Search Story

Chances are that you have been eating genetically engineered everyday of your life without knowing or
realizing it. The U.S. happens to be the largest producer of G.M.O.s (Genetically Modified Organisms) in the
world. About 90% of all corn, soybeans, and sugar beets originate from genetically engineered (G.E.) seeds.
The concept of G.M.O.s is not new in any way. Since the dawn of time, the human race has been changing
organisms to be more beneficial to our needs. However, for the past 20 years, we have been altering the genes
of organisms directly in labs. Only most recently have people been questioning their negative effects on our
planet and their health, causing them to debate if they should be labeled on store shelves. Many supporters
believe that even products containing trace amounts of genetically engineered material should be clearly marked
and identified. Many scientists do not know all of the long term effects of producing or consuming G.M.O.s but
most consumers do not want to be guinea pigs to find out. For this reason, genetically modified organisms must
be labeled in order to inform consumers.
It is hard to believe that genetically modified foods make up nearly 70% of food products found in U.S.
markets. I strongly agree that citizens have the right to know what they are consuming and supporting by
purchasing genetically engineered organisms. It is for this reason that I selected the topic about G.M.O.
labeling. I already had a general knowledge of the process of genetic engineering and what effects genetically
engineered organisms could have on ones health, but wanted to know more. I wanted to ascertain more ways
that GMOs could affect life on Earth and I wanted to deepen my understanding of what separates them from
conventional organisms.
The first step in any research project is to find a topic that you are interested in and want to learn more
about. It was difficult for me to narrow down to only one specific topic, since there are many different questions
and issues surrounding G.M.O.s. Shortly after narrowing down my question, I found it fairly easy to gather
reliable sources, but much of the information is repeated throughout multiple articles. In addition, according to
my reflection on 2-5-15, a lot of the information stated did not help in supporting my claim but was still
interesting information to be aware of. After collecting sources found via Google or another search engine, I felt

it much easier just stay within the provided databases. Many of the websites and articles that I found were not
reliable using the C.R.A.P. test.
Furthermore, listed in my reflection on 2-5-15, I was amazed at how many different ways I could word
my thesis sentence. I believe that these variations will help the wording of my paper become more diverse. As
stated in my third reflection, completing source cards was, for the most part, painless. The only note cards that
were challenging were the ones for sources found outside of the databases, since most of the information needed
was either not given or was not printed in the article. For this reason, I had to return to those websites to find
gather the unlisted material.
After collecting sources and forming a thesis statement, it was time to start recording facts on note cards.
I thought that this process took the longest since it required me to read and comb through the articles. After I
had about 50 note cards, I still had several sources left, so I wound up with a total of about 65. I sorted these
cards by generic topic. This gave me an advantage when formatting my outline, since I only had to create
subtitles. The last step was to conduct an interview or a poll. Performing a poll would give me the most
information about my topic but it was still difficult to find time to meet face to face with everyone I was
questioning.

Interview/Poll
To gather more information in our topic, my English class and I had the choice of either conducting a
poll or an interview. I opted for holding a poll since my topic focuses around peoples opinions and their stance
on labeling G.M.O.s. Organizing an interview would only have given me the concerns and opinions of one
individual instead of a group of people. The questions listed in my poll are mainly focused around giving me a
better understanding of how other people stand on the marketing of G.M.O.s and their effects. To keep my poll
as accurate as possible, I questioned various types of people. These included students, family members,
teachers, and a mentor or coach. To gather results, I had to find time in which I could meet with the people

included in my poll face to face. In this time, I asked them the questions that I had prepared beforehand and
recorded their responses.
Out of the 10 people polled, 9 (90%) agreed that GMOs should be labeled on store shelves. This
statistic gives me the impression that most people would support my stance on this topic. Additionally, 100% of
the people questioned believe that consumers are uninformed about the food that they buy. By requiring GMOs
to be labeled, it would give customers more clarity and feel more confident about the food that they are buying
and eating. Nine out of 10 people (90%) would not be okay with feeding products containing G.M.O.s, if aware
of it, to their children. This supports the idea that the public has the right to know what they are putting into
their bodies and what harmful changes to the country they are supporting. Furthermore, 90% of the people
believed that GMOs would cause health concerns in the future and 40% agreed that they could cause
environmental problems (50% were neutral). If people conclude that G.M.O.s will cause environmental and
health issues in the near future, they should have the right to know if what they are buying and consuming
products that are the sources of these concerns. If all GMOs are labeled in markets, customers will know how to
avoid them if they felt it was needed.

