argumentative essay about genetic engineering

Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering

Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel recently spoke at Stanford on the subject of his new book, The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. He focused on the “ethical problems of using biomedical technologies to determine and choose from the genetic material of human embryos,” an issue that has inspired much debate.

Having followed Sandel’s writings on genetic enhancement for several years, I think that this issue deserves special thought. For many years, the specter of human genetic engineering has haunted conservatives and liberals alike. Generally, their main criticisms run thus:

First, genetic engineering limits children’s autonomy to shape their own destinies. Writer Dinesh D’Souza articulates this position in a 2001 National Review Online article: “If parents are able to remake a child’s genetic makeup, they are in a sense writing the genetic instructions that shape his entire life. If my parents give me blue eyes instead of brown eyes, if they make me tall instead of medium height, if they choose a passive over an aggressive personality, their choices will have a direct, lifelong effect on me.” In other words, genetic enhancement is immoral because it artificially molds people’s lives, often pointing their destinies in directions that they themselves would not freely choose. Therefore, it represents a fundamental violation of their rights as human beings.

Second, some fear that genetic engineering will lead to eugenics. In a 2006 column, writer Charles Colson laments: “British medical researchers recently announced plans to use cutting-edge science to eliminate a condition my family is familiar with: autism. Actually, they are not ‘curing’ autism or even making life better for autistic people. Their plan is to eliminate autism by eliminating autistic people. There is no in utero test for autism as there is for Down syndrome…[Prenatal] testing, combined with abortion-on-demand, has made people with Down syndrome an endangered population…This utilitarian view of life inevitably leads us exactly where the Nazis were creating a master race. Can’t we see it?” The logic behind this argument is that human genetic enhancement perpetuates discrimination against the disabled and the “genetically unfit,” and that this sort of discrimination is similar to the sort that inspired the eugenics of the Third Reich.

A third argument is that genetic engineering will lead to vast social inequalities. This idea is expressed in the 1997 cult film Gattaca, which portrays a society where the rich enjoy genetic enhancements—perfect eyesight, improved height, higher intelligence—that the poor cannot afford. Therefore, the main character Vincent, a man from a poor background who aspires to be an astronaut, finds it difficult to achieve his goal because he is short-sighted and has a “weak heart.” This discrepancy is exacerbated by the fact that his brother, who is genetically-engineered, enjoys perfect health and is better able to achieve his dreams. To many, Gattaca is a dystopia where vast gaps between the haves and have-nots will become intolerable, due to the existence of not just material, but also genetic inequalities.

The critics are right that a world with genetic engineering will contain inequalities. On the other hand, it is arguable that a world without genetic engineering, like this one, is even more unequal. In Gattaca, a genetically “fit” majority of people can aspire to be astronauts, but an unfortunate “unfit” minority cannot. In the real world, the situation is the other way round: the majority of people don’t have the genes to become astronauts, and only a small minority with perfect eyesight and perfect physical fitness—the Neil Armstrong types—would qualify.

The only difference is that in the real world, we try to be polite about the unpleasant realities of life by insisting that the Average Joe has, at least theoretically, a Rocky-esque chance of becoming an astronaut. In that sense, our covert discrimination is much more polite than the overt discrimination of the Gattaca variety. But it seems that our world, where genetic privilege exists naturally among a tiny minority, could conceivably be less equal (and less socially mobile) than a world with genetic engineering, where genetic enhancements would be potentially available to the majority of people, giving them a chance to create better futures for themselves. Supporters of human genetic engineering thus ask the fair question: Are natural genetic inequalities, doled out randomly and sometimes unfairly by nature, more just than engineered ones, which might be earned through good old fashioned American values like hard work, determination, and effort?

“But,” the critics ask, “wouldn’t genetic engineering lead us to eugenics?” The pro-genetic engineering crowd thinks not. They suggest that genetic engineering, if done on a purely decentralized basis by free individuals and couples, will not involve any form of coercion. Unlike the Nazi eugenics program of the 1930s, which involved the forced, widespread killing of “unfit” peoples and disabled babies, the de facto effect of genetic engineering is to cure disabilities, not kill the disabled. This is a key moral difference. As pointed out by biologist Robert Sinsheimer, genetic engineering would “permit in principle the conversion of all the ‘unfit’ to the highest genetic level.” Too often, women choose to abort babies because pre-natal testing shows that they have Down syndrome or some other ailment. If anything, genetic engineering should be welcomed by pro-life groups because by converting otherwise-disabled babies into normal, healthy ones, it would reduce the number of abortions.

In addition, the world of Gattaca, for all its faults, features a world that, far from being defined along Hitler-esque racial lines, has in fact transcended racism. Being blond-haired and blue-eyed loses its racially elitist undertones because such traits are easily available on the genetic supermarket. Hair color, skin color, and eye color become a subjective matter of choice, no more significant than the color of one’s clothes. If anything, genetic engineering will probably encourage, not discourage, racial harmony and diversity.

It is true that genetic engineering may limit children’s autonomy to shape their own destinies. But it is equally true that all people’s destinies are already limited by their natural genetic makeup, a makeup that they are born with and cannot change. A short person, for example, would be unlikely to join the basketball team because his height makes it difficult for him to compete with his tall peers. An ugly person would be unable to achieve her dream of becoming a famous actress because the lead roles are reserved for the beautiful. A myopic kid who wears glasses will find it difficult to become a pilot. A student with an IQ of 75 will be unlikely to get into Harvard however hard he tries. In some way or another, our destinies are limited by the genes we are born with.

In this sense, it is arguable that genetic engineering might help to level the playing field. Genetic engineering could give people greater innate capacity to fulfill their dreams and pursue their own happiness. Rather than allow peoples’ choices to be limited by their genetic makeup, why not give each person the capability of becoming whatever he or she wants to, and let his or her eventual success be determined by effort, willpower, and perseverance? America has long represented the idea that people can shape their own destinies. To paraphrase Dr. King, why not have a society where people are judged not by the genes they inherit, but by the content of their character?

