Indiana Uribe Period 1 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are any organism that has had its genes

changed in some way that was not through selection or any other kind of breeding. This usually means that the organism has genes added to it from another organism or there are genes added to do other things. GMOs have been very controversial for many reasons recently. Firstly, some have said that it is impossible to know whether or not they are healthy for human consumption in such a short time period from when they were first okayed by health officials. Secondly, the effect that GMOs have on the environment over the long run is also not yet known. Thirdly, some people that are outspoken against GMOs say that it is against nature and that we are playing God by changing these things. GMOs are seen as good, however I beg to differ. It is not good for us, in the way it is currently used, and it is not good for the environment. The first reason that GMOs should not be trusted to be consumed on such a large scale that it currently is at is that there is not enough monitoring of farmers going on. Jeremy Rifkin critiques how well monitored farms are my saying this: How many farmers are actually creating these refuges? I know that they have licensing agreements where they're supposed to, but you cross America and ask how many farmers are actually spending the time to build these elaborate refuges in their farms. Maybe in some of the test farms that you're in they will say they are. But I know that I've talked to enough farmers that say it's too much time and trouble to do it. Here he is talking about a regulation that is a lot of work for farmers to follow and that they wont want to follow what is the law because it would be more work than they want to do. This is why the farmers shouldnt be trusted to just do what they want and dont want. This means that the environment will be damaged more over time as the regulations given by the EPA are disregarded. The continuing of these practices and lack of understanding for what we do to the environment is not responsible and will eventually lead to damage in the environment. The lack of GMO monitoring is a risk for consumers and is not ethical. Another reason that GMOs are not good is that they are not labeled. Jeremy Rifkin has this to say: You know we label everything in the United States. You can look on a label on processed food, and you can see the whole history of that food. Why would we make an exception when it came to genetically modified food ingredients? The way that GMOs are currently handled is not easy for the average consumer to understand. There is really no real way to tell what contains GMO ingredients. The way to handle this properly is to begin labeling what is GMO in each product and how much of the product is GMO. It not until after we start labelling what is and is not GMO that then consumers can begin to understand what is really in the food they are buying. Allergies have been a slight problem for people throughout the world. GMOs bring in new factors in food that could result in worse allergic reactions. Jeremy Rifkin adds this to the discussion: We know that 8 percent of children and 2 percent of adults have allergenic reaction to traditional foods. What we're dealing with is the introduction of new genetic foods that have genes that code for proteins that we've never consumed. We just don't know what the reaction's likely to be. There is testing that can be done to check if the food is allergic, but the amount of unknown factors and lack of consumer knowledge of all of these factors is very unsettling because they are simply unaware of what may be out there. One of the most compelling reasons for the support of GMOs is that it helps support third-world farmers who cannot successfully farm without GMOs. Luis Herrera-Estrella says this about the support that GMOs give growing nations: The potential benefit is so important that this technology cannot be stopped. It must not be stopped. The GMOs that are supporting these developing countries arent necessarily bad. The biggest concern in using GMOs is the effects on people and on the environment. As long as the GMOs are used minimally and do not implicate doing anything harmful to the people consuming them or the environment then there shouldnt be cause for concern. Another point made that supports the use of GMOs is that they are not really changing the organism. Martina McLoughlin says this about genes: We probably share about 50 percent of our genes with plants. Take an example. There is a protein, Cytochrome C, which is a very important component of our respiratory machinery, if you like. And this product, Cytochrome C, is identical in you, in a pea, in a cow- the total- the absolute same gene. That gene is just a coding sequence. You do not find the whole essence of an organism in

that gene. Because of what she states here one would assume that there is not much difference even though the genes were changed. However, it is in genes that the small things matter even more than we actually think. For instance, there are genetic diseases where only the slightest mutation is what causes them. By this logic one could say that any change in genes is dramatic. Genes are what makes each organism itself, any modification of this would result in the organism not being nearly as organic as it once was. The use of GMOs as a whole is not something that is all good. There is some good and some bad, but it is not healthy for the environment and is not known whether there is any health effects on the consumers of them. The monitoring of GMOs is not yet as good as it should be, so the risk is higher. There is not yet any mandate to label GMOs, this means that consumers are not fully aware of what they are consuming. GMOs could also be an allergen to some people, which consumers do not know about yet. The potential allergen means its a danger people dont understand. Supporters of GMOs may say that they can assist in supporting thirdworld countries, the help is good, but effect on the people and environment must be minimized. GMOs can do a lot to help, but their adverse effects on the environment and the possible risk of harming people is too great of one.