Reliance on GMOs and Biotechnology and Potential Environmental and Health Consequences The modern consumer may not be aware of what it is that he or she is actually buying when they go out to the grocery store. When they pick up an apple or tomato, they might very well be purchasing a myriad of chemicals which the producers of that product have inserted into the food. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are becoming more and more common. GMOs are defined as "organisms whose genomes have been modified applying recombinant techniques (rDNA) by transferring extra genes or modulating (knockdown or knockout) genes already present in the species, with the aims of acquiring knowledge on gene functions, obtaining genetic improvement, and yielding selected compounds" (Martinelli, Karbarz, & Siipi 91). Consequently people are purchasing them more frequently, ingesting materials that they should not want anywhere them. Consumption of GMOs has many potential dangers to the human body, particularly if they are consumed in large quantities and/or over lengthy periods of time. In addition to the dangers to the human population, GMOs also pose serious threats to the continued existence of other beings in the world. Producing GMOs has potential environmental consequences which might very well impact human and animal beings in adverse ways. There have already been patterns of negative repercussions seen with the consumption and production of GMOs through the last two decades. It can therefore be assumed that the problems will only increase exponentially in the coming decades due to the dependence on biotechnology and GMOs. Due to these potential dangers, GMOs should be outright banned or, at the very least, limited and any food products which contain them at any stage of production should be clearly identified for the consumer.

The western world, particularly the United States of America, is facing an epidemic of obesity and an ever-increasing percentage of the population is unhealthy. It is highly possible that the increased consumption of food products with GMOs is in some way contributing to the large number of people who are unhealthy in this country. Products from the United States have genetic modification to an overwhelming degree. According to the Department of Agriculture, in the year 2010, "as much as 86% of corn, up to 99% of all soybeans and nearly 93% of cotton were GM varieties" (Mather). Some people estimate that approximately 60% of the food that is eaten in the U.S. has genetic modification at some level of the production. Cows which produce milk are injected with GM material, plants are modified to contain them, they are simply everywhere. The World Health Organization states that adverse health effects related to GMOs include allergic reactions, gene transference, and outcrossing. Gene transference is when the material which is injected into the plant or animal is then passed on to the human consumer while outcrossing refers to the movement of genes into other crops which have not been genetically modified ("20"). For example, some cows are injected with rBST, recombinant bovine somatropin, which allows the cow to produce more milk. However, it has been found that these injections raise the levels of IFG-1, a protein which causes growth. This is then passed to the person who drinks the milk and is often absorbed in the small intestine, which some say increases the risk of cancer, particularly in the breast, colon, and prostate (Mather). This is just one example of the ways GMOs could adversely impact a person's health. The verified accounts of health issues directly related to GMO consumption is not yet sufficient to demand government intervention, but numerous enough to cause concern before making the next grocery purchase.

It is very difficult to have a diet that does not contain some GMOs for at least part of a person's daily intake of food. Occasionally, there are reports of food which has been approved only for animal consumption making its way into foods for humans. This is yet another way that GMOs are consumed unwittingly by average American citizens. This happens far less frequently in other parts of the world, such as European countries like England and France. In the European Union and other nations outside the United States, there are far more regulations regarding food that have been genetically modified. In some countries they have been legally prohibited from being sold at all. Other countries are highly restrictive in the number of GMOs that can be sold and restrictive in the techniques which can be used. This is an acknowledgement of the widespread belief by people in those...

Some states have passed laws which dictate whether or not companies which promote and produce products with GMOs have to state their genetic modifications on the packaging. Petitions have been launched demanding the federal government take action and demand mandatory labeling on all GMOs, but these have largely been ignored. The hope is that if people are aware that they are eating foods which have been the subjected to biotechnological intervention then they will choose not to purchase them in such vast quantities. So far, these initiatives, when brought to the people have not been successful, largely due to the opposition's use of propaganda pushing the fear that such labels would increase food costs. Threatening the economically-drained American citizenry has been an effective method for preventing the labeling of foods in states like California. This opposition, unsurprisingly, is often funded by the food companies themselves who spend millions of dollars to prevent the inclusion of GMO labels on their foods. In the cases where legislation has passed, companies have spent even more money to find loopholes in order to exempt them from the label laws. If they truly did not believe there were any dangers in the consumption of GMOs, then it does not make sense that they would put so much effort and money into preventing their labeling.
In addition to the danger to human beings, there are likely a great number of dangers to the animal world which are directly or indirectly caused by GMOs. Natalie DeGraaf wrote in her article entitled "Changing Seeds, or Seeds of Change?" that there are positive and negative aspects related to GMOs, specifically as they are related to food in the African continent (28). One of the negative components she investigated was the way the insect and animal world is impacted by genetically engineered products. Animals that have been injected or fed GMOs to increase production or to produce food with unnatural components have been found to develop a myriad of health problems. Studies indicate that animals can develop organ damage, gastrointestinal disorders, immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility among other things (Phillips 213). Some genetic modifications have been made to protect crops from the animals or insects that would likely otherwise consume them. One way this has been done is including genetic material from bacteria so that the plant itself produces a toxin with the bacteria. Thus any insects who try to eat the plant are killed by the bacteria which are in the plant (Mather). Eventually the insect population will learn not to attack the plant or will die out and no longer be a problem. Those who advocate for GMOs state that this is a safer, more cost-effective means of eradicating insects over alternative methods like spraying insecticide. This attitude neglects the reality that in addition to the target insect population, other creatures might be negatively affected as well, such as when a predator consumes the dead insect and then becomes ill or dies itself. Many people might not care either way about the matter, being indifferent to whether the insect population becomes extinct in an area. Some people would be indifferent if all the insects of the world were to die, being shortsighted to the necessary functions that insects play in our world.

Besides danger to human beings and animals, there is also a great deal of damage that is done to the environment because of growing GMOs in what had before been fertile lands. Both the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) have issued statements wherein they express the link between "the adoption of GM seeds and environmental degradation, including deforestation" (DeGraaf 29). Lands on which products with genetic modification have been grown are likely to remain contaminated for a great length of time, if not permanently contaminated. Researchers Sylvia Broeders and her associates reported that "soybean and sorghum fields planted on former GM maize test plots have been found to be contaminated with a GM maize developed by the U.S. biopharmaceutical company ProdiGene to produce an experimental…