggest that applying this technology creates uniformity in organisms and decreases their genetic diversity, rendering them at increased risks of diseases and pests.

Transfer of genetic material also carries many environmental risks, especially in the event of wide cultivation of such crops. Some critics suggest that genetically engineered plants with herbicide and insect-resistant traits could transfer these traits to wild plants and subsequently lead to the evolution of difficult-to-eradicate weeds (Anwar et al., 2021).

These weeds could develop into invasive plants with the capability to decrease crop production and cause a disruption of the ecosystem. The genetically modified plants could also evolve into weeds, which will then require costly and environmentally unfriendly means to eradicate.

The genetic engineering of food may also have an impact on non-target organisms, which would further reduce diversity. It is a persistent concern that genetically modified foods, such as pesticide-resistant crops, could cause harm to non-target organisms.

Certain genetically modified crops have the potential to change the chemistry of the soil by releasing toxins and breaking down the plants after they die. Moreover, crops that have undergone genetic modification to withstand elevated chemical concentrations sustain a heightened application of herbicides, ultimately leading to elevated chemical concentrations in the soil (Anwar et al., 2021).

Genetic engineering’s intentional transfer of antibiotic resistance genes could have detrimental effects on human health and the environment. Antibiotic-resistant genes may be passed to pathogenic bacteria in animals’ and humans’ digestive tracts, increasing their pathogenicity and causing more and more public health problems (Amarasiri et al., 2020).

Genetic modification of food is applauded as an appropriate method of ensuring increased food availability, better nutrition, and general improvement in the agricultural sector. However, as this genetically modified food essay demonstrates, many issues surround this technology, mostly concerning safety, health, cultural, social, and religious issues.

Most of the concerns regarding genetically engineered foods can be cleared by conducting expansive research to establish clear grounds for such issues. Unless concrete research is conducted to substantiate the benefits and potential harms of genetically engineered foods, the majority of people will remain wary of genetically modified foods. In the end, the full potential of genetically engineered foods will not be realized.

Amarasiri, M., Sano, D., & Suzuki, S. (2020). Understanding human health risks caused by antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARG) in water environments: Current knowledge and questions to be answered. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 50 (19), 2016-2059.

Anwar, M. P., Islam, A. M., Yeasmin, S., Rashid, M. H., Juraimi, A. S., Ahmed, S., & Shrestha, A. (2021). Weeds and their responses to management efforts in a changing climate. Agronomy, 11 (10), 1921-1940.

Agostini, M. G., Roesler, I., Bonetto, C., Ronco, A. E., & Bilenca, D. (2020). Pesticides in the real world: The consequences of GMO-based intensive agriculture on native amphibians. Biological Conservation, 241 , 108355.

Deocaris, C. C., Rumbaoa, R. G., Gavarra, A. M., & Alinsug, M. V. (2020). A Preliminary analysis of potential allergens in a GMO Rice: A Bioinformatics approach. Open Journal of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, 4 (1), 12-16.

Fernbach, P. M., Light, N., Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., & Rozin, P. (2019). Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most. Nature Human Behaviour, 3 (3), 251-256.

Giraldo, P. A., Shinozuka, H., Spangenberg, G. C., Cogan, N. O., & Smith, K. F. (2019). Safety assessment of genetically modified feed: is there any difference from food?. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10 (1592), 1-17.

Hirschi, K. D. (2020). Genetically modified plants: Nutritious, sustainable, yet underrated. The Journal of Nutrition, 150 (10), 2628-2634.

Kumar, K., Gambhir, G., Dass, A., Tripathi, A. K., Singh, A., Jha, A. K., Yadava, P., Choudhary, M., & Rakshit, S. (2020). Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects. Planta, 251 , 1-27.

Leonelli, G. C. (2020). GMO risks, food security, climate change and the entrenchment of neo-liberal legal narratives. In Transnational food security (pp. 128-141). Routledge.

Liang, J., Liu, X., & Zhang, W. (2019). Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science, 28 (8), 991-1004.

Rosso, M. L., Shang, C., Song, Q., Escamilla, D., Gillenwater, J., & Zhang, B. (2021). Development of breeder-friendly KASP markers for low concentration of kunitz trypsin inhibitor in soybean seeds. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22 (5), 2675-2690.

Sani, F., Sani, M., Moayedfard, Z., Darayee, M., Tayebi, L., & Azarpira, N. (2023). Potential advantages of genetically modified mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of acute and chronic liver diseases. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 14 (1), 1-11.

Seralini, G. E. (2020). Update on long-term toxicity of agricultural GMOs tolerant to roundup. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32 (1), 1-7.

Turnbull, C., Lillemo, M., & Hvoslef-Eide, T. A. (2021). Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom–a review. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12 , 630396.

Van Esse, H. P., Reuber, T. L., & van der Does, D. (2020). Genetic modification to improve disease resistance in crops. New Phytologist, 225 (1), 70-86.

Xu, Q., Song, Y., Yu, N., & Chen, S. (2021). Are you passing along something true or false? Dissemination of social media messages about genetically modified organisms. Public Understanding of Science, 30 (3), 285-301.

  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 14). Genetically Modified Food Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/

"Genetically Modified Food Essay." IvyPanda , 14 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Genetically Modified Food Essay'. 14 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Genetically Modified Food Essay." January 14, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

1. IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Food Essay." January 14, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Food Essay." January 14, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

  • Proposition 37 and Genetically Engineered Foods
  • Ecological Effects of the Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms
  • Is Genetically Engineered Food the Solution to the World’s Hunger Problems?
  • Should All Genetically Modified Foods Be Labeled?
  • Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment?
  • Genetically Engineered Food Against World Hunger
  • Genetically Modified Foods Projects
  • The Debate Pertaining to Genetically Modified Food Products
  • Genetically Modified Foods and Environment
  • The Effect of Genetically Modified Food on Society and Environment
  • Analyzing the Prospects of Genetically Modified Foods
  • Will Genetically Modified Foods Doom Us All?
  • Super Weeds's Advantages and Disadvantages
  • Concept of the Gene-Environment Interactions
  • Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Genetic Epidemiology

Genetically Modified Food Essay

  • Health Science
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to FDA Search
  • Skip to in this section menu
  • Skip to footer links

U.S. flag

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

  •   Search
  •   Menu
  • Resources for You (Food)
  • Agricultural Biotechnology

How GMO Crops Impact Our World

How GMO Crops Impact

Feed Your Mind Main Page

en Español (Spanish)

Many people wonder what impacts GMO crops have on our world. “GMO” (genetically modified organism) is the common term consumers and popular media use to describe a plant, animal, or microorganism that has had its genetic material (DNA) changed using technology that generally involves the specific modification of DNA, including the transfer of specific DNA from one organism to another. Scientists often refer to this process as genetic engineering . Since the first genetically engineered crops, or GMOs, for sale to consumers were planted in the 1990s, researchers have tracked their impacts on and off the farm.

Why do farmers use GMO crops?

Most of the GMO crops grown today were developed to help farmers prevent crop loss. The three most common traits found in GMO crops are:

  • Resistance to insect damage
  • Tolerance to herbicides
  • Resistance to plant viruses

For GMO crops that are resistant to insect damage, farmers can apply fewer spray pesticides to protect the crops. GMO crops that are tolerant to herbicides help farmers control weeds without damaging the crops. When farmers use these herbicide-tolerant crops they do not need to till the soil, which they normally do to get rid of weeds. This no-till planting helps to maintain soil health and lower fuel and labor use. Taken together, studies have shown positive economic and environmental impacts.

The GMO papaya, called the Rainbow papaya , is an example of a GMO crop developed to be resistant to a virus. When the ringspot virus threatened the Hawaii papaya industry and the livelihoods of Hawaiian papaya farmers, plant scientists developed the ringspot virus-resistant Rainbow papaya. The Rainbow papaya was commercially planted in 1998, and today it is grown all over Hawaii and exported to Japan.

Learn more on Why Do Farmers in the U.S. Grow GMO Crops?

Do GMOs have impacts beyond the farm?

