This paper provides a comprehensive overview of genetically modified (GM) foods, tracing their history from ancient selective breeding to modern genetic engineering techniques first commercialized in the 1990s. It examines the genetic processes used to alter food crops, reviews key scientific studies on safety and cross-contamination, and presents both supporting and opposing arguments regarding GM food use. Topics include the limitations of the Green Revolution, consumer labeling debates, environmental concerns such as genetic pollution, and the potential of GM technology to address global food insecurity. The paper concludes that while GM foods appear here to stay, further research is warranted to ensure consumer safety and prevent cross-contamination of traditional crops.
The paper demonstrates effective synthesis of sources: rather than summarizing each source in isolation, the author weaves together findings from scientific studies, government reports, and consumer surveys to build a coherent narrative. Contradictory evidence — such as the disputed Pusztai potato study — is acknowledged and contextualized rather than ignored, modeling scholarly intellectual honesty.
The paper follows a classic expository research structure: an introduction establishing the problem (global food insecurity), a historical background section, a technical explanation of genetic processes, a review of empirical studies, a balanced pro/con analysis, and a synthesizing conclusion. This logical progression moves from context to science to policy, making the argument accessible and well-organized for a general academic audience.
Today, the Earth is home to almost seven billion hungry humans, and the so-called "green revolution" of the mid-20th century has virtually reached its maximum production limits using the agricultural technologies introduced at the time. Moreover, the world's population continues to grow rapidly, particularly in those parts of the globe where farmers in undeveloped countries are unable to afford the relatively expensive and energy-intensive techniques used in more efficient, large-scale agricultural operations. In this environment, it would seem that scientists and the general public alike would welcome any innovations in agricultural technology that promised to provide more food for the world, but there have been mixed reviews of the use of genetically modified foods in recent years that continue to restrict their use. This paper provides a review of the relevant literature to deliver a background and overview of genetically modified foods and their history, the genetic processes typically used in making genetically modified foods, a representative sampling of the scientific studies conducted to date, and positive and negative arguments concerning their use. A summary of the research and important findings is presented in the conclusion.
In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb predicted a global famine based on the exponential growth in the world's population that could not be matched by existing agricultural techniques. Fortunately, although the time bomb described by Ehrlich failed to materialize in substantive ways — due in large part to the agricultural innovations introduced as part of the green revolution — these technologies have reached their maximum production capabilities in recent years, and many undeveloped countries are not able to afford the techniques used. In this regard, Dhanagare emphasizes that in countries such as India, "The green revolution was not really taking place, that the new agricultural technology was accessible only to the large-scale farmers, and the prosperity unleashed by the green revolution was distributed differentially to the various categories of farmers, putting the small-scale and marginal farmers at a relative disadvantage" (1998, p. 3).
From this perspective, the revolutionary aspects of the green revolution were limited to those countries that could afford the investment in supporting technologies in the first place — constraints that were particularly applicable to developing nations with large populations to feed. Dhanagare concludes that, "The reasons for differential distribution were obvious. The high-cost, high-yield cereal technology of the green revolution called for substantial capital investments generally beyond the means of the majority of small-scale and marginal farmers" (1998, p. 3). In reality, the green revolution was just one part of the ongoing effort to feed a hungry world, and food crops have been modified in one form or another since antiquity to improve yields and promote desirable qualities.
Farmers have crossbred plants and animals for centuries in an effort to promote desirable characteristics in succeeding generations, but the application of scientific approaches involving genetic modifications is much more recent. The science has improved to the point where inter- and intra-species manipulation of genetic material can be used to create desired product characteristics such as resistance to specific diseases, tolerance to agricultural chemicals, or enhanced nutritional profiles (Brady & Brady, 2003). Prior to the introduction of genetic engineering techniques, gene modification in plants and animals was accomplished through breeding. Jefferson (2006) reports that, "The traditional breeding method ultimately produces the same desired effect as genetic engineering, but it occurs over a much longer time span and is self-limiting. Selected individual genes are transferred from one organism to another between plants and between animals, but not between plants and animals" (p. 34). By using genetic engineering methods, however, it is possible to transfer genes between any living organisms, even between plants and animals. Jefferson cites the hypothetical example of inserting a gene from a fish that lives in cold seas into a strain of strawberry so that the strawberry could better endure extremely cold conditions and even frost. According to Brady and Brady, "Crops developed using genetic modifications were first made available commercially in 1996" (2003, p. 13).
