GM food stuffs.

        Another process of genetic modification is by blasting microscopic bullets coated with the foreign DNA at plant cells, often called a “gene gun.”  Sometimes the bullet passes through the cell walls and becomes part of the DNA.  Other times the introduced DNA will miss the cells altogether, or kill them, or break through the cell wall and not become part of the genetic structure.  The “gene gun” is like a shot in the dark because of the inaccuracy of the process.  

        While many Biotech companies insist that there has been sufficient testing, little is known about the effects of genetically engineered foods and our health.  The testing that has been done has been by the biotech companies themselves, on rats or other animals, without review by independent scientists.  Such testing is considered preliminary with, for example, additives and pharmaceutical drugs.  The biotech companies are rushing into the market too quickly, for huge returns, without adequate testing to ensure public safety, and the Food and Drug Administration does nothing.  Scientists say that these genetically engineered foods may produce new toxins, with potentially disastrous results.  “In 1989, a genetically engineered version of tryptophan, a dietary supplement, produced toxic contaminants.  Before the Food and Drug Administration recalled it, the mutated tryptophan wreaked havoc.  Thirty-seven Americans died, 1,500 were permanently disabled, and 5,000 became ill with a blood disorder, eosinophila myaligia syndrome” (The Campaign). Genetic engineers are also using antibiotic “markers” in almost every genetically modified organism, scientists believe they could contribute to the decreasing effectiveness of antibiotics against diseases.  Very few studies are being done to try to determine the effects that the genetically modified organisms will have on our health.          

There are potentially devastating effects that our environment might endure.  One such problem is genetic pollution.  Since it is hard to contain these newly developed plants, farming them will release their seeds into the atmosphere there by infecting non-genetically modified plant farmers’ crops.  The ecosystem is dynamic, and human interference has caused it to change throughout history.  

The threat to wildlife is also present.  While proponents of the technology claim that under field conditions the concentration of pollen on milkweed may not reach levels that cause lethal effects, a study found that altered corn may be deadly to the Monarch butterfly (WVU).  Scientists found that nearly half of a tested group of Monarch caterpillars that ate milkweed leaves dusted with genetically engineered corn pollen died within four days (the campaign).  The soil is also in danger.  A potential environmental risk comes from no-till farming, where the soil remains uncultivated to preserve nutrients in the soil and prevent soil erosion.  The technique is risky because it involves total vegetation control that may affect the ecosystem’s species diversity (WVU).  Studies also have shown that genetically engineered crops may damage the soil by leaking powerful toxins into the soil.  Many of the plants being modified are engineered to produce their own pesticides or toxins to fight pests that eat their leaves.  Researchers fear that beneficial soil organisms may also be killed and that some insects become resistant to the toxins.  Not only could some insects become immune to the toxins, but weeds too might become immune, leading to a new class of “super weeds.”  The largest class of genetically engineered plants is pesticide-resistant crops, such as Roundup Ready soybeans.  Then these pesticide-resistant crops could be spread by means of insect or birds to related weed species causing an epidemic of super weeds.  Though proponents feel this situation is unlikely because of the various types of herbicides displaying different sites and modes of action, it is possible.    

        Labeling is necessary because of the simple fact that little is known about these genetically altered foods.  With such potential risks to the environment and human health, labeling should be mandatory so that people have the right to know what they are eating and the right to choose whether they should consume and hence support such foods.  As is, a majority of American's are unaware that they are consuming genetically engineered foods, such as corn that produces its own poison and tomatoes injected with fish genes to stay fresh longer.  How might a vegetarian feel about that?  They, as of now, have no idea if they are eating a genetically engineered food.  Allergies are also an issue; millions of Americans have allergies to certain foods.  Genetic engineering could increase the risk that they will accidentally consume foods that contain allergens.  If genes of a particular kind of nut are inserted in a vegetable, for example, a consumer who is allergic could be at risk.  Labeling would give people an option of whether or not to support the genetic engineering industry.  Due to the health, environment, and ethical questions revolving around genetically engineered foods, many people would prefer not to support the genetic engineering industry.  The only option so far is to buy all organic food or grow their own food.  People want the right to choose what they eat.  “Public opinion polls consistently show that 80 to 95 percent of Americans want genetically engineered foods to be labeled” (The campaign).  

        Labeling is necessary not just for foods containing substantial amounts but also for any amount of genetically engineered ingredients.  There are for too many potential dangerous effects on the environment and people for these products to be distributed without being labeled.  If the Biotech companies would let other independent scientists test and publish their findings, people would feel safer about consuming genetically modified foods.  Until people feel that these products are safe and are without repercussions, they should be given adequate information so that they can make informed choices.  Genetically engineered food companies should be regulated and mandated to label their products so that consumers can make conversant decisions on what they consume.