The most common GMO crops were developed to address the needs of farmers, but in turn they can help foods become more accessible and affordable for consumers. Some GMO crops were developed specifically to benefit consumers. For example, a GMO soybean that is used to create a healthier oil is commercially grown and available. GMO apples that do not brown when cut are now available for sale and may help reduce food waste. Plant scientists continue to develop GMO crops that they hope will benefit consumers.

Learn more about GMOs and the Environment .

Do GMOs have impacts outside the United States?

GMOs also impact the lives of farmers in other parts of the world. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is working with partner countries to use genetic engineering to improve staple crops, the basic foods that make up a large portion of people’s diets. For example, a GMO eggplant developed to be insect resistant has been slowly released to farmers in Bangladesh since 2014. Farmers who grow GMO eggplants are earning more and have less exposure to pesticides. USAID is also working with partner countries in Africa and elsewhere on several staple crops, such as virus-resistant cassava , insect-resistant cowpea , and blight-resistant potato .

Learn more about GMO Crops and Humanitarian Reasons for Development and GMOs Outside the U.S .

How GMO Crops Impact the World

How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes

GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond

www.fda.gov/feedyourmind

September 1, 2013

13 min read

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

Proponents of genetically modified crops say the technology is the only way to feed a warming, increasingly populous world. Critics say we tamper with nature at our peril. Who is right?

By David H. Freedman

Apple opener

Kevin van Aelst

Robert Goldberg sags into his desk chair and gestures at the air. “Frankenstein monsters, things crawling out of the lab,” he says. “This the most depressing thing I've ever dealt with.”

Goldberg, a plant molecular biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, is not battling psychosis. He is expressing despair at the relentless need to confront what he sees as bogus fears over the health risks of genetically modified (GM) crops. Particularly frustrating to him, he says, is that this debate should have ended decades ago, when researchers produced a stream of exonerating evidence: “Today we're facing the same objections we faced 40 years ago.”

Across campus, David Williams, a cellular biologist who specializes in vision, has the opposite complaint. “A lot of naive science has been involved in pushing this technology,” he says. “Thirty years ago we didn't know that when you throw any gene into a different genome, the genome reacts to it. But now anyone in this field knows the genome is not a static environment. Inserted genes can be transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later.” The result, he insists, could very well be potentially toxic plants slipping through testing.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Williams concedes that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops. But he says this is only because the field of plant molecular biology is protecting its interests. Funding, much of it from the companies that sell GM seeds, heavily favors researchers who are exploring ways to further the use of genetic modification in agriculture. He says that biologists who point out health or other risks associated with GM crops—who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks—find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet.

Whether Williams is right or wrong, one thing is undeniable: despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat, the debate over their use continues to rage, and in some parts of the world, it is growing ever louder. Skeptics would argue that this contentiousness is a good thing—that we cannot be too cautious when tinkering with the genetic basis of the world's food supply. To researchers such as Goldberg, however, the persistence of fears about GM foods is nothing short of exasperating. “In spite of hundreds of millions of genetic experiments involving every type of organism on earth,” he says, “and people eating billions of meals without a problem, we've gone back to being ignorant.”

So who is right: advocates of GM or critics? When we look carefully at the evidence for both sides and weigh the risks and benefits, we find a surprisingly clear path out of this dilemma.

Benefits and worries

The bulk of the science on GM safety points in one direction. Take it from David Zilberman, a U.C. Berkeley agricultural and environmental economist and one of the few researchers considered credible by both agricultural chemical companies and their critics. He argues that the benefits of GM crops greatly outweigh the health risks, which so far remain theoretical. The use of GM crops “has lowered the price of food,” Zilberman says. “It has increased farmer safety by allowing them to use less pesticide. It has raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger.”

In the future, Zilberman says, those advantages will become all the more significant. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the world will have to grow 70 percent more food by 2050 just to keep up with population growth. Climate change will make much of the world's arable land more difficult to farm. GM crops, Zilberman says, could produce higher yields, grow in dry and salty land, withstand high and low temperatures, and tolerate insects, disease and herbicides.

genetic engineered food essay

Despite such promise, much of the world has been busy banning, restricting and otherwise shunning GM foods. Nearly all the corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, but only two GM crops, Monsanto's MON810 maize and BASF's Amflora potato, are accepted in the European Union. Ten E.U. nations have banned MON810, and although BASF withdrew Amflora from the market in 2012, four E.U. nations have taken the trouble to ban that, too. Approval of a few new GM corn strains has been proposed there, but so far it has been repeatedly and soundly voted down. Throughout Asia, including in India and China, governments have yet to approve most GM crops, including an insect-resistant rice that produces higher yields with less pesticide. In Africa, where millions go hungry, several nations have refused to import GM foods in spite of their lower costs (the result of higher yields and a reduced need for water and pesticides). Kenya has banned them altogether amid widespread malnutrition. No country has definite plans to grow Golden Rice, a crop engineered to deliver more vitamin A than spinach (rice normally has no vitamin A), even though vitamin A deficiency causes more than one million deaths annually and half a million cases of irreversible blindness in the developing world.

Globally, only a tenth of the world's cropland includes GM plants. Four countries—the U.S., Canada, Brazil and Argentina—grow 90 percent of the planet's GM crops. Other Latin American countries are pushing away from the plants. And even in the U.S., voices decrying genetically modified foods are becoming louder. In 2016 the U.S. federal government passed a law requiring labeling of GM ingredients in food products, replacing GM-labeling laws in force or proposed in several dozen states.

The fear fueling all this activity has a long history. The public has been worried about the safety of GM foods since scientists at the University of Washington developed the first genetically modified tobacco plants in the 1970s. In the mid-1990s, when the first GM crops reached the market, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader, Prince Charles and a number of celebrity chefs took highly visible stands against them. Consumers in Europe became particularly alarmed: a survey conducted in 1997, for example, found that 69 percent of the Austrian public saw serious risks in GM foods, compared with only 14 percent of Americans.

In Europe, skepticism about GM foods has long been bundled with other concerns, such as a resentment of American agribusiness. Whatever it is based on, however, the European attitude reverberates across the world, influencing policy in countries where GM crops could have tremendous benefits. “In Africa, they don't care what us savages in America are doing,” Zilberman says. “They look to Europe and see countries there rejecting GM, so they don't use it.” Forces fighting genetic modification in Europe have rallied support for “the precautionary principle,” which holds that given the kind of catastrophe that would emerge from loosing a toxic, invasive GM crop on the world, GM efforts should be shut down until the technology is proved absolutely safe.

But as medical researchers know, nothing can really be “proved safe.” One can only fail to turn up significant risk after trying hard to find it—as is the case with GM crops.

A clean record

The human race has been selectively breeding crops, thus altering plants' genomes, for millennia. Ordinary wheat has long been strictly a human-engineered plant; it could not exist outside of farms, because its seeds do not scatter. For some 60 years scientists have been using “mutagenic” techniques to scramble the DNA of plants with radiation and chemicals, creating strains of wheat, rice, peanuts and pears that have become agricultural mainstays. The practice has inspired little objection from scientists or the public and has caused no known health problems.

The difference is that selective breeding or mutagenic techniques tend to result in large swaths of genes being swapped or altered. GM technology, in contrast, enables scientists to insert into a plant's genome a single gene (or a few of them) from another species of plant or even from a bacterium, virus or animal. Supporters argue that this precision makes the technology much less likely to produce surprises. Most plant molecular biologists also say that in the highly unlikely case that an unexpected health threat emerged from a new GM plant, scientists would quickly identify and eliminate it. “We know where the gene goes and can measure the activity of every single gene around it,” Goldberg says. “We can show exactly which changes occur and which don't.”

And although it might seem creepy to add virus DNA to a plant, doing so is, in fact, no big deal, proponents say. Viruses have been inserting their DNA into the genomes of crops, as well as humans and all other organisms, for millions of years. They often deliver the genes of other species while they are at it, which is why our own genome is loaded with genetic sequences that originated in viruses and nonhuman species. “When GM critics say that genes don't cross the species barrier in nature, that's just simple ignorance,” says Alan McHughen, a plant molecular geneticist at U.C. Riverside. Pea aphids contain fungi genes. Triticale is a century-plus-old hybrid of wheat and rye found in some flours and breakfast cereals. Wheat itself, for that matter, is a cross-species hybrid. “Mother Nature does it all the time, and so do conventional plant breeders,” McHughen says.

