Ariella's Capstone

8/14/2019 Ariella's Capstone

1/38

Vance1

Ariella Marissa Arditti Vance

Dr. Russell G. Moses

CAPS 4360.15

14 Aug. 2013

Should the U.S. Congress repeal the Farmer Assurance Provision (Section 735) from Bill H.R.

933?

The safety of genetically modified organisms grow more and more as an issue as the

average consumer is faced with the daily decision to shop organically or not. The reality is that

genetically modified foods are much more common today than not. The chance that you have

eaten something, even just today, that has been genetically altered is high. So what did you eat?

Did you have any berries in your breakfast today? How about any corn for lunch or soybeans for

dinner? These food items very well may have been cross-bred with another organisms DNA in

order to make it have certain desirable traits, like being bigger, juicier, or drought resistant

during cultivation. However, splicing and transplanting DNA will always cause some reaction in

the new organism, and that reaction could possibly be a negative one for both the environment

and those consuming it. This issue has also found itself discussed politically, with certain

policies being implemented even at a national level. One such example is the Farmer Assurance

Provision in the omnibus Bill H.R. 933.

H.R. 933, which is also known as the Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act of 2013, was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 26th

of

this year in order to prevent a government shutdown and continue government operations until


2/38

Vance2

the end of the fiscal year, September 30th

, 2013. It can, however, be reauthorized after that

period. The Farmer Assurance Provision basically details that in the event that genetically

modified food is deemed unsafe in the future, certain people, like the farmers or producers

manufacturing it, can ask the Secretary of Agriculture, a seat currently occupied by Tom Vilsack,

to grant them a permit that allows them to continue to temporarily, move, plant, cultivate, and

introduce into commerce their product ("Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations

Act, 2013" 34-35). The controversy revolving around this provision is multifaceted, as both the

opponents and proponents of the issue of genetically modified food have a great deal of relevant

information to share. Through these conflicting arguments, the research question at which we

arrive at is, should the U.S. Congress repeal the Farmer Assurance Provision (Section 735) from

Bill H.R. 933?

There are three main issues that are continuously brought up when debates about

genetically modified organisms are discussed. The main social problems is world hunger, which

affects a multitude of people every single day. Also debated are human health and environmental

safety directly caused by GMOs, and last is the contention that there are certain unscrupulous

dealings between individuals who work for large agri-biotech companies, like Monsanto, and

individuals who works in various federal organizations, like the EPA and FDA.

All involved parties agree that world hunger is a formidable social problem. Human

survival depends on a steady food supply. Not only that, the food itself should be proven and

considered to be safe in order to supply humans with essential nutrients and vitamins. Much of

the food largely available to the public in America has a high potential to be genetically

modified, if not otherwise labeled. As our country is allowed to trade and thus supply other

countries, like Africa, with genetically modified food, this food is feeding a huge amount of


3/38

Vance3

mouths around the globe. This means, then, that genetically modified foods are being consumed

in live time, by millions of people. These products are being pushed through the production line

as a possible solution to world hunger, which needs to be addressed quickly, as close to one

billion people all over the planet go to sleep hungry every day in a population that is estimated to

grow to 9 billion people by 2050. This figure then means that roughly one out of every seven

people do not receive an adequate amount of food to survive on a daily basis. (Agriculture and

Food Security).

Genetically modified crops, like any other crop, have a direct cause and effect

relationship with both the environment and the health of those who consume them. The fact is

that in 2012 alone, 88% of all corn, 94% of all cotton, and 93% of all soybeans in the United

States were genetically modified (includes all genetically engineered varieties) (USDAs

National Agricultural Statistics Service). These percentages are quite high, so it is natural that

debate has sprung up concerning the safety of such products that are mass produced. Companies,

like Monsanto, who provide farmers and producers with seeds and chemicals for these crops, like

any other company that is traded publicly, is meant to serve the public, and more specifically,

consumers. If any of these consumers have any concerns about what the company produces, how

it is produced, and through what means it functions publicly and politically, then the consumer

has a right to voice their opinion and contest whatever they feel seems unprincipled.

Of course, in turn, the company has a right to continue functioning under the constraints

of the law and uphold their own mission statement. In essence, food production and supply

involves multiple parties, affecting an ever growing number of people and the environment. For

all these reasons, stakeholders in the GMO debate on both sides are concerned about how they

can affect world hunger, the safety of the environment and the health of humans, as well as how


4/38

Vance4

they affect the world socially and politically through their own conscious actions and decisions.

These stakeholders on either side, both with viable solutions to these social problems that look

great on paper, view consumer food safety in high regards; one side performing in compliance

with EPA, FDA, and USDA standards, and the other side investigating these standards further

and questioning them in a world with changing technologies and needs each day.

