Brian Huitt

UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

Do the pros of GMOs outweigh the cons?

Source
Annotation
Non-GMO Project.
GMO Facts. The
NonGMO Project,
www.nongmoproject.
org/gmo-facts/.

The webpage is composed

by an anti-GMO group,
therefore having a
recognizable bias. The
author touches on a lot of
basic information of GMOs.
GMOs are genetically
modified organisms, which
can include plants, animals,
or other organisms, that
have had its genetic
makeup modified by DNA
techniques. These
techniques can be gene
splicing, gene modification,
or transgenic technology.
The main goal of GMO's are
to create organisms that
nature cannot traditionally
create by itself. There are
lots of debates as to
whether GMOs are safe,
and the author at hand
finds that they are not safe.
They note that the U.S. and
Canadian governments are
part of a small percentage
of the developed countries
in the world that allow
them, because of studies
conducted by the
businesses that profit from
GMOs. In the U.S. and
Canada it is not required to
label GMOs, however, they
are labeled all throughout
the European Union. Most
packaged goods are

Thoughts/Connecti
ons
Crazy that the U.S.
and Canadian
governments dont
label GMOs when all
other developed
countries are.
The idea of creating
crops that nature
cant is both cool but
kind of scary.
I didnt know so many
of our crops were the
result of GMOs.
What kind of super
weeds will be
produced and how
soon into the future?

Brian Huitt
UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

composed of corn, soy,

canola and sugar beet.
These crops are commonly
grown in North American
genetically modified farms.
Herbicide resistant weeds
have been produced as a
result of GM crops, which
can only be killed with
vicious chemicals.
Mandel, Ken. GMO
The article details both the
Food Pros and Cons. pros and cons of GMOs. It
Newsmax, 11 June
is written by a health
2015,
website, therefore probably
www.newsmax.com/h takes the side of whatever
ealth/healthis best for the human body.
wire/gmo-foodsIts important to note that
positivesupon research, Newsmax
negatives/2015/06/10 was described as
/id/649812/.
conservative-leaning.
They note that GMOs are
used in 90% of corn,
soybean, and cotton
production, a statistic
similar to the previous
source. They begin
detailing the pros. GMOs
are genetically modified for
multiple reasons, one of
which can be to create
healthier crops by being
more resistant to insects
and herbicides. Also,
engineering the crop can
create a longer shelf life
and provide food to people
in areas without nutritional
food. The environmental
benefits are found in the
minimal time it takes to
cultivate the crops,

This source also cites

that corn, soybean,
and cotton
production are largely
GMO produced. This
proves the credibility
of the statement.
Its interesting how
the shelf life can be
increased through
GMOs, and beneficial
to the less fortunate.
There arent as many
cons as there are
pros, raising some
questions as to why
its this way? Is it the
authors bias (possibly
a conservative bias?)

Brian Huitt
UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

therefore reducing pollution

along with the real estate
needed to grow the crops.
The cons of GMOs are then
listed, lacking as much
substance as the pros had.
Per a Brown University
study, new allergic
reactions can develop by
adding proteins to the
original organism. Also,
consuming GMOs can lead
to a lessened effect of
antibiotics.
Edwards, Terrell et al. The authors of this
Negative Impacts on webpage are college
GM Foods: GMO,
students who attended the
2005,
University of California at
classes.soe.ucsc.edu/ Santa Cruz in 2005. Their
cmpe080e/spring05/p article was also written in
rojects/gmo/negative. 2005, making it ten years
htm.
outdated and possibly
statistically unreliable.
However, important to get
a full perspective on
GMOs, I think it helps to
not just focus on their
present, but also their past.
An older article can provide
more insight of this. The
students had a page
dedicated to the cons of
GMOs, which were as
follows. As much as 70
percent of prepackaged
foods in grocery stores are
composed of GMOs, raising
an eye at the safety of their
consumption. StarLink corn
was specifically designed
for pig feed. Flavr Savr

This website was

written ten years ago,
so how accurate is
the information?
Its concerning that
products such as
StarLink corn and
Flavr Savr Tomato
were in grocery
stores for
consumption.
Monsanto creates the
GMO seeds and
produces Roundup, a
world leading
herbicide. Sounds a
little bit like a
monopoly.
If the $12 million
statistic is true, there
may need to be some
of the GMO reform.

Brian Huitt
UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

@Decodedscience.
GMOs: Benefits and
Negative Effects of
Genetically Modified
Food. Decoded
Science, 19 July
2013,
www.decodedscience
.org/gmo-food-proand-con/23179.