Looking at both sides, the genetic engineering controversy does raise questions that should be answered, not shouted down. Like all major scientific advances, it probably has some negative effects, and steps must be taken to ameliorate these outcomes. For example, measures should also be taken to ensure that genetic engineering’s benefits are, at least to some extent, available to the poor. As ethicists Maxwell Mehlman and Jeffrey Botkin suggest in their book Access to the Genome: The Challenge to Equality, the rich could be taxed on genetic enhancements, and the revenue from these taxes could be used to help pay for the genetic enhancement of the poor. To some extent, this will help to ameliorate the unequal effects of genetic engineering, allowing its benefits to be more equitably distributed. In addition, caution must be taken in other areas, such as ensuring that the sanctity of human life is respected at all times. In this respect, pro-life groups like Focus on the Family can take a leading role in ensuring that scientific advances do not come at the expense of moral ethics.

At the same time, we should not allow our fear of change to prevent our society from exploring this promising new field of science, one that promises so many medical and social benefits. A strategy that defines itself against the core idea of scientific progress cannot succeed. Instead of attempting to bury our heads in the sand, we should seek to harness genetic engineering for its positive benefits, even as we take careful steps to ameliorate its potential downsides.

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Technology & Engineering — Genetic Engineering

Essays on Genetic Engineering

What makes a good genetic engineering essay topic.

When it comes to writing a captivating genetic engineering essay, the topic you choose is paramount. It not only grabs the reader's attention but also allows for effective exploration of the subject matter. So, how can you brainstorm and select a standout essay topic? Here are some recommendations:

• Brainstorm: Kickstart your ideas by brainstorming topics related to genetic engineering. Consider the latest advancements, ethical concerns, controversial issues, or potential future applications. Jot down any ideas that come to mind.
• Research: Once you have a list of potential topics, conduct thorough research to gather relevant information and understand different perspectives. This will help you evaluate the feasibility and depth of each topic.
• Consider Interest: Choose a topic that genuinely piques your interest. Writing about something you are passionate about will make the entire process more enjoyable and motivate you to delve deeper into the subject matter.
• Relevance: Ensure that the chosen topic is relevant to genetic engineering. It should align with the scope of the subject and allow you to explore various aspects related to it.
• Uniqueness: Strive for a unique and imaginative topic that stands out from the ordinary. Steer clear of generic subjects and instead focus on specific areas or emerging trends within genetic engineering.
• Controversy: Controversial topics often generate more interest and discussion. Consider exploring ethical dilemmas, potential risks, or societal impacts of genetic engineering to add a thought-provoking element to your essay.
• Depth and Scope: Assess the depth and scope of each topic. Make sure it provides enough material for a comprehensive essay without being too broad or too narrow.
• Audience Appeal: Keep your target audience in mind. Choose a topic that would captivate readers, whether they are experts in the field or individuals with limited knowledge about genetic engineering.
• Originality: Strive for originality in your topic selection. Look for unique angles, lesser-known areas, or innovative applications of genetic engineering that can make your essay stand out.
• Personal Connection: If possible, choose a topic that connects with your personal experiences or future aspirations. This will enhance your engagement and make your essay more meaningful.

Igniting Thought: The Finest Genetic Engineering Essay Topics

Below are some of the most captivating genetic engineering essay topics to consider:

• Genetic Engineering and the Future of Human Evolution
• The Ethical Dilemmas of Designer Babies
• Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: Balancing Benefits and Concerns
• CRISPR-Cas9: Unleashing Revolutionary Potential in Genetic Engineering
• The Potential of Genetic Engineering in Cancer Treatment
• Genetic Engineering's Role in Creating Sustainable Food Sources
• Genetic Engineering and Animal Welfare: Navigating Ethical Considerations
• Genetic Engineering and its Impact on Biodiversity
• The Social and Economic Implications of Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Engineering's Influence on Human Longevity
• Enhancing Athletic Performance: The Power of Genetic Engineering
• Genetic Engineering Techniques for Disease Prevention and Treatment
• Genetic Engineering's Role in Environmental Conservation
• Genetic Engineering and the Preservation of Endangered Species
• The Psychological and Societal Effects of Genetic Engineering
• The Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering for Non-Medical Purposes
• Exploring the Potential Risks and Benefits of Genetic Engineering in Space Exploration
• Genetic Engineering and the Creation of Biofuels
• The Morality of Genetic Engineering: Insights from Religious and Philosophical Perspectives
• Genetic Engineering's Role in Combating Climate Change

Thought-Provoking Genetic Engineering Essay Questions

Consider these stimulating questions for your genetic engineering essay:

• How does genetic engineering impact the concept of natural selection?
• What are the potential consequences of genetic engineering on human genetic diversity?
• Is it ethically justifiable to use genetic engineering for cosmetic purposes?
• How does genetic engineering contribute to the development of personalized medicine?
• What are the social implications of genetically modifying animals for human consumption?
• How does the use of genetic engineering in agriculture affect food security?
• Should genetic engineering be used to resurrect extinct species?
• What are the potential risks and benefits of genetically modifying viruses for medical purposes?
• How does genetic engineering influence the balance between individual rights and societal well-being?
• Can genetic engineering be the solution to eradicating genetic diseases?

Provocative Genetic Engineering Essay Prompts

Here are some imaginative and engaging prompts for your genetic engineering essay:

• Imagine a world where genetic engineering has eliminated all hereditary diseases. Discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a scenario.
• You have been granted the ability to genetically engineer one aspect of yourself. What would you choose and why?
• Write a fictional story set in a future where genetic engineering is widespread and explore the consequences it has on society.
• Reflect on the ethical considerations of genetically modifying animals for entertainment purposes, such as creating glow-in-the-dark pets.
• Create a persuasive argument for or against the use of genetic engineering in enhancing human intelligence.

Answering Your Genetic Engineering Essay Queries

Q: Can I write about the history of genetic engineering?

A: Absolutely! Exploring the historical context of genetic engineering can provide valuable insights and set the foundation for your essay.

Q: How can I make my genetic engineering essay engaging for readers with limited scientific knowledge?

A: Simplify complex concepts and terminologies, provide relevant examples, and use relatable analogies to help readers grasp the information more easily.

Q: Can I express my personal opinion in a genetic engineering essay?

A: Yes, expressing your personal opinion is encouraged as long as you support it with logical reasoning and evidence from reputable sources.

Q: Are there any potential risks associated with genetic engineering that I should discuss in my essay?

