Genetically engineered/modified means for an organisms whether it be an animal or plant genetic material to be manipulated artificially to most likely make it more resistant or beneficial. We all consume some kind of genetically modified organism, but because they are so new we don’t know the long term effects they have on our body. The first recorded genetically modified organism was the Hawaiian Papaya. In the early 1990’s a papaya was found to have contracted what is known as the Papaya Ring Spot Virus. The papaya was studied and scientist were able to modify it so that it was immune from the virus. It is now the Rainbow Papaya and is the leading papaya export out of Hawaii. Organizations including the National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the European Commission all study GMOs to claim they are safe to eat. Almost all the food we eat in today’s society has been genetically modified in some way. GMOs are another way of selective breeding.
An article that researched for 29 years the effect of genetically modified crops had on livestock came out showing that there is no danger to genetically modified crops. More than 100 million animals were tested and there were no unusual trends in the health of the animals since 1996, which is when GMOs were first introduced. In 2016, a bill was made that stated that if any genetically modified ingredients are used, it must be labeled clearly and that bioengineered food cannot be treated as safer or more dangerous than non-genetically modified. Other stakeholders in this controversy would be the global community, farmers, ecologist, engineers, parents and their children, and advocacy organizations.
Because people have different values and beliefs, they tend to take different viewpoints about the topic of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Some people care about eliminating allergens within food, so they tend to believe that GMOs can help make this possible. Others value preventing malnutrition, which leads them to say that GMOs are a way to accomplish that. Some are worried about the health of the population, so they tend to say GMOs are misunderstood and hurting all of us. All these stakeholders are arguing over a central question: Are Genetically Modified Organisms more beneficial than harmful?
127 our experts are availableright now
In the article “Good as Gold: Can Golden Rice and Other Biofortified Crops Prevent Malnutrition?” the author Mary E. Gearing conveys her opinion on how GMOs and biofortification have the potential to prevent further malnutrition in our world. Gearings’ claim is that “Malnutrition represents a silent epidemic in the developing world, with millions of children dying each year. Biofortification may not be a perfect solution to the problem of poverty in these countries, but it has the potential to greatly reduce the burden of disease” (par. 17). Gearing is a stakeholder in this controversy because she is a molecular biologist and her job is to be able to solve these kinds of problems.
Biofortification increases the nutritional value of crops through selective breeding or genetic modification. The plant itself is altered and made to produce more of the desired nutrients. Gearing states that “It is estimated that at least 3.1 million children die each year and 161 million have stunted growth due to malnutrition”(par. 1). The problem not only is that these children aren’t getting enough food but the food they are consuming does not contain the adequate vitamins and minerals they need. Golden Rice is an example of biofortification as it has been modified to contain high levels of vitamin A. There have been about six-hundred thousand lives saved with other vitamin A supplements, so these are the numbers Golden Rice can reach. But since its first testing 10 years ago the Genetically Modified Organisms controversy has stunted its widespread use. There are many other crops right now being tested to supply other micronutrients these include corn and soybeans. Gearing explains micronutrients as “…a group of compounds that are needed by our bodies in small amounts”(par. 3). Without these micronutrients for a long period of time major diseases may arise. Because the option of biofortification is more costly than traditional means a company named Syngenta has provided farmers that are making less than one-hundred thousand per year with Golden Rice seeds.
One important group in the controversy over GMOs are people with severe allergies to common foods. These people believe there is a way to eat normal food without having to worry about whats in it, they tend to say that you can remove allergens through genetic engineering. An example of such a stakeholder is Charles Xu, who recently argued that with further development of technology it might be possible to remove common allergens in the foods we eat in his article, “Nothing to Sneeze at: the Allergenicity of GMOs,” the principal claim is, “Comprehensive evaluation for market approval, food safety surveillance, and adequate labeling could minimize the health risks of food allergies”(par. 1). Charles Xu is a scientist with a PhD in biotechnology. He supports this argument with two main reasons: (1) removing allergens by genetic engineering and (2) GMOs have been found to not increase allergenicity. For instance, when saying GMOs have been found to become contaminated and adopt other unwanted traits, he insists, “scientists are engineering GMO crops to only self-pollinate or fertilize with manual assistance”(par. 8). Finally, he offers certain kinds of evidence to support his reasons and his main claim. He mentions that an international team of researchers found a way to reducing the amount of gluten in wheat by 76% when demonstrating that with more advanced technology GMOs can become a solution to many problems.
Other people, however, because of their different beliefs and values, take a different viewpoint on the controversy. Scientist against the consumption of GMOs say we should omit GMOs made foods from our diet because they believe GMOs have been falsely advertised and they care about the health and safety of other humans. Since their beliefs and values differ from those of the first stakeholders, they tend to have different reasons, and they tend to cite different evidence in support of their claim. For example, in his article “Genetically Modified Foods Are Not Safe to Eat” Joseph Mercola argues a principal claim in stark contrast to the position held by Charles Xu. Mercola is a Dr. who believes in the use of natural and organic things in health. Where as Xu said, “scientists can reduce or remove the common allergens in our crops with GMO technology,”(par. 8) Mercola replies, “horizontal gene transfer involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results”(par. 9). And Mercola further supports his principal claim with reasons that reflect his values and beliefs. To convince the audience that genetic engineering is misunderstood, Mercola explains, “genetic engineering is based on an extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or adding one or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result”(par. 6).
There is much debate over the controversy involving the producing and consumption of genetically modified organisms. Some argue that GMOs are the solution to many food related problems in today’s society, but others believe that they are harmful and have unknown outcomes. Mary E. Gearing claims that with genetic engineering technology we can prevent malnutrition by increasing the nutritional value and vitamins within these foods. Another viewpoint is expressed by Charles Xu and he believes that we can remove common allergens like gluten with the advancement of genetic engineering. In contrast to both articles, Joseph Mercola conveys that GMOs are negatively impacting our lives and are being falsely advertised to us. As all these articles contain different views they are contributing to the main question, Are Genetically Modified Organisms more beneficial than harmful?