Could eating plants with altered genes allow new DNA to work its way into our own? It is possible but hugely improbable. Scientists have never found genetic material that could survive a trip through the human gut and make it into cells. Besides, we are routinely exposed to—and even consume—the viruses and bacteria whose genes end up in GM foods. The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis , for example, which produces proteins fatal to insects, is sometimes enlisted as a natural pesticide in organic farming. “We've been eating this stuff for thousands of years,” Goldberg says.

In any case, proponents say, people have consumed as many as trillions of meals containing genetically modified ingredients over the past few decades. Not a single verified case of illness has ever been attributed to the genetic alterations. Mark Lynas, a prominent anti-GM activist who in 2013 publicly switched to strongly supporting the technology, has pointed out that every single news-making food disaster on record has been attributed to non-GM crops, such as the Escherichia coli –infected organic bean sprouts that killed 53 people in Europe in 2011.

Critics often disparage U.S. research on the safety of genetically modified foods, which is often funded or even conducted by GM companies, such as Monsanto. But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E.U., which cannot be so easily dismissed as an industry tool. The European Commission has funded 130 research projects, carried out by more than 500 independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of those studies found any special risks from GM crops.

Plenty of other credible groups have arrived at the same conclusion. Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a science-based consumer-watchdog group in Washington, D.C., takes pains to note that the center has no official stance, pro or con, with regard to genetically modifying food plants. Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. “Current GM crops are safe to eat and can be grown safely in the environment,” he says. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences have all unreservedly backed GM crops. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with its counterparts in several other countries, has repeatedly reviewed large bodies of research and concluded that GM crops pose no unique health threats. Dozens of review studies carried out by academic researchers have backed that view.

Opponents of genetically modified foods point to a handful of studies indicating possible safety problems. But reviewers have dismantled almost all of those reports. For example, a 1998 study by plant biochemist Árpád Pusztai, then at the Rowett Institute in Scotland, found that rats fed a GM potato suffered from stunted growth and immune system–related changes. But the potato was not intended for human consumption—it was, in fact, designed to be toxic for research purposes. The Rowett Institute later deemed the experiment so sloppy that it refuted the findings and charged Pusztai with misconduct.

Similar stories abound. Most recently, a team led by Gilles-Éric Séralini, a researcher at the University of Caen Lower Normandy in France, found that rats eating a common type of GM corn contracted cancer at an alarmingly high rate. But Séralini has long been an anti-GM campaigner, and critics charged that in his study, he relied on a strain of rat that too easily develops tumors, did not use enough rats, did not include proper control groups and failed to report many details of the experiment, including how the analysis was performed. After a review, the European Food Safety Authority dismissed the study's findings. Several other European agencies came to the same conclusion. “If GM corn were that toxic, someone would have noticed by now,” McHughen says. “Séralini has been refuted by everyone who has cared to comment.”

Some scientists say the objections to GM food stem from politics rather than science—that they are motivated by an objection to large multinational corporations having enormous influence over the food supply; invoking risks from genetic modification just provides a convenient way of whipping up the masses against industrial agriculture. “This has nothing to do with science,” Goldberg says. “It's about ideology.” Former anti-GM activist Lynas agrees. He has gone as far as labeling the anti-GM crowd “explicitly an antiscience movement.”

Persistent doubts

Not all objections to genetically modified foods are so easily dismissed, however. Long-term health effects can be subtle and nearly impossible to link to specific changes in the environment. Scientists have long believed that Alzheimer's disease and many cancers have environmental components, but few would argue we have identified all of them.

And opponents say that it is not true that the GM process is less likely to cause problems simply because fewer, more clearly identified genes are replaced. David Schubert, an Alzheimer's researcher who heads the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., asserts that a single, well-characterized gene can still settle in the target plant's genome in many different ways. “It can go in forward, backward, at different locations, in multiple copies, and they all do different things,” he says. And as U.C.L.A.'s Williams notes, a genome often continues to change in the successive generations after the insertion, leaving it with a different arrangement than the one intended and initially tested. There is also the phenomenon of “insertional mutagenesis,” Williams adds, in which the insertion of a gene ends up quieting the activity of nearby genes.

True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques. Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today. Changing a single gene, on the other hand, might turn out to be a more subversive action, with unexpected ripple effects, including the production of new proteins that might be toxins or allergens.

Opponents also point out that the kinds of alterations caused by the insertion of genes from other species might be more impactful, more complex or more subtle than those caused by the intraspecies gene swapping of conventional breeding. And just because there is no evidence to date that genetic material from an altered crop can make it into the genome of people who eat it does not mean such a transfer will never happen—or that it has not already happened and we have yet to spot it. These changes might be difficult to catch; their impact on the production of proteins might not even turn up in testing. “You'd certainly find out if the result is that the plant doesn't grow very well,” Williams says. “But will you find the change if it results in the production of proteins with long-term effects on the health of the people eating it?”

It is also true that many pro-GM scientists in the field are unduly harsh—even unscientific—in their treatment of critics. GM proponents sometimes lump every scientist who raises safety questions together with activists and discredited researchers. And even Séralini, the scientist behind the study that found high cancer rates for GM-fed rats, has his defenders. Most of them are nonscientists, or retired researchers from obscure institutions, or nonbiologist scientists, but the Salk Institute's Schubert also insists the study was unfairly dismissed. He says that as someone who runs drug-safety studies, he is well versed on what constitutes a good-quality animal toxicology study and that Séralini's makes the grade. He insists that the breed of rat in the study is commonly used in respected drug studies, typically in numbers no greater than in Séralini's study; that the methodology was standard; and that the details of the data analysis are irrelevant because the results were so striking.

Schubert joins Williams as one of a handful of biologists from respected institutions who are willing to sharply challenge the GM-foods-are-safe majority. Both charge that more scientists would speak up against genetic modification if doing so did not invariably lead to being excoriated in journals and the media. These attacks, they argue, are motivated by the fear that airing doubts could lead to less funding for the field. Says Williams: “Whether it's conscious or not, it's in their interest to promote this field, and they're not objective.”

Both scientists say that after publishing comments in respected journals questioning the safety of GM foods, they became the victims of coordinated attacks on their reputations. Schubert even charges that researchers who turn up results that might raise safety questions avoid publishing their findings out of fear of repercussions. “If it doesn't come out the right way,” he says, “you're going to get trashed.”

There is evidence to support that charge. In 2009 Nature detailed the backlash to a reasonably solid study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA by researchers from Loyola University Chicago and the University of Notre Dame. The paper showed that GM corn seemed to be finding its way from farms into nearby streams and that it might pose a risk to some insects there because, according to the researchers' lab studies, caddis flies appeared to suffer on diets of pollen from GM corn. Many scientists immediately attacked the study, some of them suggesting the researchers were sloppy to the point of misconduct.

A way forward

There is a middle ground in this debate. Many moderate voices call for continuing the distribution of GM foods while maintaining or even stepping up safety testing on new GM crops. They advocate keeping a close eye on the health and environmental impact of existing ones. But they do not single out GM crops for special scrutiny, the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Jaffe notes: all crops could use more testing. “We should be doing a better job with food oversight altogether,” he says.

Even Schubert agrees. In spite of his concerns, he believes future GM crops can be introduced safely if testing is improved. “Ninety percent of the scientists I talk to assume that new GM plants are safety-tested the same way new drugs are by the FDA,” he says. “They absolutely aren't, and they absolutely should be.”

Stepped-up testing would pose a burden for GM researchers, and it could slow down the introduction of new crops. “Even under the current testing standards for GM crops, most conventionally bred crops wouldn't have made it to market,” McHughen says. “What's going to happen if we become even more strict?”

That is a fair question. But with governments and consumers increasingly coming down against GM crops altogether, additional testing may be the compromise that enables the human race to benefit from those crops' significant advantages.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 309 Issue 3

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • v.12(3); 2020 Mar

Logo of cureus

Genetically Modified Products, Perspectives and Challenges

Dimitrios t karalis.