A: Yes, incorporating a discussion on the potential risks and ethical concerns surrounding genetic engineering is essential to provide a balanced perspective.

Q: Can I include interviews or case studies in my genetic engineering essay?

A: Absolutely! Interviews or case studies can add depth and real-life examples to support your arguments and make your essay more compelling.

Remember, when writing your genetic engineering essay, let your creativity shine through while maintaining a formal and engaging tone.

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering: The Need for Proper Regulation

The pros and cons of genetic engineering and the need for regulation, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Ethics of Genetic Engineering in Human Enhancement

Genetic engineering, ethical issues of genetic engineering, the dangers of genetic engineering to humanity, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Use and Ethics of Genetic Engineering

The potential and consequences of genetic engineering, the issue of the use of genetic modification of humans, reasons why genetic engineering should be banned, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Genetic Engineering: an Overview of The Dna/rna and The Crispr/cas9 Technology

Review of human germline engineering, positional cloning of genetic disorders, engineering american society: the lesson of eugenics, bioethical issues related to genetic engineering, cloning and ethical controversies related to it, genetic editing as a possibility of same-sex parents to have children, adhering to natural processes retains the integrity of a natural human race  , genetically modified organisms: soybeans, gene silencing to produce milk with reduced blg proteins, the role of crispr-cas9 gene drive in mosquitoes, the life of gregor mendel and his contributions to science, eugenics, its history and modern development, morphological operation hsv color space tree detetction, cytogenetics: analysis of comparative genomic hybridization and its implications, genetically engineered eucalyptus tree and crispr, review of the process of dna extraction, review of the features of the process of cloning, heterologous gene expression as an approach for fungal secondary metabolite discovery, review of the genetic algorithm searches.

Genetic engineering (also called genetic modification) is a process that uses laboratory-based technologies to alter the DNA makeup of an organism.

Genetic engineering as the direct manipulation of DNA by humans outside breeding and mutations has only existed since the 1970s. In 1972, Paul Berg created the first recombinant DNA molecules by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with that of the lambda virus. The first field trials of genetically engineered plants occurred in France and the US in 1986, tobacco plants were engineered to be resistant to herbicides.

It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. New DNA is obtained by either isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using recombinant DNA methods or by artificially synthesising the DNA. Used in research and industry, genetic engineering has been applied to the production of cancer therapies, brewing yeasts, genetically modified plants and livestock, and more.

Relevant topics

• Engineering
• Charles Darwin
• Mathematics in Everyday Life
• Natural Selection
• Space Exploration
• Time Travel

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

January 16, 2019

Human Gene Editing: Great Power, Great Responsibility

Modifying the human germline has profound implications and must be approached with extraordinary care

By E. Paul Zehr &

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

We are at the point where our technology will soon surpass our humanity. It used to be that what we had in our jeans was just what we had in our genes. But we no longer are reliant on choosing our parents wisely. It was always going to happen. The new gene editing techniques were always going to be used to alter the genome in non-medically indicated cases. But it wasn’t anticipated we’d so soon have nontherapeutic application in human embryos.

On November 28, 2018, He Jiankui, from the Southern University of Science and Technology in Guangdong China, revealed that he had performed ex vivo gene editing on two human embryos. This was presented at the International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong. It was not a therapeutic, medically indicated procedure, but, regardless, it was unethical and illegal in most countries.

 As an actual practicing scientist and as a human, I strongly advocate for advancement of science and leveraging our advances to enhance our species. Despite that, and somewhat ironically, when I began writing my most recent book, Chasing Captain America: How Advances in Science, Engineering, and Biotechnology Will Produce a Superhuman —a book explicitly focused on examining the science of altering human biology—I was skeptical about enhancing humanity. I challenged my perspective while writing and came to think we have an obligation to modify human form and function so we have the best chance to flourish on Earth and in space. Given the recently revealed experiments in which human embryos underwent nontherapeutic gene edits and were brought to term, we need to consider deeply the implications of this and ensure that what we do and how we proceed are grounded in ethical principles agreed upon by all of us.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The idea of genetic engineering contained in gene editing is really no different in outcome than the pioneering work of Gregor Mendel in the mid-19th century and his detailed experiments with plants, particularly beans and peas. Mendel’s detailed observations of more than 10,000 plants taken over just about 10 years were published in 1866 and revealed the targeted changes in a living organism that could be obtained by breeding for desired characteristics.

Instead of producing desired characteristics, most of the biomedical work on gene therapy in our modern age focuses on therapeutic, medically indicated applications in inherited diseases and cancers. Many of these medical conditions arise because of dysfunctions in cellular metabolism, growth and viability. Of course, it is probably natural that along with the therapeutic application, there’s been interest in applications not aimed at “curing” disease but rather altering human performance in the otherwise “healthy.”

Gene editing techniques generally involve proteins that cut DNA, such as those employed in CRISPR-Cas9, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and zinc-finger nucleases. The most commonly used Cas enzyme, Cas9, comes from Streptococcus pyogenes —the one that gives you strep throat and was proven viable in mouse and human cells in 2013. The basic process is that the CRISPR molecule is programmed to search for a specific nucleotide sequence among the 3 billion in the human genome. Once the correct sequence is identified, CRISPR unwinds the coils of DNA coils and “snips” the sequence out of the strand. DNA strands are then repaired in the case of a gene deletion, or, for an insertion, a new sequence can be included to alter the genome.

Performed in an embryonic germ line cell, an egg or a sperm cell, gene “edits” will be part of the genetic code that goes to the next generation. But there can be errors—in other words, editing more than intended—with targeting associated with the guide RNA used to target the deletions. It is the presence of these “off-target repeats” that indicates extreme caution and a need for better regulation before techniques like CRISPR can have safe clinical application.

As such, we as scientists and society must also balance the potential good associated with new techniques and the prospect of doing something just because we could. Gene editing places great power over altering the fundamental principles of biology, and our whole society needs to part of the discussion on what is okay to do and what is not. And we need to move quickly but not in a hurry.

It’s critical to think about the path ahead—which one to take and to where—before we arrive. Scientists and engineers at work right now are working to enable the realization of our common futures. But guiding the implementation of that future is the right and responsibility of us all and cannot be entrusted exclusively to those at work in the field and laboratories, nor to those who attempt to regulate their work, our lawmakers and bureaucrats.