As for the first commercially grown genetically modified food crop, Chapman (2006) reports that it was a tomato developed by a California company in the 1990s called the FlavrSavr. The FlavrSavr was genetically modified to provide the crop with a longer shelf life and to retard ripening during transportation. In Europe, a variety of this tomato was used in the manufacture of tomato purée; however, the controversy that arose among European consumers concerning the science used to create genetically modified foods halted the use of this and other such altered foods (Chapman, 2006). As a result, the vast majority of genetically modified crops are grown, marketed, and consumed in the United States. According to Brady and Brady, "Three-fourths of genetically modified crops grown in the world are planted in the U.S. In 2001, 69% of cotton, 68% of soybeans, 55% of canola, and 26% of corn grown in the U.S. was genetically engineered. Other genetically engineered crops that are available but not widely adopted included sugar beets, potatoes, and sweet corn" (2003, p. 13).
As noted above, consumers in other countries — particularly those in the European Union — are wary of genetically modified foods for reasons that may be related more to a misunderstanding of how these techniques are used and what is involved.
According to Brady and Brady (2003), genetically modified or genetically engineered food crops are those that have had their genetic composition altered in some way in order to promote a desirable characteristic or to retard an undesirable one. These authors add that, "The modification might involve importing genetic material from one plant or animal to another, rearrangement of genetic material within a plant or animal, or removal of genetic material from a plant or animal. Modifications can result in an almost infinite variety of genetic combinations" (Brady & Brady, 2003, p. 13). While most American consumers routinely consume foods that have been genetically modified with no apparent effect, there is a growing body of research concerning the safety of these techniques that indicates some risks are involved, and these issues are discussed further below.
Interestingly, more research has been conducted to date concerning consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods than has been devoted to determining how safe these products might be when consumed by humans. Among the studies of the latter type is a feeding-trial study conducted in 1998 by Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, which indicated that a strain of potatoes that had been genetically modified using an insecticide gene was toxic to rats (Chapman, 2006). In addition, researchers at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that some genetically modified corn products have the potential to produce allergic reactions in humans (Barrett, 2002). In late 2000, a growing number of reports were received by the EPA concerning a strain of genetically modified corn — known as "Starlink" — that had not been approved for human consumption but was identified in a variety of food products, including taco shells, corn chips, and other corn products. Starlink had been bioengineered using a toxin from bacteria that enables corn plants to ward off attacks by natural insect pests (Barrett, 2002). Based on an earlier EPA study determining that the protein in Starlink was not readily broken down in humans, it was approved for use in animal feeds but prohibited in food products intended for human consumption. According to Barrett, "Despite this regulatory restriction, Starlink corn found its way to grocery store shelves and restaurant tables. Dozens of people reported allergic or other adverse reactions" (2002, p. 29). A subsequent study by Kalaitzandonakes, Marks, and Vickner (2004) determined that extensive media coverage of the Starlink corn incident resulted in a statistically significant decline in consumer demand for taco shells among American consumers.
Research has also shown that there is a danger of cross-contamination of legacy crops with genetically modified strains. A study conducted in September 1999 found that pollen from a genetically modified oilseed rape cultivated at a trial site in Oxfordshire was present in beehives located almost three miles away (Chapman, 2006). According to Chapman, "The research was carried out by experts at Britain's National Pollen Research Unit. Then in May 2000, honey on sale in supermarkets was found to be contaminated with GM pollen from British crop trials. Two out of nine samples showed contamination" (2006, p. 5). The results of an analysis by Fox (1999) confirmed this cross-contamination of pollen: "The pollen produced by these plants, carrying new genes, cannot be contained. As a result, genetic pollution of natural crop varieties and of wild plant relatives may occur. Unlike other forms of pollution, genetic pollution is uncontrollable, irreversible, and permanent, posing a major threat to biodiversity and to the bio-integrity of the entire life community" (Fox, 1999, p. 37). Despite these findings, in 2000, the National Research Council emphasized that based on its research it was unable to identify "any evidence suggesting that foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification" (as cited in Wooster, 2001, p. 58).
Moreover, Wooster (2001) notes that even the findings reported in the Pusztai study were dubious at best. "The few studies claiming genetically modified food is harmful are highly controversial," Wooster points out, adding that "in 1999 The Lancet published a study by Arpad Pusztai claiming that some people who ate genetically modified potatoes suffered organ damage" (2001, p. 58). More importantly, he emphasizes that, "The Lancet also published a critique stating that Pusztai's experiments were 'incomplete, included too few animals per diet group, and lacked controls' and thus 'do not allow the conclusion' the potatoes were dangerous. Pusztai was then dismissed for publicizing research that hadn't been peer-reviewed" (as cited in Wooster, 2001, p. 58).
Yet another study sponsored by the UK government determined that 90% of British consumers were adamant about refusing to consume products containing genetically modified components until further studies were conducted to ensure the techniques were safe (Chapman, 2006). Likewise, Huffman, Shogren, Rousu, and Tegene (2003) report the results of a telephone survey conducted in February 1999 in New Haven, Connecticut, which found that an overwhelming majority of respondents (82%) strongly believed that genetically modified foods should be labeled as such — a finding the researchers note is consistent with a majority of surveys on genetically modified foods conducted to date.
Although there are compelling arguments against the use of genetically modified food crops unless and until scientists can guarantee their safety, there are equally compelling arguments in support of their use today. According to Jefferson (2006), "With an ever-increasing global population, hunger in the developing world, and the health risks of pesticides, some experts view genetically modified food as a panacea. Others view it as one of the most serious threats to human civilization" (p. 33). Advocates of genetically modified foods maintain that these technologies can help produce food products with a superior appearance and taste, a longer shelf life, and more nutrients than their unaltered counterparts (Brady & Brady, 2003). Although some concerns exist that GM food crops could harm the environment in certain ways — some of which remain strictly conjectural — proponents emphasize that these techniques can actually benefit the environment by reducing the need for harmful pesticides and requiring fewer chemical fertilizers (Jefferson, 2006). According to Brady and Brady, "Such technology can produce crops that are resistant to diseases and pests and may yield food components that require less processing. Applications of genetic modification allow farmers to produce more and better crops using less time and fewer chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides" (2003, p. 13). The bottom line for GM food proponents is that these technologies will provide consumers with better foods at lower prices (Brady & Brady, 2003).
The research showed that humans have been modifying their food products and animals for centuries, but the scientific application of genetically modified techniques has accelerated the process in ways that have never been possible in the past. In addition, genetic modification can be used to promote desirable characteristics or inhibit undesirable ones through the transfer of genes between animals and plants and vice versa. The research also showed that the world's population continues to expand faster than the agricultural innovations of the green revolution can sustain, and that even those advanced techniques have reached the limits of their capacity for producing higher crop yields in a given amount of space. It is little wonder, then, that the promise of less expensive, more nutritious, and wider varieties of foods made possible by genetically modified food products has received so much attention over the last two decades, but the technology is not without its critics. Although proponents cite the numerous advantages of genetically modified foods, critics argue that too little research has been conducted to ensure these products are safe for human consumption, and that the danger exists that other species could be permanently harmed through cross-contamination. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that genetically modified foods are here to stay, but it is equally reasonable to suggest that more research is needed to reassure consumers in North America and Europe that these foods are safe and that steps have been taken to prevent cross-contamination from adversely affecting other crops.
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.