1 Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Thessaly, Volos, GRC

Tilemachos Karalis

2 Obstetrics and Gynecology, General Hospital of Trikala, Trikala, GRC

Stergios Karalis

3 Internal Medicine, General Hospital of Trikala, Trikala, GRC

Angeliki S Kleisiari

4 Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Thessaly, Trikala, GRC

It is a common ground that humans have always modified the genome of both plants and animals. This intrusive process that has existed for thousands of years, many times through mistakes and failures, was initially carried out through the crossing of organisms with desirable features. This was done with the aim of creating and producing new plants and animals that would benefit humans, that is , they would offer better quality food, more opportunities for people to move and transport products, greater returns to work, resistance to diseases, etc. However, creating genetically modified organisms does not proceed without conflicts. One part of the equation concerns objections made by disputants of genetically modified organisms to the manipulation of life, as opposed to defenders who argue that it is essentially an extension of traditional plant cultivation and animal breeding techniques. There are also conflicts regarding the risks to the environment and human health from using genetically modified organisms. Concerns about the risks to the environment and human health from genetically modified products have been the subject of much debate, which has led to the development of regulatory frameworks for the evaluation of genetically modified crops. However, the absence of a globally accepted framework has the effect of slowing down technological development with negative consequences for areas of the world that could benefit from new technologies. So, while genetically modified crops can provide maximum benefits in food safety and in adapting crops to existing climate change, the absence of reforms, as well as the lack of harmonization of the frameworks and regulations about the genetic modifications results in all those expected benefits of using genetically modified crops being suspended. However, it is obvious that the evolution of genetically modified products is not going to stop. For that reason, research on the impact of genetic modification on medical technologies, agricultural production, commodity prices, land use and on the environment in general, should therefore continue.

Introduction and background

Biotechnology has developed many procedures that specialize in genetic recombination; the attempt to move genes from one organism to another or to change the genes present in a specific organism results in the expression of new attributes that originally were not there. The above procedures that allow gene alterations of a food or an organism result in Genetically Modified (GM) food or Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). The concept of gene altering has initiated many debates, with one side criticising the unknown effects and risks on both public health and the environment, and the other supporting the genetic modification's benefits on economy and hunger elimination. This article attempts a literature review on Genetically Modified Products, and specifically the possible risks that they pose, the benefits of their production and use, as well as some basics concepts that have been described and analyzed in current published writings.

Possible risks of using genetically modified products

Environmental Hazards

There is strong evidence that genetically modified plants appear to interact with their environment [ 1 ]. This means that genes introduced into genetically modified plants may be transferred to other plants or even to other organisms in the ecosystem [ 2 - 3 ]. Gene transfer between plants, especially among related plants, results in genetic contamination and is carried out by the transport of pollen [ 4 ]. Because natural wild plant varieties are likely to have a competitive disadvantage against genetically modified crops, they may not be able to survive, resulting in the reduction or disappearance of wild varieties [ 5 ]. Changing biodiversity worldwide will result in increased resistance of several species of weeds, others to dominate and others to decline or disappear, thus creating a complete and general deregulation in ecosystems [ 6 ]. It is a common belief in scientific circles that research needs to be continued to assess the risks and benefits of crops more accurately and adequately.

Risks to Human Health

There may be allergenic effects - especially in people who are predisposed to allergies - or other adverse effects on human health [ 7 ]. Experimental studies in animals have shown weight gain, changes in the pancreas and kidneys, toxic effects to the immune system, changes in blood biochemistry among other effects [ 8 , 9 ]. Moreover, the lack of large-scale long-term epidemiological studies that lead to safe conclusions about the allergenic effects of genetically modified plants makes researchers skeptical about the use of genetically modified products. This is because the introduction of a gene that expresses a non-allergenic protein does not mean that it will produce a product without allergenic action. Also, allergies from genetically modified products may be more intense and dangerous, as the allergenic potential of these foods is stronger than that of conventional plants [ 10 , 11 ].

Resistance to Antibiotics

We must note from the outset that the use of antibiotic-resistant genes has stopped in most mutated products. The main problem now lies in the widespread use of antibiotics in feed which, as a natural consequence, end up in the human body through the consumption of dairy products and meat, and thus create resistant germs in the human digestive system [ 12 ]. However, more research and studies are needed to determine the differences between transgenic plants from traditional plants and whether genetically modified plants pose additional risks to the consumer public [ 13 , 14 ].

Benefits of using genetically modified products

Hunger Elimination

One of the arguments put forward by advocates of genetically modified products is to eliminate world hunger, a perception that has encountered various reactions [ 15 - 16 ]. A series of extensive and long-term research has shown that the benefits of growing genetically modified crops in the fight against global food shortages and hunger have been significant. The steady increase in the global population has led researchers to focus on the benefits of developing genetically modified products, rather than the potential risks they pose each time [ 17 ].

Economic Benefits

A number of studies show the economic benefits of using genetically modified products. Between 1996 and 2011, farmers' income worldwide increased by $92 million from the use of genetically modified crops. Part of the revenue is due to the more efficient treatment of weeds and insects, while another part is due to lower overall production costs. The greatest economic benefits have been achieved in the US, Argentina, China and India, while at the same time, production costs have fallen sharply [ 18 ]. At this point, however, there are conflicting reports [ 19 ].

Insect Resistance

Bacillus thuringiensis (or BT) is a Gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium, commonly used as a biological pesticide. During sporulation, many BT strains produce crystal proteins (proteinaceous inclusions), called δ-endotoxins, that have insecticidal action. This has led to their use as insecticides, and more recently, to genetically modified crops using BT genes, such as BT corn. The main target of these plants is to combat the European Corn Borer insect which is responsible for the destruction of maize crops with a loss of up to one billion dollars a year [ 20 ].

Nematode Resistance

Parasitic nematodes are responsible for much of the crop losses. They attack many different plants by destroying the root system. Nematodes, which are essentially a worm species, survive in the soil in very difficult conditions for many years. Chemical control of nematodes is prohibited because there is a high environmental risk. The only natural way to deal with this is through crop rotation (the practice of growing a series of dissimilar or different types of crops in the same area in sequenced seasons), but this is often not possible due to the high financial cost [ 21 ]. Thus, the introduction of genes from nematode-resistant plants seems to be the only way to deal with the problem [ 22 ]. 

Resistance to Herbicide Round Up

It is common ground that the use of herbicides and pesticides in general causes serious problems for the environment and, consequently, for human health. We know that in areas where wheat is cultivated, that is, where the use of herbicides is increased, the number of child births is clearly decreasing, complications in childbirth occur, and children are born with serious health problems mainly related to mental retardation and autism spectrum [ 23 ]. Genetically modified products enable farmers to use a smaller amount of herbicides. Genetically modified soy beans produce an enzyme resistant to the action of the herbicide. The herbicide Round Up destroys the action of a plant enzyme, thereby destroying the plant. Genetically modified plants, however, produce a glyphosate-insensitive form of this enzyme, making it resistant and not affected by the action of the herbicide [ 24 - 25 ]. Researchers are divided on the effects on human health and animals [ 26 ].

Cold Resistance

An important advantage of genetically modified plants is the creation of varieties that are resistant to cold temperatures that would normally result in the plant freezing and destroying the plant, thereby losing production. Since the mid-2010s, because of the rapid global change in climate and because plants cannot adapt to rapid temperature changes, scientists have turned to transgenic plants to address the problem [ 27 ].

Heat Resistance

In the near future, continuous global warming (as scientists at least claim) will have disastrous consequences for plants, especially in areas where water shortages are already occurring. Creation of modified genes (Sh2 and Bt2) can help plants withstand high temperatures [ 28 - 29 ].

Basic concepts related to genetically modified products

The Notion of Substantial Equivalence

The concept of substantive equivalence has been introduced in the debate on genetically modified products to ensure that these foods are safe [ 30 ]. The principle of substantive equivalence holds that if the genetically modified product contains substantially equivalent ingredients present in the conventional product, then no further safety rules are required. In this way the principle of substantial equivalence is a method of evaluating genetically modified products and finding negative factors (such as allergens due to the presence of new proteins) [ 31 , 32 ].