The future we invent can be bright—but there are strings attached. The most important string is that we need input from as many sectors in our society as possible. The decisions that are made will literally affect the future of our species and cannot be made in isolation from our society as a whole.

Science works as a machine of chance effects with experimental outcomes; tested against a backdrop of random occurrences and biological evolution is the emergence of chance survival characteristics expanding over millions of years. There is a pace and timing to adaptations. Yet, any modifying of the human germ line—editing sperm or egg cells—has direct implications for the next generation and must be done carefully in light of regulations specifically addressing this kind of experimentation. In many countries there is a de facto moratorium on human germ line and embryo editing because such work is illegal. It is also completely unethical, not least of all because of lack of consent.

Eike-Henner Kluge from the University of Victoria has written that “germ line alteration would be performed without the consent of those who are most affected: namely, future generations.” And C.S. Lewis, when he wasn’t enthralling us with the Chronicles of Narnia, wrote in 1965’s The Abolition of Man that if a society gains power to make descendants “what it pleases, all men who live after it are patients of that power … the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men.”

All of us citizens, scientists, engineers and future users of human enhancement methodologies must proceed with conviction but also caution, with purpose but also extreme care. It’s critical to appreciate the implications of the power of science as articulated by Richard Dawkins that “science is the most powerful way to do whatever it is you want to do. If you want to do good, it’s the most powerful way of doing good. If you want to do evil, it’s the most powerful way to do evil.” Never before have we—or any other species on this planet—had such influence and so much power over the fundamental nature of our own biology.

The nontherapeutic use of gene editing on human embryos was and remains unethical and illegal on every level. Yet, now we need to leverage attention on gene editing and human enhancement into a real conversation about the future our species. As the late Stan Lee wrote back in 1962 in Amazing Fantasy , the first comic book featuring Spider-Man, “with great power there must also come—great responsibility!”

Both must be exercised judiciously here and now in real life.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Psychology

Genetic Engineering Should Be Supported Argumentative Essay Examples

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Psychology , Health , Eugenics , Genetics , Human , Biotechnology , Therapy , Life

Words: 1200

Published: 01/31/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Scientists in the world are quickly deciphering the genetic coding of life, making mysteries on the biological evolution of human beings dating to millions of years being unlocked. The immense advances in the biotech industry has made Global life science companies ready to exploit the economic benefits that will be enjoyed in this century which is presumed to be a Biotech century. Arguably, the new commercial genetics industry will have the biggest impact in this century than any other field of study. In fact, in less than 10 years, global life science companies will be holding patents on the more than 30,000 genes that make up the human race. In addition, they will be holding patents for organs, cell lines and tissues, giving them the ultimate power of dictating the terms by which the future generations live their daily lives. It is for this reason that I believe that eugenics will be the most defining social dynamic of the century due to the numerous solutions it promises and has already started to offer to the human race. ‘In our bodies our technologies’, Ray Kurzwel explains numerous technologies that will allow human beings to control their bodies and its biological predispositions. He predicts how technological advancements by the year 2020 will have led to the use of micro cell-sized devices that would be able to go inside our bodies and up to the brain to perform different therapeutic functions. It is a major breakthrough by how far we have gone into understanding life processes such as diseases, ageing, and gaining tools and procedures on how to manipulate them. This means that a long and healthy life has been assured to mankind. Human beings would no longer rely on natural selection and the ‘survival for the fittest’ ideology as Charles Darwin had suggested. Life would be much more easier to live if the biotech developments that Ray Kurzwel anticipates would come to pass. Another major advantage that comes with the modern eugenics and the biotechnology progress is a process referred to as miniaturization (Ray 10). With this process, we are showing the possibility of actually constructing a myriad of things at the molecular level that can ultimately enable us to perfom different useful functions. To show the feasibility of eugenics, Rob Freitas has already developed a nanorobitic red blood cell that has the ability to store and let out oxygen. With his invention in action, if you were to replace just 10% of your red blood cells with this designed respirocytes, one would be able to do Olympic sprints for more than 15 minutes without even taking a breath, or sitting down at the bottom of a swimming pool for 4hours. This genetic engineering breakthrough is very beneficial to the large numbers of patients that are suffering from oxygen deficiency diseases such as headaches, asthma and cancer, In fact oxygen is the food to the brain and should never run out or be in low supply. It may appear very futuristic how 2020 would be a turning point in the biotechnology field. The computers that we use nowadays would disappear and be integrated into our clothing and environment (Ray 9). A design of a robotic white blood cell is already underway, this will be a bit complicated since it will be able to download different software from the internet so as to combat germs and disease causing pathogens. I know it may Sound too good to be true? But It is worth noting that there are almost similar dozens of neural implants that the FDA has already approved to be tested in human beings. Already an implant that replaces the neurons destroyed by the Parkinson’s disease has already been approved by the FDA. Therefore it appears that by 2020’s , it will be the non-biological portion of our civilization that will be pre- dominant. Unlike the 20th century eugenics, which was harmful and inhuman since they involved the mass killing of individuals who were deemed genetically unfit in order to stop them from reproducing and filling the society with undesirable genetic characteristics, the modern eugenics are solely driven by the desire to scientifically improve on the human gene to a better and more desirable form. The modern eugenics take different forms such as Vitro fertilization, surrogacy, gene therapy, germ-line therapy, cloning, and the most recent form being the mitochondria transfer. Though the federal government has not openly supported eugenics, they have not yet put any strict measure to curb this rapidly growing multi-billion industry. Statics show that since 1990, the number of women who give birth from donor eggs has risen by more than 78% and with the largest population being women between the ages 35-45. However, I acknowledge that most of this practice and advancement in biotechnology mostly face more criticism than support from the same people it is intended to benefit. Among the most controversial parts of eugenics is the prospect of conducting human germ therapy. The thought of programming genetic changes in the human germ line so as to direct the evolutionary developments of the future generations raises unprecedented moral, social and environmental risks for the whole of the human race. To counter this claim, Dr. Burke Zimmerman in his journal of medicine and philosophy comes out strongly to defend germ line cell therapy over somatic cell therapy. He argues that somatic cell therapy will only be responsible in increasing survivors with defective genes in their germ lines and passing it to succeeding generations. Eugenics allows parents to carefully analyze the traits that they would wish to be transferred to their offspring. Giving people the ability to decide on how their offspring will look like is one of the best gifts the 21st century has endowed to our parents. A notable writer in the New York times, Peggy Orenstein , explained in her article Your gamete, myself how a woman using these services is able to pick through a book looking at the pictures of other women and choosing from whose eggs she finds desirable based on the eye color, hair color or even through the GPA (Peggy 8). This is just the tip of what genetic engineering can be able to do for us in order to unchain us from transferring some characteristics that we highly do not desire to be inherited by our offspring. Having based my arguments on logical facts, I highly believe that genetic engineers should be accorded both the moral and financial support they deserve to enable them to effectively conduct researches that will eventually help alleviate the a myriad of unspoken suffering that most people might be going through but just persevere due to lack of an alternative. I came to this conclusion because I believe that anything that is made or can be used for the betterment of the society and the human race at large should be supported.