The issues and cases presented by both sides are fairly straightforward but still use

various terminologies that basically mean the same thing but are referred to with different names.

Modifying living organisms through the use of recombinant DNA technology, or genetic

engineering, is how genetically modified organisms are created. Genetically modified organisms

(GMOs) have the same meaning as transgenic, genetically engineered, and biotech foods. Food

is genetically modified if genes from one organism are transferred to a different organism to

enhance or give the organism new characteristics. This can also be referred to as gene-splicing,

which essentially creates various combinations of animal, bacteria, plant, and viral genes that

cannot necessarily be replicated outside of a laboratory or through customary methods of

crossbreeding (Genetically Modified Organisms: The Basics of GMOs).

The Precautionary Principle is a common approach practiced in several European

countries that deals with the possible risks associated with goods that may or may not cause

negative effects to humans or the environment. In using this approach, as the name suggests, if a

good could possibly cause harm but hasnt been proven to completely either way, the good isnt

allowed into the open market until companies, like Monsanto, are able to prove without a

shadow of a doubt that the good is completely safe in all possible respects. If this standard cannot

be met, the product never reaches any market shelf (Whiteside).


5/38

Vance5

A product that has received a status of deregulated means that the USDA has concluded

that the product has passed all safety measures and is safe for the population at large to utilize in

whatever means they see fit. Many genetically modified products, like soybeans, corn, and sugar

beets, have already received this status, but the status of these products can always be disputed

through litigation in a court of law (Bell, R Andre).

Critics of the provision have come to call it by another name, the Monsanto Protection

Act, as they assert the provision was written to directly further the continued prosperity of large

agri-biotechnology companies and their products, namely Monsanto. Much of the literature from

proponents of this policy question explored in this paper, refer to the policy as such (Keefe-

Feldman).

Although there are multiple facets that can be explored on the issue of GMOs, this paper

has its limitations. Unfortunately, it will not be able to discuss any information about genetically

modified animals or livestock used as a food source for humans or other genetically modified

organisms, like trees. It will not discuss current or past litigation proceedings involving farmers

and agri-biotechnology companies or their final outcomes. The paper will also not be able to

discuss the controversial issue of patenting seeds in depth or the clothes industry that supports

mass cotton production. Though not all topics can be discussed at length, it will briefly touch on

a broad range of topics that directly relate to genetically modified foods, their implications,

effects, and future in various ways. Though this paper can only feasibly cover a few pieces of the

much larger puzzle, I believe these pieces to play integral roles in the bigger picture that invoke

the most discussion on the topic.


6/38

Vance6

Genetically modified food, in the contemporary sense, is a fairly new technology, first

engineered in the early 1980s and later introduced into market in the 1990s. However, the

technique of using recombinant DNA technology, which is used to create genetically modified

organisms, was first developed in the 1970s, according to authors Devos, Maeseele, Reheul,

Van Speybroeck, and De Waele (33). The scientist Herbert W. Boyer discovered the restriction

enzymes ofEscherichia coli, which allowed DNA strands to be cut from one organism and

scientist Stanley N. Cohen figured out how to transfer the DNA in plasmids from bacteria cells

in those organisms and then insert them into other cells. Though working separately, these men

and their contributions to science gave rise to the modern methods of r-DNA or genetic

engineering (Devos et al. 33-34).

In June of 1980, the Diamond vs. Chakrabarty case allowed living organisms that were

genetically engineered, to be patentable in the United States. 1983 marked the first time in which

a group of scientists had inserted a plant gene from one species into another species. By 1994,

genetically engineered tomatoes, the FlavrSavr, became available in markets around the United

States. 1996 marked the first year in which large areas (1.66 million ha) were used to plant

genetically modified crops, and the area increased by 67 times by 2007 (Khan, Muafia, Nasreen,

Salariya, 6-7). In the next two years, Roundup Ready Soybeans that were resistant to glyphosate

herbicide were made available in the United States. By 1998, supermarkets around the United

Kingdom started to ban genetically modified organisms in their products due to alleged adverse

health effects. The next year saw the first GM labeling rules that provided consumers with more

information about GM foods. By 2002, the biotechnology industry proposed their first patent law

that aimed to protect their intellectual property (A Brief History of Genetic Modification).


7/38

Vance7

By 2007, 23 countries, including both industrial and developing countries like the United

States, Brazil, Canada, Argentina, China, and India, were growing genetically modified crops,

like cotton, canola, soybeans, and maize. By 2009, a substantial amount of the worlds countries,

like Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Greece, France, Spain, and areas in Latin American and Asia,

restricted or outright banned genetically engineered food (Khan et al. 7). This led to many

countries creating GM crop free zones that halted a farmers decision in the area the choice of

organic or genetically engineered crops and also the birth of new institutions like the European

Food Safety Authority to provide, independent, objective and transparent science-based advice

on these foods (Devos et al, 44).