The Precautionary Principle

According to the precautionary principle, any new genetically modified product should not be made available to consumers unless there is first-hand evidence that the product is safe or if there are serious conflicts and conflicting opinions of researchers on the safety of the product in question [ 33 ]. Many researchers, however, have argued that the precautionary principle can act as a deterrent to the evolution of science and society, as it may stop or delay any new technology which is capable of solving environmental or economic problems [ 34 ]. We should note, however, that criticisms have been raised about the utility and the way the precautionary principle works [ 35 ].

The Safeguard Clause

The safeguard clause allows Member States of the European Union to prevent the circulation and sale of genetically modified products which may be harmful to citizens [ 36 ].

The Cartagena Protocol

The purpose of this document is to protect the world's biodiversity by instituting stringent rules on the transfer of genetically modified products from one country to another [ 37 ].

Labeling of Genetically Modified Products

The appearance of genetically modified products has resulted in the need for labeling of these products [ 38 ]. Genetically modified foods should have a special label indicating that they contain genetically modified ingredients. However, as simple as it sounds, the issue of genetically modified products labeling is particularly complex and difficult, as there are important questions about how labeling will be done [ 39 ]. For example, it has been argued that products containing either modified protein or foreign DNA should bear a special label. However, there are genetically modified products that do not contain modified protein or foreign DNA, so there is the debate whether these foods, although modified, require special labeling or not. [ 40 ].

Ethical Concerns

The key ethical issue regarding the cultivation of genetically modified plants is that the creation of these crops is essentially an interference with the natural flow of life. The ethical dilemma arises as to how to find the middle ground in the use of genetically modified products, given that different countries have different perceptions of the importance of risk, with many countries banning the use of genetically modified products, while companies producing these products focus on profits, and do not take into account the problems that may or may not arise. The problem here focuses on the high degree of uncertainty about the impact of using genetically modified organisms, while the arrangements proposed are usually shaped by financial and political interventions [ 41 ]. Consumer attitude is also of particular importance, as consumers are buying and paying their vote of approval at the same time. Consumers are divided into two categories, the consumers who favor the genetically modified organisms and those who oppose them. Consumers' views are influenced by the information they are offered each time, the existing regulations, the confidence they have in the government in regulating the issues that arise, and what they are prepared to pay [ 42 ].

Ethics and the Environment

Environmental ethics plays a dominant role in discussions concerning biotechnology and genetic engineering, as many of the arguments presented against genetic engineering have to do with whether it is morally right to genetically modify organisms and the environment, as this may have serious environmental impacts. This shift is evident even in product ads, where companies say environmental protection is a priority for them [ 43 ].

Ethics and Animal Rights

Specifically with regard to animals, modern ethical and philosophical considerations hold that animals, like humans, have rights and that these rights should in no way be violated [ 44 ]. Animals need to be treated as living organisms and not as commodities or human services. Introducing genes into animals and carrying out experiments can lead to drastic changes in the physiology and behavior of the animal. The results may not be desirable, and in some cases, they may even be disastrous [ 45 ].

Patenting Living (Genetically Modified) Organisms

The creation of new organisms inevitably leads to the need to register them and allocate their ownership. But even in the case of registration of a novel product, the 'owner' of the new organism must ensure that the genetic modification does not cause undesirable effects to the environment and humans, as he will be responsible for any problems that may arise [ 46 ].

Conclusions

In recent years there has been enormous technological progress in the creation of genetically modified organisms. There is no doubt that in the future there will be a continuum that will be influenced by both scientific developments and public attitudes towards genetically modified organisms. Creating genetically modified organisms, however, does not proceed without conflicts; there are the disputants of genetically modified organisms who see their production as a manipulation of life, as well as conflicts regarding the risks to the environment and human health. Even though, it is obvious that the evolution of genetically modified crops is not going to stop. Research on the impact of genetically modified crops on agricultural production, commodity prices, land use and the environment in general should therefore continue. Additionally, it is necessary to inform the consumer in order to understand the role of modern technology in crops and agricultural production, and in particular to understand the importance of genetic modifications. In any case, there should be strict and enforceable rules for the use of genetically modified organisms, an assessment of the potential risks of genetically modified crops and clear references to the effects and the results of genetic modifications, both on the environment and on human health.

The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Home — Essay Samples — Science — GMO — Arguments Against Genetically Modified Foods

test_template

Arguments Against Genetically Modified Foods

  • Categories: GMO

About this sample

close

Words: 1401 |

Published: Apr 29, 2022

Words: 1401 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Image of Alex Wood

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

author

Verified writer

  • Expert in: Science

writer

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 400 words

2 pages / 1017 words

7 pages / 2992 words

7 pages / 3656 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on GMO

Genetically Modified Organisms, commonly known as GMOs, have become a controversial topic in today's society. These organisms have been altered through genetic engineering techniques to improve their characteristics or introduce [...]

GMO effects on the environment have become a subject of intense debate and scrutiny in recent years. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have revolutionized agriculture by altering the genetic makeup of crops to enhance their [...]

Technology is created by the comparatively small and smart human brain, which has changed the landscape, redefined natural resources and even diversified the food human being rely on. Over the past 30 years, there is a [...]

Think back to the last meal you had; now think about how much of that food you consumed was genetically modified (GM). About 80% of today’s processed food contains genetically modified organisms, otherwise known as GMO’s. [...]

Genetically modified organisms are organisms with changed genetic structure. Nowadays GMO are one of the main debatable question in the modern world. Every day we buy vegetables and fruits in our shops or markets, but we do not [...]

Genetically modified organisms have become a highly controversial topic in science despite the fact that people have been changing the genes of crops for years. It begs the question as to why the topic has become an issue. [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

  • Instructions Followed To The Letter
  • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
  • Unique And Plagiarism Free

genetic engineered food essay

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

  • Essay Database >
  • Essay Examples >
  • Essays Topics >
  • Essay on Aliens

Essay On Genetically Engineered Food

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Aliens , Health , Engineering , Nature , Ethics , Innovation , Food , Genetics

Published: 03/05/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

(School/University)

Introduction

The emergence of genetically engineered food has become widespread in contemporary times, particularly because of the fact that the human population is constantly growing to the point where the natural production of food proved inadequate. The need to feed the human population with enough food has since stood as the justification of numerous caucuses supporting the production of genetically engineered food. At the same time, genetically modified food has become the center of dispute by groups opposing it for reasons such as its allegedly unhealthy effects and unethical ways of producing it, among many others. This study aims to clear out the debate on the ethics of genetically engineered food through a review of the existing literature. Consumption of genetically engineered food, as far as the existing literature is concerned, does not have any concrete negative effects and is thus amenable. However, the production of genetically engineered food, usually by corporate farmers, produces unfavorable repercussions to the lives of small farmers.

Arguments on Genetically Engineered Food

The first impression people usually think of concerning genetically engineered food is that it is unhealthy and unfit for long-term consumption. Given the argument that genetically engineered food is not natural, people would usually think that it is better to stay away from the side of danger, as it is possible that genetic modifications could actually introduce costs. At the same time, being risk-aversive would also lead to people missing the benefits of genetically engineered food, which is why it is important to consider various scientific developments on the matter. Conservatism without deep consideration of the facts may lead people to skip the benefits of genetically engineered food, given that unfounded fears could push them against consuming it (MacKinnon, 2013). Currently, there is no strong scientific evidence leading to the harmfulness of genetically modified to the health of consumers, despite suspicious manifestations such as the growth of “superweeds” due to herbicides. However, it is also important to take note of the ethical consideration of sustaining the needs of the human population to have an adequate source of food. The use of genetic modification to protect crops from drought or extremely low temperatures attests to such a need. At the same time, it is also important to consider the perceived rights of plants and animals from non-natural changes provided by genetic modification. Interfering with nature, as MacKinnon (2013) has asserted, stands as an ethical consideration taken against genetically engineered food, which involves having to undergo the strenuous test of “[distinguishing] good forms of manipulating nature from unacceptable ones”. Another ethical consideration on genetically engineered food goes beyond the parameters of health and nature. The production of genetically engineered food, typically by corporations engaged in farming, entrenches on the rights of small farmers, whose natural ways become outdated and costlier when paralleled with the sophistication and cost-efficiency of mass-produced food that underwent genetic modification. Kaplan (2005) recognizes that while harmful health effects of genetically engineered food has yet to emerge, it is important to understand the issues of the producers as well. “Distributive justice”, in the words of Kaplan (2005), becomes the main ethical case-in-point on genetically engineered food, in that the powerful corporate farmers win and small farmers lose, regardless of lower prices associated with greater mass production (Thompson, 2012).