Works cited

Orenstein, Peggy. "Your gamete, myself." New York Times 15 (2007). Ray Kurzwell,’ Our bodies,our technologies’.. March 16, 2006 web April 11,2013 Rifkin, J. "Ultimate Therapy." Harv. Int. Rev., Cambridge: Spring 27.1 (2005): 44-49.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1673

This paper is created by writer with

ID 281226156

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Management creative writings, environmental justice creative writings, abortion creative writings, politics creative writings, communication creative writings, technology creative writings, workplace creative writings, vitamins creative writings, viruses creative writings, income statement research papers, medical care literature reviews, caretaker literature reviews, immorality literature reviews, feasibility literature reviews, medical record literature reviews, slapstick essays, ankle essays, wadi essays, hapsburg essays, mixer essays, earths surface essays, ultraviolet radiation essays, knock essays, rashomon essays, radford essays, mauretania essays, reisman essays, lyall essays, essay on leader profile, hantaviruses research paper examples, inflation research paper examples, a complex and a classical society and their effect world term paper examples, free report on podcast webcast review, example of report on qualitative interview, security firm targets mobile carriers report examples, inventory management models report sample, essay on breaking the silence truth and lies in the war on terror, the impact of bivens course work examples, terrorism and homeland security essay example, essay on responsibility 3, example of making relationships work movie review, argumentative essay on rebuttal essay, example of essay on why abortion should be legalized in america.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Genetically Modified Food Essay

Need to write a genetically modified foods essay? Take a look at this example! This argumentative essay on GM foods explains all the advantages and disadvantages of the issue to help you form your own opinion.

Introduction

• The Benefits
• The Drawbacks

Genetically modified (GM) foods refer to foods that have been produced through biotechnology processes involving alteration of DNA. This genetic modification is done to confer the organism or crops with enhanced nutritional value, increased resistance to herbicides and pesticides, and reduction of production costs.

The concept of genetic engineering has been in existence for many years, but genetic modification of foods emerged in the early 1990s. This genetically modified food essay covers the technology’s positive and negative aspects that have so far been accepted. Currently, a lot of food consumed is composed of genetically altered elements, though many misconceptions and misinformation about this technology still exist (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically modified foods have been hailed for their potential to enhance food security, particularly in small-scale agriculture in low-income countries.

It has been proposed that genetically modified foods are integral in the enhancement of safe food security, enhanced quality, and increased shelf-life, hence becoming cost-effective to consumers and farmers. Proponents of this technology also argue that genetically modified foods have many health benefits, in addition to being environmentally friendly and the great capability of enhancing the quality and quantity of yields (Kumar et al., 2020).

Genetically modified foods are, therefore, considered to be a viable method of promoting food production and ensuring sustainable food security across the world to meet the demands of the increasing population. This genetically modified food advantages and disadvantages essay aims to cover conflicting perspectives in the technology’s safety and efficacy. In spite of the perceived benefits of genetic engineering technology in the agricultural sector, the production and use of genetically modified foods have triggered public concerns about safety and the consequences of consumption (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically Modified Foods: The Benefits

Many champions of GM food suggest the potential of genetic engineering technology in feeding the huge population that is faced with starvation across the world. Genetically modified foods could help increase production while providing foods that are more nutritious with minimal impacts on the environment.

In developing countries, genetic engineering technology could help farmers meet their food demands while decreasing adverse environmental effects. Genetically modified crops have been shown to have greater yields, besides reducing the need for pesticides.

This is because genetically modified crops have an increased ability to resist pest infestation, subsequently resulting in increased earnings (Van Esse, 2020). Some genetically engineered crops are designed to resist herbicides, thus allowing chemical control of weeds to be practiced. Foods that have been genetically modified are perceived to attain faster growth and can survive harsh conditions due to their potency to resist drought, pests, and diseases.

Genetically modified foods have also been suggested to contain many other benefits, including being tastier, safer, more nutritious, and having longer shelf life. Though scientific studies regarding the safety and benefits of genetically modified foods are not comprehensive, it is argued that critics of this technology are driven by overblown fears (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically Modified Foods: The Drawbacks

To most opponents of the technology’s application in agriculture, issues relating to safety, ethics, religion, and the environment are greater than those that are related to better food quality, enhanced production, and food security. Genetic modification technology is perceived to carry risks touching on agricultural practices, health, and the environment.

The major issue raised by society concerning this technology pertains to whether genetically modified foods should be banned for people’s benefit. The gene transfer techniques are not entirely foolproof, thus raising fears that faults may emerge and lead to many unprecedented events.

There is a possibility that DNA transfer to target cells may not be effective. Alternatively, it may be transferred to untargeted points, with the potential effect being the expression or suppression of certain proteins that were not intended. This may cause unanticipated gene mutations in the target cells, leading to physiological alterations (Turnbull et al., 2021).

A number of animal studies have indicated that genetically modified foods could pose serious health risks/ Those include the tendency to cause impotency, immune disorders, acceleration of aging, hormonal regulation disorders, and alteration of major organs and the gastrointestinal system (Giraldo et al., 2019). It has also been demonstrated that genetically modified foods can act as allergens and sources of toxins.

Opponents argue that there is a lack of clear regulatory mechanisms and policies to ensure that genetically modified foods are tested for human health and environmental effects. Thus, human beings allegedly become reduced to experimental animals subjected to adverse toxic effects and dietary problems.