Tomato took longer to rot

but was less resistant to
pests and caught diseases
easily. Next, they talk about
the safety for the
environment. Monsanto,
the worlds leader in
supplying genetically
modified crops, is also one
of the largest producers of
pesticides and herbicides.
Interesting connection
There are also cases of
Monsantos genetically
modified seed spreading
into organic farms and
contaminating them. GM
crops have cost the U.S.
almost $12 million in farm
subsidies and lost sales.
I wanted to collect multiple
sources of just pros and
cons, and this article has
both, but Im going to just
focus on the pros of GMOs
listed. The author of the
website, Janelle Vaesa, has
a masters degree in Public
Health, so its safe to say
shes credible to talk about
GMOs. Per the Office of
Science at the U.S.
Department of Energy, one
benefit of GMOs is a
better taste, increased
nutrients, resistance to
disease and pests, and
faster output of crops.
Following off of this
government endorsement,
the Food and Agriculture

What qualifies as a
better taste?
The vitamin A
deficiency example is
quite a promising
example of the pros
of GMOs.
The Food and
Agriculture
Organization of the
United Nations
endorsing GMOs is
interesting in the
sense of a national
government
conglomeration
endorsing such a
debated topic.

Brian Huitt
UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

Delano, Maggie.
Roundup Ready
Crops. The Roundup
Ready Controversy,
2009,
web.mit.edu/demosci
ence/Monsanto/.

Organization of the United

Nations also states that
farmers can grow more on
their land with genetically
modified crops. As its the
design of GMOs, some
genetically modified
animals have genes
inserted into their DNA that
produces better meat
and dairy outputs. Also, the
environment will benefit
from genetically modified
crops and animals because
of the conservation of land
and water. A good example
of the nutritional take away
from GMOs is the
implementation of higher
concentrations of vitamin A
in rice to minimize vitamin
A deficiency.
Monsanto is the world
leader in GMO seeds and
the proprietor of the widely
popular herbicide,
Roundup. Roundup is used
in commercial farming as
well as in home gardens,
and has a main ingredient
of glyphosate. To benefit
the production process of
crops, Monsanto began
creating GMOs that were
called Roundup Ready
crops. These crops are
immune to the deathly
effect of Roundup,
therefore allowing farmers
to spray their crops and
weeds with the herbicide

Monsanto creating
Roundup Ready crops
is a pretty big
advancement in the
farming industry.
The terminator
seeds are kind of
corrupt, as they only
allow you to use
them for one year,
then purchase new
ones from Monsanto.
The controversy
between yielding a
higher output will be
interesting to see
throughout different

Brian Huitt
UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

The Economic
Argument Against
GMOs: a Top Ten
List. The Inspired
Economist, 26 Mar.
2015,
inspiredeconomist.co
m/2013/02/26/econo
mic-argumentagainst-gmos/.

and not fear losing their

crops. These Roundup
Ready seeds have also
been referred to as
terminator seeds, as they
are only useful for one
growing season. After this,
they become sterile, and
farmers are forced to buy
the updated seed from
Monsanto. Requiring
farmers to buy new seed
each season is seen to
many as a corrupt leverage
tool by Monsanto to ensure
routine profits. Monsanto
has claimed that their
Roundup Ready crops
output higher yields of
crops compared to organic
crops; however, according
to a press release from the
New Soil Association in
April of 2008, there is no
concrete evidence to
support this claim of a
higher yield.
The focus of this website is
to take an economic
approach to worldwide
issues. Therefore, the cons
of GMOs are explained in a
main regard to finances.
The author describes how
soil erosion is a very big
problem in the GMO
discussion, as topsoil that
has high levels of pesticide
is taken away by the wind
that will inevitably blow
into neighboring farms and

sources.

Its scary that

pesticide filled soil
can contaminate the
water supply with its
chemicals
It seems that
Monsanto is only
concerned about
getting their fair
share of the profits of
GMO seeds.
The amount of money

Brian Huitt
UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

the water supply. From

here, Dr. Shiva cites that
When it comes to owning
the seed for collecting
royalties, they [GMO
companies] say, Its
mine. But when it comes
to contamination, crosspollination, health
problems, the response is
were not liable. This
demonstrates the corrupt
values Monsanto stands for.
Next, Shiva notes how that
the chemical agriculture
field receives $400 billion in
subsidies annually. This
large sum of money
inefficiently gets spent
towards producing the corn
and soy that produces the
large meat industry. In
total, factory farms are
receiving 75% of all
subsidies from the
government. Hence, why a
Big Mac is more expensive
than a salad
@Foodandwater.
The article details how
Five Things
Monsanto, the GMO giant,
Monsanto Doesn't
is manipulating the GMO
Want You to Know
market in a negative
About GMOs. Food
manner. Monsanto
&Amp; Water Watch,
produces pesticide
25 Aug. 2016,
resistant GMO seeds,
www.foodandwaterwa therefore, people who buy
tch.org/news/fivethis seed will also buy the
things-monsantoRoundup herbicide. This
doesnt-want-youcreates a double profit for
know-about-gmos.
Monsanto, and alludes to
their monopoly in the GMO

allocated to factory
farms and their large
output of meat seems
to have a corrupt
characteristic to it.

We revisit the claim

that GMOs create a
higher yield, but that
it is unproven.
We also take another
look at the vitamin A
golden rice, but find
that the nutritional
effects of it can only
be unlocked by a
specific, privileged
diet.