Articles on Genetically Engineered Food

Improving the nutritional quality of food has become a key purpose of genetic modification of food. Nordlee et al. (1996) took said case in their study of improving the nutritional quality of transgenic soybeans, which lack methionine in its protein. Transmitting 2S albumin from Brazil nuts, which are rich in methionine but allergenic, became the proposed manner of Nordlee et al. (1996) in improving the methionine deficiency of transgenic soybeans. The experiment, which proved a success, concluded that genetic modification could make the transmission of allergen from an allergenic to another food possible (Nordlee et al., 1996). Studies on transgenic cattle for milk have also characterized the use of genetic modification in developing food production. As seen in studies on transgenic mice, developing transgenic cattle for greater efficiency in milk production stood as a highly promising prospect. Yet, the costs of developing transgenic cattle, as enumerated by Wall et al. (1996): “low rates of gene integration, poor embryo survival, and unpredictable transgene behavior”, may prove as strong hindrances to the fulfilling the maximum potential of transgenic cattle for greater milk production.

In terms of health risks, genetically engineered food does not pose any danger. Yet, producers, policymakers and other stakeholders must keep in mind the following ethical considerations in engaging in genetic modification for food production: the interfering effects on natural processes and the welfare of small farmers. To the extent that the foregoing stakeholders consider said ethical issues with great care, producing and consuming genetically engineered food do not stand to have unethical repercussions.

Kaplan, D. (2005). What’s wrong with genetically modified food? Journal of Philosophical Research, 30 (Issue Supplement), 69-80. MacKinnon, B. (2013). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Nordlee, J., Taylor, S., Townsend, J., Thomas, L., & Bush, R. (1996). Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. The New England Journal of Medicine, 334, 688-692. Thompson, P. (2012). Genetically modified food: Ethical issues. eLS, Web. Wall, R., Kerr., D., & Bondioli, K. (1996). Transgenic dairy cattle: Genetic engineering on a larger scale. Journal of Dairy Science, 80 (9), 2213-2224.

double-banner

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2423

This paper is created by writer with

ID 288118470

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

submit your paper

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Effects of pollution on ecosystem in america report example, disaster processing essay examples, critical thinking on the main argument of the article is to know and understand ourselves, example of king leopolds ghost book review, example of the making of mass destruction inside job and the great recession in focus movie review, essay on the professors name, essay on the garden of earthly delights center panel, example of essay on creating training tools, free leadership essay example 4, good essay about types of corporate social responsibility chapter 7 review, free risk management in construction projects essay sample, sample report on understanding business and real estate cycles, essay on critical response 2, african americans as a part of black canadians origin and impact on canadian society essay sample, pledger essays, executive agency essays, gender equity essays, participant observation essays, menes essays, fossil oil essays, european colonialism essays, korean peninsula essays, federal emergency relief administration essays, africanus essays, metopic essays, crania essays, verne essays, derick essays, brownstein essays, latticework essays, computer room essays, cold water essays, bonus critical thinkings, standardization critical thinkings, utility critical thinkings, parcel critical thinkings, axis critical thinkings, surroundings critical thinkings, load critical thinkings, stimulus critical thinkings, tank critical thinkings, expedition critical thinkings, height critical thinkings.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

  • Skip to main content
  • Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Shots - Health News

Your Health

  • Treatments & Tests
  • Health Inc.
  • Public Health

Gardeners can now grow a genetically modified purple tomato made with snapdragon DNA

Sasa Woodruff

genetic engineered food essay

The Purple Tomato, a genetically modified crop created by Norfolk Plant Sciences, is available to home gardeners to start from seed. Raven Villar/Boise State Public Radio hide caption

The Purple Tomato, a genetically modified crop created by Norfolk Plant Sciences, is available to home gardeners to start from seed.

As home gardeners in the U.S. page through seed catalogs and pick out their favorite heirlooms, there's a new seed that has never been available to them before: a tomato the color of a concord grape with plum-colored flesh. It looks otherworldly, maybe Photoshopped. But it's not.

This nightshade is purple because its creators at Norfolk Plant Sciences worked for about 20 years to hack color genes from a snapdragon flower into the plant. The genes not only provide pigment, but high levels of anthocyanin, a health-promoting compound.

This dusky fruit, named the Purple Tomato, is the first genetically modified food crop to be directly marketed to home gardeners – the seeds went on sale Saturday. Last year , a handful of small farmers started growing and selling the tomatoes, but until now, genetically modified foods were generally only available to commercial producers in the U.S.

By selling direct to gardeners, Norfolk hopes to get Americans to change their perceptions of GMO foods. A 2020 Pew Research study showed that most Americans see GMOs as worse for their health than a food that has no genetic modification and just 7% see them as healthier than other foods.

"We aim to show with this product and with this company that there's a lot of benefits that can go to consumers through biotechnology, better taste, better nutrition as prime examples," says Nathan Pumplin, CEO of Norfolk Healthy Produce , a subsidiary of Norfolk Plant Sciences.

A disease-fighting tomato

The leading scientist behind the Purple Tomato is Cathie Martin, a biochemist who trained at the University of Cambridge. About 20 years ago, she set out to create a transgenic tomato, using DNA from another unrelated organism, in this case, a purple snapdragon, which is an edible flower.

genetic engineered food essay

Cathie Martin worked for years to develop the Purple Tomato using genes from the edible snapdragon plant to increase anthocyanin, a compound that gives a purplish hue to plants. John Innes Centre/Norfolk Plant Sciences hide caption

Cathie Martin worked for years to develop the Purple Tomato using genes from the edible snapdragon plant to increase anthocyanin, a compound that gives a purplish hue to plants.

The goal was to develop a tomato with high levels of anthocyanins , the compounds that give blueberries and blackberries, eggplant and purple cabbage their color and their status as superfoods.

Anthocyanins have been shown to have anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory effects. They're antioxidants, which can help neutralize unstable molecules in the body that can damage healthy cells and are linked with aging and disease.

"It's normal for tomatoes to make these healthy antioxidants. They typically don't make them very much in the fruit, though," Pumplin says, explaining that they normally appear in the stems and leaves . "So what Cathie [Martin] did was put the on switch into tomato."

She started with the basic technique that scientists figured out in the 1980s using a bacteria to naturally insert its DNA into host organisms.

GMO is out, 'bioengineered' is in, as new U.S. food labeling rules take effect

GMO is out, 'bioengineered' is in, as new U.S. food labeling rules take effect

It's a process that can happen naturally. For example, sweet potatoes have the DNA of an agrobacterium and can technically be considered transgenic, an plant that contains genetic material of two different organisms.

Martin isolated the gene in the snapdragon flower that turned on and off the purple color. Next she took the gene and inserted it into the bacteria. The tomato could then take in the foreign genetic material and express this new gene.

"It really is a great example of understanding how the natural world functions and building on that to meet our needs," Pumplin explains.

The result? Norfolk's purple tomato has, per weight, as much anthocyanin as a blueberry or eggplant, Pumplin says. And Americans eat more tomatoes annually, so it makes the nutritional benefits more accessible.

In a research published in Nature, Martin found that mice who ate a diet supplemented with purple tomatoes lived 30% longer than those who didn't.

genetic engineered food essay

The Purple Tomato has deep purple flesh. Traditional breeders have grown tomatoes with purple skin before but not with this tone in the flesh. Raven Villar/Boise State Public Radio hide caption

The Purple Tomato has deep purple flesh. Traditional breeders have grown tomatoes with purple skin before but not with this tone in the flesh.

A new wave in GMO foods

The push for nutrient-dense GMOs is a recent trend, says Kathleen Hefferon, a microbiologist at Cornell University. The first wave of GMOs were for staple crops that were easier to grow.

"There was a real push of trying to achieve food security for a lot of populaces in developing countries and usually that involved making these staple crops that grew better, such as rice and corn and wheat and things like this," she explained.