Search Findings
During the process of genetic engineering, scientists take traits from one organism and place it into
another. Genes that control a particular trait are isolated, cloned, and then transferred into the genes of another
being. Due to these alterations, farmers are able to raise them with less resources, such as less water, than
conventional crops. By 2004, 167 million acres of land have been dedicated to growing G.M.O.s. The U.S.,
Canada, and Argentina have produced 98% of the worlds G.M.O.s. In particular, The company [Monsanto],
based in St. Louis, is the largest producer of genetically engineered seeds and pesticides used to protect them
(Stephanie Storm). In 1994, the first G.E. crop went into markets, and currently 70% of products on shelves
contain ingredients derived from G.M.O.s. Even so, the labeling of these products is still not mandatory.

G.M.O.s have been found to be the origin of many environmental concerns. These include issues that
affect animals and even entire ecosystems. Some G.M.O.s are engineered to constantly produce bt toxin (a main
ingredient in most valuable pesticides) to help repel pests. Due to this continuous production, bugs are
constantly being exposed, which may cause them to become immune. This will become a major problem to
farmers until an alternate detour is found. Furthermore, some growers, unaware of their effects, desire crops
resistant to certain chemical herbicides (weed killer). These desires have created an industry for creating
organisms resistant to these weed killers. Due to cross-pollination, the adoption of these herbicide-resistant
crops could disrupt the overall use of herbicides since some farmers might consider these immune crops as
weeds. This change could cause significant environmental issues not yet determined by researchers. In addition,
G.M.O.s have other characteristics that make them capable of dominating naturally occurring organisms. In the
wild, this could cause the crowding-out and extinction of native species, leading to disruptions in food chains
and ecosystems. Results could include shortages of material needed by non-engineered organisms. Similarly,
genes added to G.M.O.s can easily be transferred to relative plants nearby via pollen transfer. These unwanted
characteristics might cause native plants to grow in unwanted areas, causing farmers to spend more money and
time trying to tame them. Engineering plants also poses a problem to animals living around them. Engineering
crop plants to produce plastics or pharmaceuticals could endanger mice or deer who consume debris after
harvesting (Union of Concerned Scientists). Not only genetically engineered crops create environmental issues
however. Fish have been engineered to contain metal- sequestering proteins ( such fish have been suggested as
living pollution clean-up devices) could be harmful if consumed by other fish or raccoons (Union of
Concerned Scientists). Animals who consume organisms might become ill and transmit diseases to other
animals. In turn, this could endanger entire ecosystems and food chains. If consumers are unknowingly buying
these products, they would be supporting the production of these engineered organisms, which may lead to
environmental catastrophes in the near future.
In addition to environmental concerns, G.M.O.s are suspected to be the source of various health
concerns. G.M.O.s engineered to be resilient against antibiotics are found to produce enzymes used to break
down antibiotics. When eating products containing these crops while on antibiotics, there is a potential risk of