Right now, in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of

the organizations that conducts studies on risks that could have the potential to harm either the

environment or the health of humans. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food

that has passed the assessment from the EPA. The FDA regulates food for both animals and

humans, including GMOs. If the FDA deems a certain food unsafe, they can wipe it from the

market immediately. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has various internal

departments that assess the potential risks associated with GM crops. These departments, like the

Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, all serve to conduct studies on

GM crops as well as issue certain mandated permits to grow the crop. The intent of these various

organizations are to actively work to assess possible risks of GM plants (Billingsley, Bongyu,

Nwagwu, Younis, 198). As any controversial issue, at this point in time, debates on GMOs still

rage, and will continue to do so for the unforeseeable future.


8/38

Vance8

Those who would seek to repeal the Farmer Assurance Provision, or the proponents, are

those that are not in favor of deregulating genetically modified foods. There are a multitude of

organizations, activists, and consumers that fall into this category. Specifically, some of the

larger stakeholders include the activist group Occupy Monsanto, various organizations like the

Organic Consumers Association, the Center for Food Safety, unions like the National Farmers

Union, Consumers Union, and American Civil Liberties Union, environmental organizations like

the Sierra Club, Environmental Working Group, and the National Sustainable Agricultural

Coalition, and companies likeNatures Path, and Stonyfield Farm. Each of these groups of

people have large and small stakes in the issue, ranging from companies and organizations that

would like to preserve organic farming, production and distribution, and institutions that believe

their rights are being taken away by not being given the choice to decide what food products are

so widely used in their average food supply. Most of these stakeholders are heavily invested in

food safety, as well as environmental protection and higher standards of human health for the

worlds growing population.

Those in favor of deregulating genetically modified foods in order to continue the

cultivation and consumption of these products also have a large pool of supporters. Many large

food manufacturers and distributors, as well as all agri-biotechnology companies, and some

government officials, actively seek development in genetic modification breakthroughs in food.

A few of the most influential stakeholders include large agri-biotechnology corporations like

Monsanto and Syngenta Corp, and organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation, the

United Nations World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations, and the American College of Nutrition. Many of these corporations and

organizations have large monetary investments in the issue, whether they personally produce the


9/38

Vance9

seeds for GM crops, or are in part funded by corporations that do. They are driven to turn profits,

but they are also driven to create a world with a fairly sustainable and consistent food source

through scientific means.

This food source, according to opponents, could become a reality through GM crops and

could thus solve world hunger. The stakeholders on the opponents side, namely Monsanto,

argue that genetically modified crops have, nearly doubled the rate of yield gain when

compared to traditional breeding alone (Do GM Crops Increase Yield?, 1). Monsanto also

claims that their line of soybeans that was released in 2009 has been shown to increase yields by

7-11%. The Global Harvest Initiative in conjunction with author Michel Petit contents that

between the years of 1961 and 2003, world food production increased by an annual average rate

of 2.2%, surpassing population growth which was 1.7%, and that these increases in crop yield is

accountable for 89% of the production growth (6). B.F. Johnson Professor of Political Science at

Wellesley College Robert Paarlberg also points out that 60% of all citizens in Africa are farmers

that are not greatly productive, so these are the types of countries and people that would benefit

the most from agri-biotechnology, especially different maize varieties that are drought-tolerant

(609-611).

According to the U.S. Agency for International Development, agriculture growth can be

three-to-six times more effective at fighting poverty than growth in other sectors like

manufacturing because 75 percent of poor people live in rural areas in developing countries.

This information might lead one to believe that genetically modified crops could definitively

reduce hunger and thus poverty in a world that will soon have to double its current food

production to feed 9 billion people.


10/38

Vance10

Proponents, on the other hand, determine that the record of GE crops in contributing to

increased yield is actually a little more modest than what they claim. Averaged over the 13

years sinceBt(a microorganism that produces chemicals toxic to insects) corn was first

commercialized in 1996, this [average annual yield] equates roughly to a 0.2-0.3 percent yield

increase per year (Gurian-Sherman, 3). Doug Gurian-Sherman also pointed out that the average

corn production per acre between the years of 2004 and 2008 showed a 28% increase from the

years 1991-1995 but his analysis of specific yield studies found that only 3-4% of the increase is

due to genetically modified crops, or more specifically, crops withBt (3). Since the introduction

of GMOs, several thousand field trials of various GM crops were conducted with the hopes of

raising yields, and out of those, the only one that had any successful results wasBt(4).

