Essay on Genetically Modified Food

GMOs, (genetically modified organisms) have been a topic of interest in the social eyes for years. Since they’ve been created, many people have voiced and written about their opinions on GMOs, and whether they are dangerous or not. Created to expand the genetic diversity of crops and animals, many don’t know whether GMOs are good or bad, and neither do researchers. Though there hasn’t been any evidence claiming whether GMOs are good or bad, it has certainly not stopped the public from creating their own opinions. Since no one knows the truth behind GMO, it has opened a window of opportunities for companies including Monsanto to voice their support of GMO, while other companies like the Non-GMO Project voice their

GM foods are in the middle of many controversial issues; primarily these are addressed by conflicts over the relative pros and cons of GM foods. Major biotech companies like ‘Monsanto ' and ‘Cargill ' are promoting GM foods by focusing only on their beneficial aspects, giving least importance to their negative effects on safety, environment and biodiversity. On the other hand, governmental regulators and nongovernmental organizations, along with some scientists, are strictly opposing this type of blind promotion of GM food by enlightening the people on their negative effects The controversies associated with GM foods include issues such as safety, environmental benefits and risks, biodiversity, and ethical and social considerations.GM foods are implicated for adverse human health risks like people being allergic to it, environmental hazards such as development of super weeds, and pesticide and antibiotic resistance in disease causing organisms. On the other

Recently, delegates of famine stricken Southern African nations and representatives from the United States and the European Union came together to resolve issues regarding the acceptance of Genetically modified Food aid from the United States of America. Concerns and complications stemmed from humanitarian, economical, social and political grounds.

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

In North America and Europe the value and impact of genetically engineered food crops have become subjects of intense debate, provoking reactions from unbridled optimism to fervent political opposition.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines genetically modified foods as: “foods [that are] derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism” (WHO, year). GM foods are constructed and distributed because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer. For a GM food to be of theoretical benefit to the consumer and society as a whole, it should: increase crop yields due to the introduced resistance to pests and disease, enhance the nutritional

Genetically modified crops are harmful to humans and the environment and shouldn't be used. Agriculture should proceed in harmony with nature and nature only. That is why some people have decided to buy organically grown food. From their experiences with organic food, they believe that the organic system can be economically practical. This system also provides a wide range of environmental and social benefits, and most importantly, it enables consumers to make a choice about the food they eat. According to Diana Brander, an American biology teacher, we should have the choice of the type of food we eat.

John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution states that “if genetically engineered plants were designed to reverse world hunger, you would expect them to bring higher yields. But there is increasing evidence that they do just the opposite”. Numerous studies have shown that GM crops do not have a higher yield production, but in fact have at times shown a lower outcome. In 2000, “research done by the University of Nebraska found the yields of GE soybeans were six to eleven percent lower than conventional plants” (Robbins). Evidence that GM foods are not the answer to world hunger continues to pile up. Former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman acknowledges that GM crops are not beneficial to solving world hunger: “as of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one” (“10 Reasons Why we don’t Need GM Foods”). Genetically modified corn is a product that has been modified to the extreme in recent years. Here, you can clearly see the physical differences between organic and GM corn. In response to Monsanto’s statement, eighteen African delegates clearly objected, noting that it would undermine their capacity to feed

Food, the heart of every culture, every civilization, every family, the question asked by every starved child: When do we eat next? Starvation and malnutrition choke famine covered countries, bringing desperate children, and desperate parents to their knees. The solution is genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs are not merely practical, but when safely applied they will vastly enhance the production and quality of foods and medicines and quite possibly become the savior of mankind.

Lying in the middle of this conflict are perhaps the most essential parties, the U.S. Government and the American public. The government has not truly taken a stand on either side of this conflict as of yet. Their position can best be classified as optimistic supporters. Seeing as GM foods have not as of yet been subject to heavy administrational burdens, research and testing by several different agencies continues today. The lead agency in biotechnology testing is the Animal and Plant Health

In certain places like England, Gmos have been banned due to safety reasons, yet in American it’s still allowed with occasional debates. Everyone has their own opinion about Gmos and the safe side of it, but is it ok to deny genetically modified when people are actually starving. In the article “Hunger and Biotech wars” we see that question answered and we also see the greedy side of genetic modified foods and how its helps the rich profit and just harms the poor. Zambia was one of four countries that experienced a famine in Africa, and out of desperate need they asked countries for help and if they could provide aid. America being the generous nation it is offered to help Zambia by providing aid for them including corn crops and other foods to help stop starvation. However Zambia wouldn’t accept the aid, instead they saw it as an insult claiming that they were only given that food because they couldn’t profit of off it, so they just give it to the poor Africans to look good. The main person who was against this was their president Levy Mwanawasa who called the food “poison” and stated that he will not allow Zambians to be turned into guinea pigs no matter the levels of hunger in the country” (Peter). This caused a huge conservery and allowed more people to consider the health factors of Gmos and what they can do their bodies. While some people sided with Zambia, others

As with anything in nature, modifying an organism’s intended or natural use can either bring beneficial uses or harmful ones. Monsanto has led the industry for genetically modified seeds, and because of this, is held under much scrutiny for what good or bad they may bring to society. The benefits of growing GMO seed are, on the surface, pretty obvious. They allow farmers to grow bigger and more stable crops, as resistance to insects and weeds plays a pivotal role in the yield farmers see each season. Furthermore, GMO seed can help areas that typically struggle to produce a harvest, such as Africa. Conner, Glare and Nap (Conner, T., & Nap, 2003) note that “the risk of not using GM crops, particularly in relation to developing countries where the technology may have most to offer, should be considered.” (pg.

For GMO activists like Monsanto, the products they produce are healthy for the environment and are a primary component in ending world hunger. Even after hundreds of studies containing trillions of meals consisting of GMO ingredients, there has never been one

With an ever-growing population and the problems of world hunger, there has been a high demand for an increased food supply and a better food supply. Technology has been called upon to meet this challenge. The advent of genetically engineered foods, sometimes called transgenic crops or genetically modified foods, is not a new concept, but the controversy over it is. Can these "frankenfoods" be harmful to humans? What are their effects on the environment? The following paper will focus on such questions as well as providing a better understanding of what genetically modified foods are and how they should be regulated.

Because richer nations don’t currently need GMOs it is easy to denounce them under any possibility that they could be harmful. Because developed nations are not as affected, they would rather just avoid and condemn GMOs seemingly without consequence due to any potential risk rather than actually analyze and evaluate the harmful effects. There are, however, consequences that often go unnoticed in poor nations where the efficiency of GMO crops is crucial to feeding their explosive population growth. Rather than blindly condemn all GMOs, it is important to clarify misconceptions about GMOs so that the debate can shift focus to the extent of screening and testing that should be conducted before approving a GMO product for human consumption.