lessening their effectiveness against a disease. Ignorantly, people are decreasing the effectiveness of their
medicine just by eating products they normally purchase at the market. Although highly unlikely, Antibiotic
resistant genes may be transferred into humans and animals, making them immune. If this human or animal
develops an illness, it may not be treatable due to their resistance. In addition, through the process of genetic
engineering, proteins that are not normally found in our food supply can sometimes be transferred into
organisms . It is possible that some of these are allergens, since scientists cannot yet determine if or what genes
would become allergens. However, most genes are sampled from organisms already known to cause allergies in
our food supply. An example is transferring the gene for one of many allergenic proteins found in milk into
vegetables like carrots (Union of Concerned Scientists) Most recently, scientists have found that consumers are
able to be allergic to the four most abundant proteins in an organism. A study by the scientists at the
University of Nebraska shows that soybeans genetically engineered to contain brazil-nut proteins cause
reactions in individuals allergic to brazil-nuts (Union of Concerned Scientists). This poses a problem when
consumers allergic to a certain food group are exposed to its genes in an entirely unrelated food. For example,
some genetically modified carrots contain milk products which could potentially be fatal to shoppers allergic to
dairy products. Similarly, inhaling pollen from genetically modified plants may cause new allergens not already
known to the medical field. These unknown allergens could also cause calamitous results. Other than issues
concerning antibiotics and allergies, G.M.O.s have also been associated with many other health complications.
The Israeli Ministry of Health warns that G.E. pigs, used for human organ transplants, may be carriers of
viruses that can be lethal. For this reason, other G.M.O.s might also be unidentified carriers of illnesses.
Furthermore, some crops, such as rot-resistant tomatoes, have been stopped from being produced due to
possible carcinogens (any substance or agent that tends to produce a cancer). Equivalently, bromorynil, found
in genetically modified cotton, has been linked to birth defects and is also suspected of causing liver damage.
Some buyers do not want to take their chances and buy potential disease transmitters, which is just another
reason why G.M.O. labeling should be mandatory.
In addition to environmental and health issues, G.M.O.s could lead to economic hardships for the U.S.

Regulations in other countries and also within the states could set restrictions on what can be traded within their
borders. The contamination of non-G.M.O. crops causes financial problems for growers trying to market their
products as well. Genetically modified crops can easily pollenate with related conventional plants, causing them
to possess modified genes as well. Farmers in the U.S. have lost billions in markets because of contaminated
food exports and unwillingness of foreign buyers to purchase G.E. foods (Kupfer). Farmers are being charged
for having to test and sort which crops have been contaminated. This would be a large issue if the producers
were trying to sell the crops as G.M.O.-free or organic. Furthermore, some G.M.O.s are engineered to produce
toxins used to ward off predators. This may risk the safety of the national food supply. These pollutants would
also cost extensive amounts of money in order to insure the security of the food supply. If consumers do not
want to risk the welfare of farmers, the labeling of G.M.O.s is required for identification. Profits from trade with
G.M.O. restricted regions is also at risk. Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine have bills, already passed by at least
one state chamber, that require labeling. Similarly, on March 2, 2004, Mendocino County, California prohibited
the raising of G.M.O.s. By 2004, more than 10 states had proposals in for legislation against growing G.E.
crops, and currently, residents of other states are pressuring their state legislatures to do the same. Due to these
concerns in many states, many markets have required that their products be labeled if they do or do not contain
any traces of G.M.O.s. States not included in these laws will have trouble trading with these parts of the
country. In order to simplify these struggles, the F.D.A. must pass a bill stating the necessity for G.M.O. labels
on products. Similar issues are present when trading with other countries. Markets in other countries are now
concerned and avoiding U.S. made products due to heightened involvement in the affair of G.M.O.s. For
instance, the European Union has passed laws requiring the labeling of any foods containing G.M.O. proteins in
the finished product. This also bans products containing ingredients not approved by the Union. These
restrictions make it much harder for the U.S. to sell products to European countries. As a result, it may weaken
the economy due to low income from trading. On the other hand, if the U.S. passed similar bills requiring
labeling, sales in foreign regions would not be affected.
To conclude, the labeling of genetically modified organisms should be required because they pose risks
to the nation and the world. Purchasers have the right to know if the products they are buying contain

ingredients that are potential threats to the safety of the environment, their immunity, and the stability of the
countrys economy. As a result of labeling, consumers would feel more mindful of what they are eating and
what actions they would be supporting as a result. Scientists are still unaware of many of the effects of
producing and consuming G.M.O.s, but the public should not be forced into being guinea pigs to find out.