As far as environmental safety and human health are concerned, opponents claim that

there is no real significant difference between GM food and non-GM food. Several studies

conclude that any differences that do exist are small, and within the range of biological variation,

and that no evidence is available to show that a duration of 90 days (for scientific studies) is

insufficient to assess the effects of GM food (Berge, Bernheim, Kuntz, Pascal, Paris, Ricroch,

Snell). These conclusions are also upheld by many other studies, includingIntestinal and

Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice andA

three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize

on the health status and performance of sheep. Monsanto chimes in to say that, There has not

been a single substantiated instance of illness or harm associated with GM crops and that,

There is no evidence to link allergenicity to currently authorized GM crops and also that,

There is no evidence of early onset of puberty (Food Safety, 1-7)


11/38

Vance11

Petit contends that In many cases, modern agriculture prevented deforestation and

extension of farming onto increasingly fragile lands, and thereby the destruction of wildlife

habitat, loss of biodiversity, and increased water and air pollution from soil erosion and

degradation (17). Robert Paarlberg, writes that, In 2007, a study done for the journalAdvanced

Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnologysurveyed ten years of research published in peer-

reviewed scientific journals, scientific books, reports from regions with extensive GM

cultivation, and reports from international governmental organizations that found that there is,

so far, absolutely no scientific evidence that current deregulated GM crops have had any adverse

effects on the environment (610).

Proponents disagree with these assessments about the safety of GM crops, both for the

environment and for humans. Two popular scientists, Dr. Irina V. Ermakova and Dr. Arpad

Pusztai have conducted separate studies using rats that are fed GM food and those that are not.

The results concluded that GM food led rats to have lowered reproductive functions, learning

impairments, lower birth weights, higher pup mortality, and toxic changes in the intestinal tract

(Ewen, Pusztai) and (Irmakova). A study conducted by Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson

concluded that exposure to glyphosate and other herbicides and pesticides used in GM food

creates a much higher risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (1356). The Organic Consumers

Association claims that, According to the American Cancer Society, there had been an alarming

80% increase in incidences of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma since the early 1970s (2).Khan,

Muafia, Nasreen and Salariya complied various examples and studies that showed adverse

environmental and health effects directly due to GM foods, but most notably, they claim that

rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) that is found in GM cows milk, is linked to 400-

500% higher risks of human breast, prostate and colon cancer than other milk (7). They also list


12/38

Vance12

environmental hazards due to GM crops, like soil toxicity where, scientists predict that

herbicide use will triple as a result of GM products (8).

Proponents have argued that there is a form of unscrupulous dealings between those who

are, or have previously been, employed by Monsanto or other large agri-biotechnology

companies, and governmental regulatory agencies like the FDA, USDA, and EPA. There are a

handful of current or past employees from these regulatory agencies that worked for large agri-

biotechnology companies beforehand. The best example of this sort of dealing is supported by

articles by Donald L. Barlett, James B. Steele, and Isabella Kenfield, and documents from the

FDA and Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that tell the tale of the employment

history of Michael R. Taylor. He worked for the FDA and helped to approve rBST and then

worked for Monsanto as their Vice President for Public Policy. In 2009 he became the Senior

Advisor to the Commissioner of the FDA for the Obama administration. He also is a senior

fellow with The Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa and conducts research on

policies of the United States that affect africulture-led economic growth and poverty reduction in

Africa (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars).Democratic Senator Jon Tester

from Montana, when asked about the Farmer Assurance Provision, said, Montanans elected me

to the Senate to do away with shady backroom deals and to make government work better. These

provisions are giveaways worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this

county and deserve no place in this bill (Keefe-Feldman).

Food Democracy Now! comments on these dealings by pointing out that, Senator Roy

Blunt, Republican of Missouri, actually worked with Monsanto on a provision (Farmer

Assurance Provision) that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds, which can then go on to be

planted, even if it is found to be harmful to consumers (1). Independent Vermont Senator


13/38

Vance13

Bernie Sanders also commented on the provision saying, You have deregulated the GMO

industry from court oversight, which is really not what America is about. You should not be

putting riders that people arent familiar with, in a major piece of legislation (Millions protest

genetically modified food, Monsanto, organizers say 2). A study conducted on financial or

professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment

studies of genetically modified products concluded that, combined analysis of conflicts of

interest through professional affiliations or direct research funding are likely to influence the

final outcome of such studies in the commercial interest of the involved industry and also that,

globally, 47% [of the studies] contained either a financial or professional conflict of interest or

both, 39% had no COI, and 14% of the cases could not be determined with certainly whether a

COI was in fact absent or went undetected due to lack of information available on financial

sponsorship or author affiliation (Cunha, Diels, Manaia, Sabugosa-Madeira, Silva, 201-202).