A transgenic papaya was introduced to combat a virus that was destroying the crops in Hawaii. It's largely credited with saving the industry on the islands. There were also crops to increase nutritional value for populations in developing countries. Golden rice was developed in the late 1990s to have more beta-carotene to combat Vitamin A deficiencies. Because of practical and regulatory issues, the crop never took off.

The trend now is for biofortified foods, like the Purple Tomato.

"People have interest in their quality of life, for longevity and things like this. I think there has been just a health trend in that regard and it's going to continue," Hefferon says.

Along the same lines, California-based food company Fresh Del Monte created a pink pineapple in 2020. Its rosy flesh comes from a high level of lycopene, an antioxidant that gives peaches, tomatoes and watermelon their rosy hues.

But unlike the Purple Tomato, which the company is making widely available to both farmers and consumers, only Fresh Del Monte can grow it.

genetic engineered food essay

Purple Tomatoes ripening in the Norfolk Plant Sciences test garden. Norfolk Plant Sciences hide caption

Purple Tomatoes ripening in the Norfolk Plant Sciences test garden.

Traditional breeding vs. GMOs

Genetic modification in the lab isn't the only way to supercharge foods with nutrients , notes Jim Myers, a professor specializing in vegetable breeding at Oregon State University. He says in fact, traditional breeders were the first to release a tomato to the public with boosted levels of anthocyanins.

More than two decades ago Myers began using traditional plant breeding to cross genes from wild tomatoes with modern varieties.

The modern domesticated tomato originated from an 80,000 years old species from Ecuador . There are about 10,000 varieties of Solanum lycopersicum , which vary from marigold orange to celery green to khaki maroon

Domesticated tomatoes have anthocyanins only in the plant , but Myers says their wild relatives have them in the fruit.

He crossed Solanum cheesmaniae from the Galapagos and Solanum chilense from South America with a domesticated variety to ultimately create the Indigo collection of tomatoes.

In 2011, they released the 'Indigo Rose ,' which has a deep blue skin and a pinkish inside when ripe, and more anthocyanin.

His first version of the tomato wasn't perfect, he says – the taste wasn't great and it took a long time to ripen, but subsequent breeding has improved on it, and gardeners can buy it and grow it themselves.

"I don't know if supercharging is the right word, but we're definitely enhancing their potential to provide benefits to human health," Myers says of the series, which now includes varieties like 'Indigo Cherry Drops', Indigo Pear Drops' 'Indigo Kiwi' and 'Midnight Roma'.

As Biotech Crops Lose Their Power, Scientists Push For New Restrictions

As Biotech Crops Lose Their Power, Scientists Push For New Restrictions

Myers points out that he and the creator of the Purple Tomato began working on these tomatoes at about the same time and there are now more than 50 cultivars of the Indigos being grown and bred throughout the world, including small farms and big companies.

"There's just all this diversity in the Indigo market class that has come about through conventional breeding," he says. "With the GMO tomato, it's taken them all this time and more to get one variety out there."

He also thinks the Purple Tomato could face a battle for acceptance that the Indigos don't, given negative perceptions of GMOs.

"There's going to be this cognitive dissonance for some people in that here is a tomato that has these potential health benefits ... contrasting with the origins, which was through genetic engineering."

genetic engineered food essay

A caprese salad prepared with Purple Tomato. Norfolk Plant Sciences hide caption

A caprese salad prepared with Purple Tomato.

A new chapter in the GMO debate?

Some of the earliest GM crops were corn and soybeans modified to tolerate herbicides like glyphosate, known commercially as Roundup. In 2023, the USDA reports 91% of domestic corn acres used herbicide tolerant seeds .

Mark Lynas, author of Seeds of Science: Why We Got It So Wrong On GMOs says the abundance of chemical-tolerant plants has harmed the acceptance of this technology.

"It enabled people who were concerned about the technology to really draw the conclusion that this was all about increasing agrochemical use, and the capture of the seeds in the food chain by big multinational corporations," he says.

Lynas says it was a blow to their adoption because the industry could have focused on genetic modifications that would actually use less herbicide.

"GMO technology could have already transformed world agriculture in a vastly more sustainable direction," he says.

The Purple Tomato's creators hope its release to gardeners could change the conversation. Lynas called Norfolk's marketing to consumers a "stroke of genius" that could demystify the technology.

"Stop just doing the GMO stuff with these big corporate, commodity cash crops and do something ordinary people can have in their hands," he says. "You'll see, actually it's just a seed which is going to produce a purple fruit, which is probably healthier for you."

Of course, some people have raised health concerns around eating GMOs, but studies since these foods were introduced three decades ago do not show any harm. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration concludes there is not a health risk to eating GM foods currently on the market.

Lynas says GMOs could be used to improve the environment, and livelihoods of people around the globe.

"If we focus on that, then we can make sure that these biotechnologies actually have outcomes and applications which are better for the planet and better for people overall. And that's the way that science should be used," Lynas says.

Pumplin measures success by whether or not a large number of consumers will embrace the health benefits, color and taste of the new tomato.

"Then it chips away at this negative perception of GMOs and that will enable other products to get out to market that deliver really solid benefits," he says. Benefits that include climate change, sustainability, health and nutrition.

Sáša Woodruff reports on food and agriculture. She is the news director of Boise State Public Radio.

  • bioengineered food
  • purple tomato
  • anthocyanins
  • genetically modified food

Genetically modified banana resistant to Panama disease given approval for Australian consumption

Two men looking at a bunch of bananas

A genetically-modified (GM) banana is a step closer to commercial reality as Queensland scientists gain regulatory approval to release a GM variety of Cavendish banana for human consumption.

Scientists say the QCAV-4 variety is the world's first genetically modified banana and will be the first GM fruit approved by the federal government for growing in Australia.

But it is unlikely to end up on your toast or in your smoothie any time soon.

While scientists say they will be safe to eat, the GM variety will be considered a "back-up option" in the fight against Panama Tropical Race 4 (TR4), as it is nearly immune to the disease.

Panama TR4 is a fungal disease that starves banana trees of nutrients, eventually killing the plant.

There is currently no treatment or cure and, because the disease lives in soil, infected areas can no longer grow most banana types, including the popular cavendish variety.

"We welcome this decision as it's a very important step towards building a safety net for the world's Cavendish bananas from TR4, which has impacted many parts of the world already [including Australia] ," said Professor James Dale, leader of the banana biotechnology program at the Queensland University of Technology. 

"About 95 per cent of Australia's bananas are grown in Queensland, and Cavendish banana accounts for 97 per cent of production."

More than 16,000 banana plants have been killed by biosecurity officers on a Tully farm

Most bananas are grown in Queensland's Far North around the Atherton Tablelands, Innisfail and in the Tully Valley.

Panama TR4 was first recorded in the Tully Valley in 2015 and, while the movement of the disease has been restricted to eight affected properties, recent floods have raised concerns about the potential for further spread.

Are GM bananas safe?

Scientists discovered a gene that is nearly immune to Panama TR4 in a banana called Musa acuminata ssp malaccensis , a wild banana that occurs in a number of parts of south-east Asia, and create a variety of Cavendish that included that gene.

"We have moved a banana gene from one banana to another," said Professor Dale.

"There's nothing scary. The gene was already present in Cavendish … it just doesn't work so we have put in a version that works."

He said Panama disease TR4 was "fairly well under control" in Australia and biosecurity arrangements were "really limiting it's spread".

"However, that may change so this is really our safety net," Professor Dale said.

"Cavendish bananas are not going to disappear [but] this banana is ready to go though, if TR4 really gets going and starts to really hurt our industry."

Four people walking through a banana plantation

What happens next?

Following more than seven years of field trials in the Northern Territory, QCAV-4 bananas will now be tested in Queensland paddocks.

Professor Dale said his team would also turn its attention to developing a gene-edited version of the QCAV-4 that was resistant to other diseases.

"Gene editing provides far less concern, particularly to regulators and to consumers, so that's the next stage, a gene-edited version," he said.

"The biggest disease other than TR4 in the world is black sigatoka … a leaf-infecting fungus.

