Genetically Modified Organisms

Curtis Hess
November 18, 2015

A GMO (genetically modified organism) is a process of taking genes from one

species and putting them into another in order to obtain a certain trait or characteristic. A
GMO is defined as any organism whose genes have been altered. GMOs have been in
our crops and food for quite some time but it wasn't until recent years that the topic has
become controversial in the public eye. Because of this fact, food industries have been
making non-GMO options for consumers.
Though many consumers are hesitant to purchase modified foods, much research
is continuing in this field despite the controversy. In Gene-Modified Tomatoes Churn
Out Healthy Nutrients By Emma Stoye, researchers in the UK are genetically
engineering tomatoes to be more nutrient rich and therefore boosting the health of the
fruit. By genetically modifying the fruit, they can also potentially make them resistant to
diseases which is a huge benefit to both the industry and consumers. Though these
specific tomatoes are not yet being sold for consumption (they may be in the future) this
does broaden the debate on whether or not genetically modifying foods should be a
practice widely used.
What it all comes down to in the end are the nutritional facts. The scientific
evidence suggests that there's no nutritional difference between genetically engineered
crops and their conventional counterparts. When rats were fed a GM diet verses a non
GM diet the rats showed no difference in lifespan and health. These tests have been ran
over and over again and more rigorously every time and still show the same results. The
french team that was performing these tests have claimed to run the tests through the
whole lifespan of the rat and not just through the test period that others have done.
Regardless of what this these tests illustrate, there is already food in your local market
that have these GMOs added to them and to their crops. People have been learning more
about genetically modified organisms and they are also hearing the rumors that surround
the topic. The next step to the precess would be to figure out how to properly inform the
public. Where do you look to see whats in your food, you look on the label.
A huge part of the controversy surrounding Genetically modified organisms is the
labeling of the product by the food industries for the consumers. Many consumers and
organizations would like to mandate the labeling of food containing GMOs. However,
this raises another problem because genetically modified organisms are not black and
white. Kevin Bonham stated in his article GMA Labeling, I-522, and Why The Debate
Sucks for Progressive Scientists Like Me, Maybe we should have laws mandating that
all foods that aren't processed to remove their DNA should contain "WARNING: Product
contains genes." Or perhaps the sequence of all of the 2.3 billion nucleotides in the corn
genome be put on the box of any product containing any form of corn. The labeling laws
thus far proposed would be no more informative to consumers. GMOs can already be
found on labels if the consumer knows what to look for. The food industry has already
labeled items that are non-GMO or organic. Bonham quoted I-522 (A legislative initiative
for labeling GMOs and genetically engineered foods) in his article Consumers wishing
to discern between GE and non-GE products can already do so through existing, nonmandatory labeling designations provided by USDA Organic certification, or one of
several private non-GE certification businesses. Labeling is only one of the points in the
overall argument regarding genetically modified organisms.

The fact that there is no concrete evidence that illustrates GMOs, as a group, are
dangerous. There is a simple reason for that, not all GMOs are the same. As Christie
Wilcox stated More to the point, if the goal is to know more about whats in your food, a
generic GMO label wont tell you. Adding Bt toxin to corn is different than adding
Vitamin A to rice or vaccines to potatoes or heart-protective peptides to tomatoes. If Prop
37 was really about informed decisions, it would have sought accurate labeling of
different types of GMOs so consumers can choose to avoid those that they disapprove of
or are worried about. When talking about Prop 37 (Californias proposition for
mandatory labeling) critics tend to bring up the fact the the labeling system that
consumers want to be put in place is too vague and gives very little information on the
GMOs themselves. Regardless of whats on the label it will remain unclear to the average
consumer whether or not the GMOs in a specific food are safe or not. GMOs as a whole
cannot be labeled safe or unsafejust like you could never label humans as being
safe or unsafe as a whole because of the huge variety of people that there are on
earth.
In conclusion, when you look at all of the facts that have been discovered through
testing and given to us, the public, then we know that it all comes down to personal
preference and and the stigmas you associate with that. it has been proven that genetic
engineering and the genetically modified organisms that are placed in food and crops are
harmless and safe to consume. For those that are still put off by the idea and want all of
their food to be the most natural and organic, there are laws and regulation put into place
so that the consumer knows exactly what has been used in or on food that they eat and
that information is easily accessible by simply looking at the label. That right there can
tell you if your food has been genetically modified. The moral of the story here is that
you are free to make the choice between genetically modified organisms and the alternate
and regardless of which side you take, there are plenty of options to ratify both parties but
in the end genetically modified organism have to been proven to not cause and detriment
to your health. What i like to say is that it all ends up in the same place anyway so this
issue isn't something to stress, let alone worry about until or if there is new research
proving otherwise.

Literature Cited

Bonham, Kevin. "GMO Labeling, I-522, and Why This Debate Sucks for Progressive
Scientists Like Me." Scientific American Global RSS. N.p. 8 Nov. 2013.
Coghlan, Andy. "Study Attacking Genetically Modified Food Republished." New
Scientist. N.p., n.d. 24 June. 2014.
Stoye, Emma. "Gene-Modified Tomatoes Churn Out Healthy Nutrients." Scientific
American Global RSS. Chemistry World, n.d. 2 Nov. 2015.