Opponents claim there is nothing illegal about individuals seeking better employment

opportunities and there is nothing illegal about any of the practices that proponents mentioned

above. However, opponents do claim that any attacks on the Farmer Assurance Provision,

disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science-based regulation of such products

[GMOs] and that lawsuits filed against Monsanto and other large agri-biotech companies,

resulted in significant delays in approval of new, innovative products that will help growers

provide Americans with an abundant and economical food supply while remaining competitive

in the world market (Agricultural Retailers Association et al).

Proponents argue that further independent research is mandatory in order to definitively

assess the safety of genetically modified organisms. Once, and if it is deemed safe, demands for


14/38

Vance14

industry transparency must be met. As of now, various organizations are collaborating to host

protests and rallies to further broaden consumer awareness.

Opponents strive to continue to press the genetic barriers of existing genetically modified

organisms in order to further technological innovations in the biotechnology field. Through this

endeavor, they hope to continue employing scientists, food manufacturers, food distributors, and

other groups association with agri-biotechnology companies in hopes to eventually eradicate

world hunger.

Both the proponents and opponents of the GMO debate have compelling arguments. On

the issue of hunger, opponents claim that through harvesting GM crops, there will be a greater

amount of food yielded that will help to deter the huge scores of people going hungry each day.

Proponents do not necessarily deny that yields are larger, but they do assert that the benefits do

not outweigh the risks associated with GM products and the yields are exaggerated. Both sides

have conducted studies on GMOs that have produced conflicting conclusions. In this regard, as

hunger is a major global problem, GM food is only one answer to solving the problem. Though

the yields are slightly higher due to genetic modification, that extra yield comes with a price, as

the quality of food would only be lessened. Food quality is of the utmost importance as it is the

most efficient way to receive all essential nutrients and vitamins. If eating these foods makes one

sick, does it not discount the initial point of what food is even eaten for? These foods could be

potentially dangerous, and not enough independent research, with no conflicts of interest,

financial or affiliation, has been conducted in order to conclusively decree that GM food is safe

for growing and consumption. Because there are alleged potential risks, these risks need to be

falsified before being allowed onto the free market. As much of the world has already restricted

or banned GMOs, these countries also believe the slightly higher yields do not merit mass


15/38

Vance15

production and consumption of them. With so many countries in opposition to GMOs, the merits

of further investigation should be taken more seriously. The conflicting assessments of research

only serve to cloud the judgment of consumers, making it more difficult for either side to make

major gains for their ultimate goals, whatever they may be, from solving world hunger to

providing high quality foods to those who can afford it.

As for the assertion that there are no health or environmental risks associated with the

cultivation or consumption of GM crops opponents claim that GM crops are actually better for

the environment than traditionally raised food because they need less hazardous chemicals,

which in turn, produce less pollution and better air, water, and soil quality. Proponents argue that

these risks are real and prevalent. The proponents have a stronger case as their research has

shown that GM seeds have changed the chemical composition of the landscape of fields where

they are grown in negative ways, and shown greater levels of allergens, antibiotic resistance, and

decreased proteins in the population since the mass introduction of GM food into the

marketplace. The opponents have failed to recognize that GM products are responsible for a

multitude of negative consequences. Their studies that conclude there is nothing harmful about

GM crops are intentionally deceptive in order to further their economic goals. Food has no value

if there is proof that, over time, consumption of GM products will likely give one cancer or other

severe health problems. Food production that is fueled by profits do not consistently protect the

consumer or farmer. The risks of planting and eating GM crops do not outweigh the profits made

by only a handful of companies. Furthermore, these crops seem volatile in that they can spread

easily and change the biological landscape of the world, making it virtually impossible to revert

to a non-GMO world. This would also obligate farmers to continue planting GM crops for

extended periods of time, also allowing seed producers to exert considerable power over the cost


16/38

Vance16

of farmer input. Moreover, risking biodiversity, which essentially stabilizes all life on Earth, is

the most foolhardy decision a world already facing overpopulation and overconsumption of

natural resources could make.

The argument of unscrupulous dealings is a strong one even though, as opponents point

out, there is nothing inherently illegal about people seeking better employment opportunities.

Opponents are relying on legal parameters to safeguard these dealings. Because the Farmer

Assurance Provision was written with the help of Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), I have high concerns

about the huge amounts of money he has received from Monsanto employees through campaign

donations. Apart from that, the provision itself takes away power from the judiciary and while

only marginally helping farmers, the real gain by this provision is felt by the developers of

genetically engineered crops. Due to this, the cries of alleged corruption should not be taken

lightly. I believe recorded conflicts of interest, like the fact that the National Research Council

being investigated because their 2000 research paper on GMOs had a council member that left

the study to become the executive directed for the Biotechnological Industry Organization (BIO),

is evidence enough to investigate the issue further (Billingsly et al., 201). Furthermore, though

something may not be inherently illegal, that doesnt mean that it is ethical.