"In Australia, we're very lucky. We have a milder version of that. But in some countries, particularly in Central America, they spray up to 60 times a year to try to control this fungus.

"So we want to develop not only a TR4 resistant Cavendish by editing, but also sigatoka resistance as well."

Three small banana plants in pots

Future proofing bananas

Professor Dale said gene editing will help future-proof food like bananas by allowing scientists to create varieties that can handle different threats and conditions.

"We're going to need these sorts of technologies to cut down on pesticides, but also as we're getting into a much more challenging climate, we've got to be able to generate new cultivars that are able to cope with all these new conditions," he said.

"Because of the technologies we have available … we can also add, as we have in in one of our projects in Africa, increased nutrient content, particularly nutritional values.

"This will be really important for the fruit industry and the banana industry."

ABC Rural RoundUp newsletter

  • X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Gm banana could save $20b industry from devastating fungus, researcher says.

Man with beige workshirt on smiles at camera with hands on hips and wearing wide brim hat in front of banana trees.

Banana disease that wipes out plantations detected on Queensland farm

More than 16,000 banana plants have been killed by biosecurity officers on a Tully farm.

Devastating Panama disease detected in heart of banana-growing region

Bunches of bananas on display in a supermarket

  • Coffs Harbour
  • Genetically Modified Food
  • Plant Diseases

IMAGES

  1. Essay websites: Disadvantages genetically modified foods

    genetic engineered food essay

  2. Genetically Modified Foods

    genetic engineered food essay

  3. Infographic: Are genetically engineered crops less safe than

    genetic engineered food essay

  4. Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Food Free Essay Example

    genetic engineered food essay

  5. (PDF) THE RECENT ADVANCEMENTS IN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD

    genetic engineered food essay

  6. Genetic Engineering Essay

    genetic engineered food essay

VIDEO

  1. You’re Eating FAKE FOOD!.. BioEngineered Food EXPLAINED!

  2. Application in medicine!!Genetic engineered insulin!!Biology Class-12 NCERT Chapter-12!!

  3. Genetic manipulation, Class 9 th, Biology

COMMENTS

  1. Genetically Modified Food Essay: Pros & Cons of GM Foods

    Genetically Modified Food Essay Exclusively available on IvyPanda Updated: Jan 14th, 2024 Need to write a genetically modified foods essay? Take a look at this example! This argumentative essay on GM foods explains all the advantages and disadvantages of the issue to help you form your own opinion. We will write a custom essay on your topic

  2. Genetically Modified Food Essay (docx)

    Genetically Modified Food Essay Title: Genetically Modified Foods: Balancing Risks and Benefits Introduction: Genetically modified (GM) foods, also known as genetically engineered (GE) foods, have become a contentious issue in the global food system. These foods are produced from crops whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques to introduce desirable traits such as pest ...

  3. Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a review

    Genetic modification is a special set of gene technology that alters the genetic machinery of such living organisms as animals, plants or microorganisms. Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology and the resulting organism is said to be 'Genetically modified (GM)', 'Genetically engineered' or ...

  4. Pros and cons of GMO foods: Health and environment

    Pros Cons GMOs and the environment Identifying GMO foods Finding non-GMO food Making GMO foods FAQ Summary Engineers design plants using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to improve...

  5. How GMO Crops Impact Our World

    The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is working with partner countries to use genetic engineering to improve staple crops, the basic foods that make up a large portion of...

  6. GMOs: Pros and Cons, Backed by Evidence

    Summary GMOs are food items that have been made using genetic engineering techniques. They comprise 90% of soy, cotton, and corn grown in the United States. Advantages of GMO foods

  7. The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

    The Truth about Genetically Modified Food Proponents of genetically modified crops say the technology is the only way to feed a warming, increasingly populous world. Critics say we tamper...

  8. Genetically Modified Products, Perspectives and Challenges

    Genetically modified foods should have a special label indicating that they contain genetically modified ingredients. However, as simple as it sounds, the issue of genetically modified products labeling is particularly complex and difficult, as there are important questions about how labeling will be done . For example, it has been argued that ...

  9. Food, genetically modified

    Food, genetically modified. 1 May 2014 | Q&A. These questions and answers have been prepared by WHO in response to questions and concerns from WHO Member State Governments with regard to the nature and safety of genetically modified food. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?

  10. Genetically Modified Food Essay

    1 Page 539 Words Essay on Genetically Modified Food For centuries, mankind has modified crops by selective breeding. Cross-breeding techniques were established by early farmers to grow countless varieties of crops. This allows farmers to produce only the best of the best.

  11. Essay on Genetically Modified Foods

    Genetically modified foods are genetically engineered foods. They are food items generally delivered for public utilization that have been adjusted with genetic material from other living organisms. GMO foods are genetically changed to build up valuable or wanted attributes.

  12. Genetically Engineered Food Essay

    Better Essays. 2444 Words. 10 Pages. 9 Works Cited. Open Document. Genetically Engineered Food. As Scientists commence the unraveling of genetic mysteries the food we eat is undergoing significant changes. From supermarket produce, milk and eggs to tofu, sprouts and garden burgers most have genetically altered ingredients.

  13. Genetically Modified Food And Crops Biology Essay

    There have been doubts on the safety of genetically modified foods especially in the area of human. UK Essays.com. The Essay Writing Experts UK Essay Experts. Order; GBR ; Offers Support 0 Alerts. ... Genetically Modified Food And Crops Biology Essay. Paper Type: Free Essay: Subject: Biology: Wordcount: 3075 words: Published: 1st Jan 2015 ...

  14. Genetic Modification (GMO) Of Food

    Genetic Modification (GMO) Of Food. This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples. Agricultural practices of harvesting crops (fruit and vegetables) must consider the environmental impacts, profitability for produces and unknown effects of the ...

  15. Genetically Modified Food Essay

    Genetically modified foods are a cheap and efficient way for scientists and farmers to create food. The overall prices of genetically modified foods are normally cheaper than normally grown crops. With this being said people believe GMO 's are a no brainer. Genetic engineering is the process of artificially modifying genes by cutting and ...

  16. Genetically Modified Foods: History of Creation and Use

    Genetically modified foods, also known as genetically engineered foods/bioengineered foods are created from living beings that have undergone changes presented within their DNA --- utilizing the strategies of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering permits for the presentation of modern characteristics, as well as more prominent control over ...

  17. IELTS Essay: Genetically Modified Foods

    This is an IELTS writing task 2 sample answer essay on the topic of genetically modified foods from the real IELTS exam. It is only available as a full Ebook on my Patreon.com/howtodoielts. One of the most important issues facing the world today is a shortage of food and some think genetically modified foods are a possible solution.

  18. Arguments Against Genetically Modified Foods

    Genetically Modified Foods: For or Against Essay. Genetically modified organisms have become a highly controversial topic in science despite the fact that people have been changing the genes of crops for years. It begs the question as to why the topic has become an issue.

  19. Genetically Engineered Food Essay

    The production of genetically engineered food, typically by corporations engaged in farming, entrenches on the rights of small farmers, whose natural ways become outdated and costlier when paralleled with the sophistication and cost-efficiency of mass-produced food that underwent genetic modification.

  20. A genetically modified purple tomato can now be raised by home ...

    The genes not only provide pigment, but high levels of anthocyanin, a health-promoting compound. This dusky fruit, named the Purple Tomato, is the first genetically modified food crop to be ...

  21. Genetically Modified Foods: The Benefits Of Genetically...

    GMO's (genetically modified organisms) are becoming commonly used on cash crops that are produced in abundance. For instance, the U.S. uses GMO's to assist in the production of 90% of it's corn, cotton, and soybeans. GM foods present several benefits. Their use requires the use of less chemicals agents and pesticides, GM foods have longer ...

  22. Genetically modified banana resistant to Panama disease given approval

    A genetically-modified (GM) banana is a step closer to commercial reality as Queensland scientists gain regulatory approval to release a GM variety of Cavendish banana for human consumption.

  23. Safety evaluation of the food enzyme asparaginase from the genetically

    The food enzyme asparaginase (l-asparagine amidohydrolase; EC 3.5.1.1) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain AGN by DSM Food Specialties B.V.The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA.