Genetically Modified Organisms are organisms that DNA has been altered through genetic engineering techniques. While GMOs normally carry a negative connotation, they do have their benefits. GMOs can allow crops to resist weeds and diseases better, prolong shelf life, and lead to bigger yields of crop with an equal amount of land. However. even with benefits, the drawbacks outweigh the advantages. GMOs often add proteins that aren’t originally found in the organism, which can lead to new allergic reactions. Even more importantly, the antibodies used on these organisms can in fact lower our own resistance to certain bacteria, making us more susceptible to diseases. Besides the risks to us, gene migration is a problem where the herbicides used to help crops could transfer over to weeds, allowing weeds, as well as our own crops to grow. FInally turning our focus on the specific controversy over GMOs in Hawaii; as growing many tropical crops is a huge revenue for the state, banning GMOs could affect the economy through reduction in productivity, but it should be worth it considering the possible risks associated with GMOs, right?
Greggor Ilagan was initially very supportive of the ban on GMOs’ but through time with many of the negative claims against GMOs seemingly falling short of a solid case, he had switched to be against the banning of GMOs. The difficulty in the situation is the contrasting data, research, and stories about the effects of GMOs. Something as extreme as tumorous rats seems unlikely, but with many citizens telling “personal tales of all manner of illness, including children’s allergies, cured after going on a ‘non-G.M.O.’ diet.” (A Lonely Quest for the Facts on GMOs) while some researchers are getting evidence to disprove their stories and other research getting the exact opposite, it is hard to know who is right, and who is wrong. Farmers and planters are in resistance to the ban because of the impact it could have on their business. To be fair, I can’t blame them for thinking that way, a business is a business, and especially when the negativity surrounding GMOs is not entirely backed by science, how can the council expect them to just give it up? As Sibucao states, “the bill would stigmatize any genetically modified food, making the Rainbow harder to sell”(A Lonely Quest for the Facts on GMOs) even if they were still allowed to sell it. Given the many accounts on GMOs, it seems as though GMOs have a fairly even balance of pros and cons. However, the citizens of Hawaii seemed to be in favor of banning them. why?
When it comes to something as vital as food, do we really want it entering our bodies unless we are 100% sure of it’s safety? According to Wedmd.com “An agency of the World Health Organization has classified the main chemical used in Roundup as a ‘probable carcinogen.’ That means they think it probably increases the risk of cancer” (The Truth about GMOs). This is not something that can be swept under the rug, no matter what way you analyze it, and how large the risk is, people will forever be afraid of GMOs. At the end of the day, this fear is what brought the supporters of the ban to victory with a 6-3 victory. For the time being, as much as I would love to completely stop eating GMO products, at the time being they are still to vital in our society. Perhaps in the future they will diminish, maybe even completely.
Works Cited
Duvauchelle, Joshua. “Pros & Cons of GMO Foods.” LIVESTRONG.COM. LIVESTRONG.COM, 13 Jan. 2014. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.
Harmon, Amy. “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.”The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Jan. 2014. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.
Paturel, Amy, and Robin Yamakawa. “The Truth About GMOs: Are They Safe? What Do We Know?” WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.