In animals, it has been argued that the use of genetically modified feeds causes complications, such as premature delivery, abortions, and sterility, though these claims have later been debunked (Xu, 2021). Some genetically modified crops, such as corn and cotton, are engineered to produce pesticides.

It has been demonstrated that this built-in pesticide is very toxic and concentrated as compared to the naturally sprayed pesticide, which has been confirmed to cause allergies in some people. Many studies have also shown the immune system of genetically modified animals to be significantly altered. For instance, a persistent increase in cytokines indicates the capability of these foods to cause conditions such as asthma, allergy, and inflammation (Sani et al., 2023).

Some of the genetically modified foods, such as soy, have also been shown to have certain chemicals known to be allergens, for example, trypsin inhibitor protein (Rosso, 2021). Genetic engineering of food may also result in the transfer of genes that have the capability to trigger allergies into the host cells.

Furthermore, most of the DNA transferred into genetically modified foods originates from microorganisms that have not been studied to elucidate their allergenic properties. Similarly, the new genetic combinations in genetically modified foods could cause allergies to some consumers or worsen the existing allergic conditions. Various cases of genetically modified foods causing allergic reactions have been reported, leading to the withdrawal of these foods from the market (Kumar et al., 2020).

Genetic modification of crops could also increase the expression of naturally occurring toxins through possible activation of certain proteins, resulting in the release of toxic chemicals. It is argued that sufficient studies have not been carried out to prove that genetically modified foods are safe for consumption (Fernbach et al., 2019).

Genetically modified foods are also associated with many environmental risks. Issues relating to the manner in which science is marketed and applied have also been raised, challenging the perceived benefits of genetically modified foods. Many opponents of genetic engineering technology perceive that genetic modification of food is a costly technology that places farmers from low-income countries in disadvantaged positions since they cannot afford it (Kumar et al., 2020; Leonelli, 2020).

It is also argued that this technology cannot address the food shortage issue, which is perceived to be more of a political and economic problem than a food production issue (Liang et al., 2019).

Political and economic issues across local and global levels have been suggested to prevent the distribution of foods so as to reach the people faced with starvation, but not issues of agriculture and technology. Politics and economic barriers have also been shown to contribute to greater poverty, subsequently making individuals unable to afford food (Kumar et al., 2020).

Some bioethicists are of the view that most genetic engineering advances in agriculture are profit-based as compared to those that are need-based. It challenges the appropriateness of genetic modification of food in ensuring food security, safeguarding the environment, and decreasing poverty, especially in low-income countries.

This argument is supported by the costly nature of genetic engineering technology and the yields from the application of this technology. The economic benefits of genetic engineering of foods are usually attained by large-scale agricultural producers, thus pitting the majority of the population who are involved in small-scale agricultural production (Kumar et al., 2020).

With the widespread adoption of genetic engineering technology, regulatory policies such as patents have been formulated, subsequently allowing exclusively large biotechnological organizations to benefit (Kumar et al., 2020).

Though biotechnological firms suggest that genetic modification of foods is essential in ensuring food security, the patenting of this technology has been perceived by many as being a potential threat to food security (Leonelli, 2020).

Patenting of genetically modified foods gives biotechnology firms monopoly control, thus demeaning the sanctity of life. This technology has also enhanced dependency, whereby farmers have to continuously go back to the biotechnology firms to purchase seeds for sowing in subsequent planting seasons.

Genetically modified food is believed to be unsafe, allegedly because sufficient tests have not been carried out to show that it would not cause some unprecedented long-term effects in another organism. Despite possessing positive attributes, such as health benefits and food safety, many consumers are wary of these foods because of a consistent belief in a lack of proven safety testing (Fernbach et al., 2019).

There are also fears that the genetic material inserted into genetically modified foods often gets transferred into the DNA of commensals found in the alimentary canal of human beings. This may lead to the production of harmful genetically modified chemicals inside the body of the human being, even long after ceasing the consumption of such foods.

Prior to the widespread adoption of this genetic engineering technology in agriculture, many scientists and regulatory agents raised health concerns. Some argue that genetically modified foods are inherently harmful and can trigger allergies, toxic effects, gene transfer to commensals in the gut, and can lead to the emergence of new diseases and nutritional problems (Deocaris et al., 2020; Seralini, 2020).

Despite multiple rigorous studies, it remains unknown whether genetically modified foods could be contributing to the rising cases of various health conditions such as obesity, asthma, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and reproductive problems. In most cases, the testing that has been performed involves the evaluation of the growth and productivity of the modified organism, and not in terms of environmental and health impacts (Agostini et al., 2020).

Gene transfer may affect the nutritional quality of foods as the transfer is likely to reduce the amounts of certain nutrients while raising the levels of other nutrients. This causes a nutritional variation between conventional foods and similar foods produced through genetic modification techniques.

Furthermore, few studies have been carried out to show the effect of nutrient alterations brought about by genetic engineering in relation to nutrient-gene interactions, metabolism, and bioavailability (Hirschi, 2020). Critics of genetically modified foods argue that little information is available to show how the alteration of food contents affects gene regulation and expression as these changes occur at rates that far overwhelm scientific studies.

Genetic modification of food involves the transfer of genetic material even between organisms belonging to different species. To biotechnology firms and other proponents of genetically modified foods, this approach helps in maximizing productivity and profits. However, many consumers, environmental conservationists, and opponents of genetically modified foods perceive gene transfer across different species as causing a decrease in diversity (Turnbull et al., 2021).

With the reduction of diversity, benefits such as resistance to diseases and pests, adaptation to adverse weather conditions, and productivity also diminish. Critics of genetic engineering technology, therefore, suggest that applying this technology creates uniformity in organisms and decreases their genetic diversity, rendering them at increased risks of diseases and pests.

Transfer of genetic material also carries many environmental risks, especially in the event of wide cultivation of such crops. Some critics suggest that genetically engineered plants with herbicide and insect-resistant traits could transfer these traits to wild plants and subsequently lead to the evolution of difficult-to-eradicate weeds (Anwar et al., 2021).

These weeds could develop into invasive plants with the capability to decrease crop production and cause a disruption of the ecosystem. The genetically modified plants could also evolve into weeds, which will then require costly and environmentally unfriendly means to eradicate.