Opponent values are seen as ethical by large argi-biotechnology companies that

appreciate ingenuity in their field in order to provide food security for the world. They are

constantly searching for new and innovative ways to engineer food to be resistant to a score of

pests, droughts, and cold climates. They believe that farmers would be able to make a higher

profit from these engineered changes in crops as pesticides or herbicides are sometimes already

in the seeds themselves. These companies, along with various organizations within the field,

envision a world without hunger and food that can administer life-saving vaccines just through


17/38

Vance17

consumption. They believe that through discipline and careful manipulation of transplanting

genes, this world can be made into a reality. They value cooperation of the masses, including

various non-governmental and governmental agencies alike, in order to supply enough food to a

world with a population growing exponentially while allowing free enterprise to prosper.

These values tie into the opponents obligations to citizens around the world. Their

obligations are to the masses that feed on GM food. Because genetically modified organisms

have already been banned in several countries, these large bio-technology companies have an

obligation to consumers to definitively prove that there are absolutely no health or environmental

risks derived from genetically modified products. These companies have an obligation to third

world or developing countries, like Africa, that have large scores of people that do not get

adequate nutrition or do not have a reliable food source. These are the types of people that would

benefit the most from genetically engineered crops. These agri-biotechnology companies have an

obligation to the masses to provide food that is safe to consume and safe to plant in our soil.

They have an obligation to provide people with a stellar product, especially if they claim it is the

answer to such a widespread problem. Their obligation to produce high quality food services ties

into their obligation to provide farmers with safe seeds, herbicides, pesticides, and other

chemicals that could have a negative effect on soil quality and the environment, as well as the

health of consumers. Solving the problem of world hunger is a motive for opponents but so is the

ability to provide job security for scientists, food manufacturers, food distributers, and

themselves.

As previously mentioned, opponents envision a world free of hunger. They seek to make

this a reality through the mass production and distribution of their genetically engineered food

products. This desire is beneficial to a world that is severely lacking the means the traditionally


18/38

Vance18

grow enough food to feed an ever growing populace. However, the current world we live in is

not necessarily lacking in gross food production but distribution of said food. Producing and

distributing the food strategically would result in the betterment of people both physically and

emotionally. Unintentional consequences of producing genetically engineered food has already

been outlined in this paper, but those consequences, like contaminating our dwindling water

supply and eroding natural nutrients in our soil, are central concerns for those that wish to

continue sustaining the human species. Overall, the initial intentions of opponents are not

malicious. The desire to provide an answer to world hunger is admirable, but other avenues on

how to reach that answer could also be explored.

The Farmer Assurance Provision, though seemingly simplistic, instead sets a very vital

precedent for future legal review of genetically engineered crops. If a judge deems a crop unsafe

that was previously deregulated, the courtsruling can be sidestepped thus ensuring judicial

review and ruling null and void. This provision is used to continue cultivating and selling GM

crops, thus ensuring the survival of agri-biotechnology as a whole. The possibilities of science

are boundless, and the Farmer Assurance Provision, will further perpetuate the acceptance of the

industry and the science that goes along with it.

The ideals perpetuated by the opponents basically fall into the realm of bioethics. In a

perfect world, large and powerful companies, agri-biotechnology or not, should act in an ethical

manner. Companies like Monsanto, are attempting to eventually make a real difference in the

lives of those that are malnourished around the world. This normative principle outlines the

Principle of Non-maleficence and the Principle of Beneficence. Because these companies have

such centralized power and money to spread around, these companies are attempting to use their

money and influence for a greater purpose than the betterment of themselves. The power and


19/38

Vance19

money these corporations have access to could be used to help a substantial portion of the human

population. They could help these people by ensuring their products absolute safety. The

corporations must be sure that the food their seeds produce will not have adverse health or

environmental risks. In ensuring this, they would be striving to do no harm to anyone else, thus

fulfilling both principles by just one base action. On the most basic level, opponents ultimately

seek to eradicate hunger. By setting this goal, the opponents are following the Principle of

Beneficence, which again, is closely linked to the Principle of Non-maleficence in that helping

someone would also likely mean striving to do no harm to them. The Principle of Autonomy in

bioethics also comes into play when talking about the type of influence that Monsanto has that is

so wide-spread across the globe. The principle decrees that each rational agent has the right to

make informed decisions in regards to his or her own well-being. In this principle, the rational

agent can be both the individual consumer and the nation they inhabit in general. This individual

or nation should have the choice to allow genetically modified organisms to be produced and

consumed, if they desire. The choice should not be taken away by legislation or any other means.

Although the ultimate goals of huge agri-biotechnology corporations follow the normative

principles within bioethics on paper, in the real world, these principles are lost and used as a

means to an end, and not the other way around.