Brian Huitt
UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

Griffiths, James.
Chinese Scientists to
Conduct First Human
Gene-Editing Trial.
CNN, Cable News
Network, 21 July
2016,
www.cnn.com/2016/0
7/21/health/chinesescientists-humangene-crispr-cas9/.

market. There is also the

claim that GMOs create a
higher yield, but this is an
unsupported claim. Also,
GMO companies claim their
crops have nutritional
benefits, such as the
golden rice that helps
vitamin A deficiency.
However, the body can only
take in the nutrients in the
golden rice if they have
certain oils and fats in their
diets, which is a commodity
people in poverty eating
the golden rice cannot
afford. There is a final
question of how resistant
weeds and pests will
become to pesticides. More
and more chemicals are
being used, creating
genetically modified crops
that are becoming resistant
to these pesticides.
This articles takes a look at
genetically modifying
human organisms rather
than crops. This raises
ethical dilemmas, as we
have to weigh the
outcomes vs the principles.
Chinese scientists will be
the first ever to inject
genetically modified cells
with gene-editing
technology. The
technology, CRISPR, which
stands for clustered,
regularly interspaced, short
palindromic repeats will

If more and more

chemicals are being
used to make crops
resistant to
pesticides, what is
the likelihood of
super weeds
emerging?

Its kind of awesome

that Chinese
scientists are
attempting to reverse
engineer human cells
to kill cancer cells.
However, where is
the ethical line
drawn?
Pennsylvania is trying
to get a similar
procedure approved,
so how soon is it
before the U.S. sees

Brian Huitt
UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

@Safeaffordable.
Benefits of Food
&Amp; AG
Biotechnology.
Coalition for Safe
Affordable Food,
coalitionforsafeafford
ablefood.org/benefits
-of-biotechnology/.

edit the DNA at hand

precisely. More specifically,
the patients at hand are
those who have lung
cancer and have been
unsuccessful with
chemotherapy and
radiation therapy. The
group of scientists will
extract immune cells and
knock out a gene that will
prevent other cells from
attacking healthy cells.
After doing so, they will
propagate the cells back
into the body and hope the
cancer will be eliminated. A
similar trial is under
contention in Pennsylvania,
and is awaiting approval
from the Food and Drug
Administration.
To balance the amount of
pros and cons Ive listed, I
decided to grab another
source that mentions the
pros of GMOs and
biotechnology. The author
begins by talking about the
environmental benefits of
GMOs, saying that they
produce more while
requiring less resources.
This is a claim that I have
found to be highly disputed
throughout my research.
The author then notes that
GM crops have reduced the
rate of pesticide use by 9%
globally from 1996-2011.
Then, the author (whos

similar actions taken

towards eliminating
cancer cells.

Id prefer to see the

source cited that says
there has been a 9%
reduction of
pesticides used
globally.
The author isnt
listed, so I have no
idea how credible
he/she is.
The author ventures
to say that the rising
population will need
the powerful output
of GMOs, which is
justifiable.

Brian Huitt
UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

credibility cannot be
validated) states that
GMOs have lowered the
price of food for the
consumers by lowering the
price of food production.
They conclude by saying
that GMOs will help feed a
rising population while
using less land but getting
more output.

Palmer, Roxanne.
GMO Health Risks:
What The Scientific
Evidence Says.
International
Business Times, 26
May 2013,
www.ibtimes.com/gm
o-health-risks-whatscientific-evidencesays-1161099.

The article takes a very

academic approach to the
topic of GMOs. The author,
Roxanne Palmer, shares the
results of her findings and
tests related to the health
questions surrounding
GMOs. She gives a quick
background into the GMO
super company, Monsanto,
then dives into the
controversy of the health
risks. She acknowledges
the concern of allergies
from different crops fusing
into other crops, therefore
causing allergic reactions. A
University of Nebraska
team found that a Brazilian
nut protein designed to
raise the nutritional value
of a genetically modified

Its quite alarming

that an allergy can
produced from a
product that should
have no business
giving off an allergic
reaction
How soon will it be
before we see the
U.S. require the
labeling of GMOs?
There is no
conclusive data on
the short term or long
term effects of
GMOs. Sounds
familiar to the
cigarette industry
during its inception.

Brian Huitt
UWRT 1104-029
December 4, 2016

soybean was able to create

an allergic reaction in those
allergic to the Brazilian nut.
There is a large call to
action for the U.S. to make
it mandatory to label
GMOs, partially in part for
this allergy scare. Another
concern Palmer discusses is
the highly disputed rat
testing done by Monsanto.
Monsanto fed test rats their
GM corn to see the results
after 90 days. A French
researcher, Gilles-Eric
Seralini, claimed that after
re-evaluating the math
behind the tests, that the
rats organs were
significantly damaged. He
received skepticism about
his math and future
criticism for his own recreation of Monsantos
tests and the ethics
surrounding it. In
conclusion, there has really
been no progress made on
evaluating the health risks
of GMOs and their shortterm or long-term effects.