The genetic engineering of food may also have an impact on non-target organisms, which would further reduce diversity. It is a persistent concern that genetically modified foods, such as pesticide-resistant crops, could cause harm to non-target organisms.

Certain genetically modified crops have the potential to change the chemistry of the soil by releasing toxins and breaking down the plants after they die. Moreover, crops that have undergone genetic modification to withstand elevated chemical concentrations sustain a heightened application of herbicides, ultimately leading to elevated chemical concentrations in the soil (Anwar et al., 2021).

Genetic engineering’s intentional transfer of antibiotic resistance genes could have detrimental effects on human health and the environment. Antibiotic-resistant genes may be passed to pathogenic bacteria in animals’ and humans’ digestive tracts, increasing their pathogenicity and causing more and more public health problems (Amarasiri et al., 2020).

Genetic modification of food is applauded as an appropriate method of ensuring increased food availability, better nutrition, and general improvement in the agricultural sector. However, as this genetically modified food essay demonstrates, many issues surround this technology, mostly concerning safety, health, cultural, social, and religious issues.

Most of the concerns regarding genetically engineered foods can be cleared by conducting expansive research to establish clear grounds for such issues. Unless concrete research is conducted to substantiate the benefits and potential harms of genetically engineered foods, the majority of people will remain wary of genetically modified foods. In the end, the full potential of genetically engineered foods will not be realized.

Amarasiri, M., Sano, D., & Suzuki, S. (2020). Understanding human health risks caused by antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARG) in water environments: Current knowledge and questions to be answered. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 50 (19), 2016-2059.

Anwar, M. P., Islam, A. M., Yeasmin, S., Rashid, M. H., Juraimi, A. S., Ahmed, S., & Shrestha, A. (2021). Weeds and their responses to management efforts in a changing climate. Agronomy, 11 (10), 1921-1940.

Agostini, M. G., Roesler, I., Bonetto, C., Ronco, A. E., & Bilenca, D. (2020). Pesticides in the real world: The consequences of GMO-based intensive agriculture on native amphibians. Biological Conservation, 241 , 108355.

Deocaris, C. C., Rumbaoa, R. G., Gavarra, A. M., & Alinsug, M. V. (2020). A Preliminary analysis of potential allergens in a GMO Rice: A Bioinformatics approach. Open Journal of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, 4 (1), 12-16.

Fernbach, P. M., Light, N., Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., & Rozin, P. (2019). Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most. Nature Human Behaviour, 3 (3), 251-256.

Giraldo, P. A., Shinozuka, H., Spangenberg, G. C., Cogan, N. O., & Smith, K. F. (2019). Safety assessment of genetically modified feed: is there any difference from food?. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10 (1592), 1-17.

Hirschi, K. D. (2020). Genetically modified plants: Nutritious, sustainable, yet underrated. The Journal of Nutrition, 150 (10), 2628-2634.

Kumar, K., Gambhir, G., Dass, A., Tripathi, A. K., Singh, A., Jha, A. K., Yadava, P., Choudhary, M., & Rakshit, S. (2020). Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects. Planta, 251 , 1-27.

Leonelli, G. C. (2020). GMO risks, food security, climate change and the entrenchment of neo-liberal legal narratives. In Transnational food security (pp. 128-141). Routledge.

Liang, J., Liu, X., & Zhang, W. (2019). Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science, 28 (8), 991-1004.

Rosso, M. L., Shang, C., Song, Q., Escamilla, D., Gillenwater, J., & Zhang, B. (2021). Development of breeder-friendly KASP markers for low concentration of kunitz trypsin inhibitor in soybean seeds. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22 (5), 2675-2690.

Sani, F., Sani, M., Moayedfard, Z., Darayee, M., Tayebi, L., & Azarpira, N. (2023). Potential advantages of genetically modified mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of acute and chronic liver diseases. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 14 (1), 1-11.

Seralini, G. E. (2020). Update on long-term toxicity of agricultural GMOs tolerant to roundup. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32 (1), 1-7.

Turnbull, C., Lillemo, M., & Hvoslef-Eide, T. A. (2021). Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom–a review. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12 , 630396.

Van Esse, H. P., Reuber, T. L., & van der Does, D. (2020). Genetic modification to improve disease resistance in crops. New Phytologist, 225 (1), 70-86.

Xu, Q., Song, Y., Yu, N., & Chen, S. (2021). Are you passing along something true or false? Dissemination of social media messages about genetically modified organisms. Public Understanding of Science, 30 (3), 285-301.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 14). Genetically Modified Food Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/

"Genetically Modified Food Essay." IvyPanda , 14 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Genetically Modified Food Essay'. 14 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Genetically Modified Food Essay." January 14, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

1. IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Food Essay." January 14, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Genetically Modified Food Essay." January 14, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/genetically-modified-foods-4/.

• Proposition 37 and Genetically Engineered Foods
• Ecological Effects of the Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms
• Is Genetically Engineered Food the Solution to the World’s Hunger Problems?
• Should All Genetically Modified Foods Be Labeled?
• Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment?
• Genetically Engineered Food Against World Hunger
• Genetically Modified Foods Projects
• The Debate Pertaining to Genetically Modified Food Products
• Genetically Modified Foods and Environment
• The Effect of Genetically Modified Food on Society and Environment
• Analyzing the Prospects of Genetically Modified Foods
• Will Genetically Modified Foods Doom Us All?
• Super Weeds's Advantages and Disadvantages
• Concept of the Gene-Environment Interactions
• Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Genetic Epidemiology

Viewpoint: ‘Enemy of Science’ — Friends of the Earth renews its organic industry-funded campaign against GM crops

All while claiming to be “evidence-based.” Redefining “evidence-based” as only embracing “studies” – which means computer simulations, dead mice papers, and suspect epidemiological claims by political insiders – that match their ideological agenda is why Friends of The Earth is lying to poor Mexican people. The group is claiming that genetic engineering – but only genetic engineering that came after Mutagenesis, which is used by the “organic food” corporations that fund Friends of the Earth – “poses serious health risks” to Mexicans.