Proponents value human rights, like food accessibility, over all else. These human rights

also include access to clean water, safe foods free from toxins and chemicals, clean air, and clean

soil in which to continually replant crops. As these are some of the things that allow humans to

continue living and thriving, proponents fight to ensure that these values are upheld. They

envision a world in which all consumers the world over are able to obtain food that is not

harmful to human consumption and crops that will not poison the ground, contaminating water


20/38

Vance20

supplies and organic crops. They value giving people the choice to pick their food supplier and

where it comes from, ensuring accountability from the food suppliers. Proponents thus also value

corporate responsibility. If large agri-biotechnology companies hope to continue planting their

crops and feeding the masses with their product, then they should ensure that their practices and

products are completely safe. For that reason, and because proponents claim the companies make

unscrupulous deals with individuals with political power, they value integrity. Integrity should be

one of the driving forces behind supplying the world with a sustainable and safe food source.

Companies should do everything in their power to ensure safety.

These values help to define the obligations the proponents have. Just as the opponents of

the policy have an obligation to the masses, the proponents do, too, but just in slightly different

ways. They, instead, see their main obligation as not to feed the masses, but ensure that the

worlds food supplyremains safe in all respects so that people consuming the food will be well

nourished. The scientists on this side of the issue thus have an obligation to conduct research that

is both independently funded and accurate especially because GMOs have been banned in

several countries. Proponents have an obligation to the masses to inform them about where their

food comes from and what methods are employed to produce it. They have an obligation to

speak for those in lower income communities and countries that willingly consume genetically

modified food because they do not have access to anything else or do not have the money or

resources to buy alternative food or grow their own.

Proponents also specifically have an obligation to farmers themselves, as they are the

ones that hold the burden of producing high quality products. Farmers, as a group, have an

obligation like the opponents to give consumers a quality product and service but also to ensure

that their farming practices are sustainable and do not harm the environment. These obligations


21/38

Vance21

lead various proponents to act as a sort of regulatory agency that checks producers in the food

industry in hopes of balancing them. This last obligation serves to also balance the political

process in which GMOs have a role to play in, in order to protect the consumer and greater

population at large. The grassroots organizations that are heavily involved in the GMO debate,

like Occupy Monsanto and the Sierra Club, also have an obligation to speak on the issues and

concerns raised by consumers, for consumers.

These consumers, however, fail to recognize the possibilities that could be rendered from

a world that embraces genetically engineered products. The potential associated with the ability

to modify an organism at a molecular level are endless. Especially in a country that does not

have a steady influx of food or their harvests are not large enough to feed the local community.

Proponents, by vigorously protesting the production of GMOs and banning them outright, take

away the choice of the constituents of other countries that might benefit from genetically

engineered crops, though possibly unintentionally. In a world without GMOs, the possibility of

being vaccinated by eating a banana vanishes. In the long-run, however, a world without GMOs

would likely also produce less water and soil contamination by taking away the ability of

genetically modified seeds to be planted and then spread. Planting and spreading these seeds that

cannot exist without the help of toxic chemicals would only further contaminate the worlds

resources. This could also lead to better human health, both physically and mentally. It would

likely lessen the amount of allergens that plague humans, while decreasing the possibility of

cancer and low birth weights.

Some of the implications of the Farmer Assurance Provision have already been

discussed, like the power of the judiciary being removed, but this bill is set to expire at the end of

the fiscal year, in September. As of now, GMOs have not been banned in the United States.


22/38

Vance22

Because the U.S. is a first world country, though it could benefit from using GMOs for various

reasons, it doesnt necessarily need them, like Africa might. Our influence, however, is far-

reaching. Banning them here would likely set off a chain reaction, resulting in, at least most of

the rest of the world that currently has no restrictions on GMOs, banning them as well. Though

perhaps unintentional, banning GMOs would mean changing the average diet of millions of

people. However, this would likely be for the better, in the long run, at the very least for the

environment and human health.

Obligations to various sorts of people around the world are used as a moral guidance by

proponents. The issue of GMOs is very dense so referencing back to who is affected and why

something must be done about it further lays down the groundwork for the cause. The ideals put

forth by proponents easily follow a Kantian theory of morality. In Kantian Ethics, moral

judgments should be dealt with by reason. In the issue of GMOs, proponents take this to mean

that anything but the facts are frivolous. Hunger is a devastating commonality in the world, but

just because GMOs are pushed as the answer to the problem, that doesnt mean that it is.

Because some research has shown genetically modified organisms do indeed have negative

effects on the world, by reason, proponents contend that GMOs should be immoral. The

categorical imperative to proponents would entail a universal law of nature against genetically

engineered products. Every action is based on that law and it should be followed consistently.

