Genetically Modified Foods Justify Picky Eating

Image Found: HERE on Oct. 7, 2013

In the 1990s Calgene, a California based company, created the first genetically modified food product to hit shelves in the United States, the Flavr Savr Tomato. The nontraditional tomato, which contained a gene that allowed it to last much longer than your average tomato, instantly captured the nation’s attention. Since then, technology regarding genetically modified food and plant biotechnology has been chugging along, promising to make our lives easier, healthier, and just plain better. Genetically modified foods could provide environmental, social, and scientific benefits, and we should continue to research them. However, such foods also pose significant environmental and health risks, ranging from a possible loss of biodiversity to the accidental creation of toxic substances in our food, and to ensure consumer safety we must research these risks at the same rapid pace as genetic modification itself.


Scientists create genetically modified crops and organisms using genetic engineering, and it all starts at the most basic level with an organism’s DNA, or their genetic traits. Simply speaking, they can use this process of biotechnology to take genes that produce desirable traits in one plant and basically give them to another, thereby giving the second plant a trait that it doesn’t naturally possess (Job 1106). Companies like Rothamsted Research and Monsanto conduct research in the quickly growing genetic modification field. Rothamsted, a United Kingdom based company, has been around nearly 170 years, making it “the longest running agricultural research station in the world.” Despite seemingly intense public outcry, since May 2012 Rothamsted has been piloting research regarding genetically modified wheat with a given trait to resist bothersome aphids, or bugs (“Misplaced Protest”). Another company, Monsanto, most recently made headlines when genetically modified wheat was found in Oregon this past summer. From 1998 to 2004 Monsanto experimented with this exact wheat, which contained a gene making it resistant to the herbicide Roundup, but the project was eventually discarded. According to a New York Times article, the use of plant biotechnology has continued to increase and now includes the genetic modification of soybeans, maize, cotton, corn, canola, and more.
Proponents of genetic modification argue that these crops have the ability to make a tremendous positive impact. Kendall Powell, CEO of General Mills, defends these foods, saying they are not only safe to consume, but could also have a positive environmental effects. The second part of Powell’s statement could be proven true. Growing genetically modified foods naturally resistant to pesky, unwanted insects reduces the need for insecticides, which are harmful to the atmosphere (“Misplaced Protests”). The European Oilseed Rape plant, which is used in numerous ways including cooking and even making soap, illustrates this claim. According to an BBC News Article, Rothamsted Research modified the plant using food coloring to create bright red petals, which deter insects, thereby working toward the elimination of insecticides. Perhaps the most effective argument for genetically modified foods is the assertion that by creating them we can feed third world countries’ growing populations while providing needed nutritional benefits to their citizens. (“Misplaced Protests”). Rothamsted’s overall goals sound promising, with objectives to drastically increase wheat output over the next twenty years, develop energy crops that can absorb more carbon dioxide, improve foods’ nutritional value, and devise a sustainable agricultural system, or a system that supports our needs while still maintaining a healthy environment.

Naturally yellow Oilseed Rape fields.  Image Credit: Mark Härtl

Despite an array of conceivable, encouraging effects of genetically modified food, we must ask ourselves this: are they safe for consumption? It is meant to be food, and what good is a food that we cannot safely eat? Opponents of these foods occasionally call them “frankenfood,” claiming they are unnatural (Stone 384). Many genetically modified foods are not yet deemed safe for human consumption, but are perfectly fine for animal consumption. However, the article “Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods” poses the following question: “..if they are not considered safe for human consumption why should they be approved for animals?” (Dona and Ioannis 164). For years scientists have used animals to test new discoveries’ possible influences on human health, so the effects regarding genetically modified foods between humans and animals could be similar. Moreover, some animals we eat have been fed genetically modified food, possibly leading any negative effects straight into our bodies. Thus, it is important to know genetically modified foods’ impact on animals (Dona and Ioannis 164). Remember the Flavr Savr Tomato by Calgene that I mentioned earlier? Well, rats fed the tomato later developed stomach erosion and necrosis. The mortality rates among the rats also increased, seven out of forty died within two weeks, with little to no other logical explanation (Dona and Ioannis 170). Genetically modified corn led to an eighty percent drop in the birthrates of piglets and the development of significantly smaller kidneys in rats (Dona and Ioannis 170). Increased anti-nutrients found in these foods may also cause infertility in sheep and cattle. (Dona and Ioannis 165). Major concerns for humans include the fear of severe allergic reactions and the accidental creation of toxic substances (Dona and Ioannis 165).


While possible health effects are the top concern when talking about genetically modified foods, environmental risks cannot be ignored. Such risks include significant damage to traditional, or non-modified, crops. Even the slightest mistake might lead to the creation of “superweeds,” which could kill off these crops. Contamination of nearby traditional crops could result in a loss of biodiversity, or the variety of differences in the same crop (Boulter 2). It remains undecided whether or not genetically modified foods’ possible positive environmental impacts outweigh the possible negative ones.


The genetic modification process continues to persist forward at an alarmingly rapid pace. Now, scientists and food industry companies have modified 93% of soybeans and 88% of corn; however, as consumers we don’t realize this because it mostly ends up, unlabeled, in processed foods. Recently, a Washington State ballot initiative seeks to make it a requirement for all products containing genetically modified foods to be labeled. Big businesses, like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Bayer, and BASF, have contributed $11 million to stop the law from being passed. If these genetically modified foods are so safe and wonderful, why don’t their creators want them labeled? What could they be trying to hide? Despite very momentous dangers involved with the creation and consumption of genetically modified foods, those in the industry continue to wholeheartedly deny such risks.

Protestors in Indiana call for the labeling of GM food in supermarkets.
Image Credit: Alexis Baden-Mayer

The article “Moral and Ethical Issues in Plant Biotechnology” argues that nothing is ever 100% safe (Straughan 164). However, shouldn’t we at least research these risks to ensure everyone’s safety? Genetically modified foods pose possible health and environmental consequences too substantial to ignore, and we should allocate intense efforts for researching possible hazards before we risk endangering the entire food supply.

Works Cited

(Below are citations for sources where it would be difficult to provide a direct link to a specific article or page. All other sources are directly linked through the text)

Boulter, D. "Plant Biotechnology: Fact and Public Perception." Phytochemistry. 40.1 (1995): 1-9. Web. 27 Sep. 2013 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003194229500207N>.


Dona, Artemis, and Ioannis Arvanitoyannis. "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods." Food Science and Nutrition. 49.2 (2008): 164-175. Web. 15 Sep. 2013 <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10408390701855993>.


Job, Dominique. "Plant Biotechnology in Agriculture." Biochimie. 83.11 (2002): 1105-1110. Web. 27 Sep. 2013. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300908402000135>.


"Misplaced Protest." Nature. 485.7397 (2012): 147-148. Web. 15 Sep. 2013 <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/485147b.html>.


Stone, Glenn. "The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops." Annual Review of Anthropology. 39. (2010): 381-400. Web. 27 Sep. 2013 <http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105058>.


Straughan, Roger. "Moral and Ethical Issues in Plant Biotechnology." Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 3.2 (2000): 163-165. Web. 15 Sep <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369526699000564#>.