How? Does Friends of the Earth think Mexicans are a different species? A trillion animals and 2 billion people have eaten “GMOs” (the term they use for all post-mutagenesis food despite GMOs being only one off-patent technology) and there are no health issues. Here is their latest headline:

High Levels of Genetically Engineered Toxins and Glyphosate in GMO Corn Pose Serious Health Risks in Mexico

Do you believe plants are little people and that every scientist and Democratic President since Roosevelt has been colluding with corporations to poison you? Then you’re ready to donate to Friends of the Earth or be on a San Francisco jury!

Their newest assault on science manipulates the process of science for emotional effect.

1. FOE says safety studies are “industry assertions”, not science

This conspiracy theory actually works with coastal progressives and Whole Foods shoppers nationwide but like all conspiracy theories has trouble making real-world sense. FDA and EPA employees are 90 percent Democrats and the left-wing are the only people who donate to Friends of the Earth so we have to believe the left-wing is duped by corporations – if they are scientists in government.

Science is science, the belief system of anti-science hippies does not change reality. But it can impact people in Mexico who are poor. Like in the Philippines with Golden Rice or Sri Lanka with all organic food, they target the least-educated in their war on science and do not care how many people they harm or kill.

In the real world, scientists in government agencies are exceedingly over-cautious, but activists have begun to get their allied epidemiologists hired into the Biden administration, and believe their war of extinction on science will succeed if biology, toxicology and chemistry are ignored and statistical ‘correlation’ makes science policy.

2. Companies are required by law to pay for studies to prove science is safe, but FOE claims that is “industry-funded .”

Should a company be allowed to create a product and hand it off to the government and declare that taxpayers have to pay to prove it does not work?

Of course not, but Friends of the Earth claims this stuff and gullible Mother Jones and Washington Post journalists repeat it as if it were a real argument. Those studies have to pass by the most critical government scientists out there, many of whom have been in three of four administrations by now.

All studies are “industry-funded” by law, and that is a good thing. The government should force companies to prove products are safe.

3. The “scientist” they quote is just a PhD in environmental policy

From  Berkeley , the university that also claimed weedkillers turns frogs gay. There is nothing at all wrong with the humanities, and FOE can give a “scientist” title to anyone they want, but let’s not pretend that FOE isn’t as sexist as every other environmental group and hiring young progressive women because they are true believers who will therefore accept a lower salary. American Association of University Women data found that environmentalists are the most sexist group in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields,  paying women only 79% of what men get .

Their policy expert has a few op-eds in pay-to-publish outlets like the Guardian claiming predictable anti-science fluff like that “neonics” are toxic to humans and that if a hand-picked lab can’t ‘detect’ organic pesticides in urine then the companies that fund FOE must be better for health.

4. The co-author on this claim is discredited organic industry flunky Chuck Benbrook

Benbrook is famous for writing papers like that organic strawberries are healthier – but looking at his methodology his only data was they have better ‘mouth feel’ according to organic shoppers on surveys . He is derided in science circles because he is a known liar. For example, he claimed to be a “professor” at Washington State University but was only an Adjunct and the school terminated his contract when we exposed that an organic food company was paying the university to pay him.

The U.S. government has not presented an ‘appropriate’ risk assessment to the tribunal as called for in the USMCA dispute because such an assessment has never been done in the U.S. or anywhere in the world. — Co-author Dr. Charles Benbrook

Like vaccines, cell phones, and Israel defending itself against terrorists, anti-science progressives use ‘needs more study’ to block any product made by any company that isn’t giving them money. Benbrook understands none of the science in how products are approved, he wants ‘risk assessment’ because it instead only using food surveys – like organic food shoppers who claim they get a rash if they don’t use non-GMO rock salt.

Now Benbrook is a professional “pesticide litigation consultant” for lawyers hoping to sue companies using papers like this FOE conspiracy screed.

5. Their only data consists of “emerging evidence.” 

Like “suggests”, this is a word that statisticians use when they want to create an appearance of legitimacy, but it means nothing except that the finding is not science.

While much of the focus of the health harms of GMO corn rightfully center on glyphosate and other hazardous herbicides that the crops have been engineered to withstand, emerging evidence on these toxins is concerning. Data show the potential for risk of adverse impacts on the human  microbiome  and  GI tract , risks of  allergenicity  stimulating an immune system response “as potent as that elicited by  cholera toxin ,” and  presence of antibodies  against Cry toxins in at least 8% of Americans, clear evidence that the toxin remains mostly intact after passing through the human GI tract.

Illiterate 17th century peasants who had no fertilizers or pesticides could still not get a job at FOE – because they knew ‘the dose makes the poison’ while FOE believes 1 part per quadrillion is killing people, despite science knowing that is impossible.

Environmental groups are famous for soliciting an author to ‘write’ an epidemiology paper – basically, get a grad student to look at other hand-picked epidemiology papers and create enough correlation to claim the scientifically meaningless “statistical significance” – where the conclusion will be a chemical they want to sue over is bad. Then they get other authors to write supporting papers citing the first, and then they use that pool of papers to claim their entirely manufactured claim is “emerging evidence.”

Hank Campbell is founder of Science 2.0 and author of  Science Left Behind . Follow Hank on X  @HankCampbell

A version of this article was originally posted at  Science 2.0  and is reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit both the GLP and original article. Find Science 2.0 on X  @science2_0

GLP Podcasts & Podcast Videos More...

GLP podcast: Dangers of ‘diet weed’; Making insulin in cow’s milk; The conservative case for genetic enhancement

Glp podcast: ge crops have lived up to the hype; growing ‘mini’ organs from stem cells; how do we solve right-wing vaccine hesitancy, videos more....

Video: Why does love make us feel so good? Examining its effect on our brains

Bees & pollinators more....

Dissecting claims about Monsanto suing farmers for accidentally planting patented seeds

Analysis: Do neonicotinoid and glyphosate pesticides threaten bees? A reassessment

How effective and safe are current-generation pesticides?

Infographics more....

Are pesticide residues on food something to worry about?

Gmo faqs more....

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer): Glyphosate cancer determination challenged by world consensus

Most popular.

Newsletter Subscription

• Weekly Newsletter (Wed)
• Daily Digest (Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri)
• Weekly Top Six (Sun)
• Featured Articles Only
• Human Articles Only
• Agriculture Articles Only
• All Types of Content

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.