Following the categorical imperative could also lead to one following the Principle of Ends,

which bind an individual to never treating another human being as a mere mean to an end but

instead as an end in themselves. By following this principle, agri-biotechnology corporations

should provide safe products to the consumer not because or for monetary gain, but because the

consumer needs the product to survive. The consumer should be treated as an important


23/38

Vance23

individual, not as just another mouth to feed. This principle can also outline that proponents

should be more sympathetic of the millions of people that suffer from hunger each day. They are

not faceless; they are no different than anyone else, and should be treated with the same dignity

and respect. Just as the opponents should follow the Principle of Autonomy, so should the

proponents. Any person or nation should be given the choice to ban GMOs as far as their power

extends.

I was able to interview a few highly qualified and involved individuals within the GMO

debate on both sides, starting with C C Castaneda Liedecke, who is an author and activist, as

well as the lead organizer of March Against Monsanto, Austin Chapter. The interview was

highly insightful and served to confirm the research put together for this paper. At the time of the

interview, I had already thought a great deal about my tentative conclusion but Ms. Castaneda

Liedecke further helped to solidify my own opinion by walking me through the issue with a more

broad perspective. She helped me to remember the most common and general problem with

GMOs in the spotlight: everything revolves around money.

I also interviewed Dr. Martin B. Dickman, who is a professor at Texas A&M that directly

experiments with GMOs, and is the Director for the Institute for Plant Genomics and

Biotechnology, Center for Cell Death and Differentiation, and Department of Plant Pathology

and Microbiology. This interview was also highly insightful in that my whole perspective was

slightly changed. He stressed the separation of the science of biotechnology and the business of

biotechnology. Of course, since the business cannot exist without the science, separating the two

is basically impossible, but it did serve to broaden my intellectual horizon. If one separates the

science from the business, the possibilities associated with advancing science are hard to even


24/38

Vance24

fathom. There is no telling where science could lead the human race. It can be used for both good

and evil, but science is just knowledge, and knowledge is power.

I also interviewed Richard L. Lobb, who is the Managing Director for the Council for

Biotechnology Information. He was referred to me by Syngenta, after multiple attempts to

contact various Monsanto locations around the U.S. failed. This interview, though full of

information and statistics, had little effect on my ultimate conclusion.

For my civic engagement, Imarched against Monsanto on May 25thof this year. The

experience was liberating. There were easily a couple hundred people from toddlers to the

elderly, some dressed up as bees or pieces of fruit, waving home-made protest signs and

screaming, Hell no, GMO!. Speakers stressed the importance of banning together and

spreading awareness and the message was very well received by the audience, despite a few

cannons fired close by at the Capital. I also wrote a letter to Sen. John Cornyn expressing my

opinion on the matter of GMOs. This, however, did little to influence my conclusion, as Sen.

Cornyn is pro-GMO and I have already seen one of the responses he sent back to another letter

expressing concerns for GMOs. As I have my opinion, he has his.

For my ultimate conclusion, the Farmer Assurance Provision, though set to

expire, should be struck from the spending bill. The precedent that it sets is far too grave for

future dealings concerning GMOs. Without judiciary power being able to decree possibly

hazardous crops as regulated, the power of the consumer, and the legal system, is taken away.

People without the power of choice for their food become slaves to the endeavors of large agri-

biotechnology corporations. In a free society like the United States, our basic human rights and

liberties are marginalized without that power. Without having those legal safeguards in place


25/38

Vance25

and allowing the authority of the judiciary to be invalidated, both in the immediate and long-run,

this provision creates a slippery slope for those navigating their way through the food industry

through legal avenues.

I firmly believe that any genetically engineered organisms should be heavily regulated

and constantly checked to ensure absolute safety for the production and consumption of them for

both humans and the environment. There should be multiple panels and organizations that seat

various people from all points of the issue spectrum, that work together to promote a more

balanced perspective on the issue to not only work through political aspects but also social ones,

like spreading awareness, backed up by facts.

Though inherently a little radical, as such a mass change would be difficult to mandate

and manage, I believe the outright ban of GMOs would, in the long run, serve the human

populace more than allowing them to continue to flourish. The prevalence of hunger is so great

that feeding every mouth on Earth through the help of genetically engineered food is a long-term

goal, one that is likely unfeasible as GMOs are already banned in a number of countries. Either

the ultimate eradication or embracement of GMOs seems more likely than finding a middle

ground in a world that is increasingly interconnected through all means.

Finding an answer to hunger should not be forgotten; instead, the resources the large agri-

biotechnology companies have access to could be used to find alternative ways to feed the

masses in a more positive way that will enhance the quality of life for all those involved. Though

research conducted by both the proponents and opponents seems credible, they have differing

conclusions. I tend to agree with a more precautionary way of life when it comes to something

that could potentially threaten the health of humans and the environment, and on a more broad


26/38

Vance26

level, all living creatures. The research that asserts there are negative effects from the production

and consumption of GMOs is more compelling for me as we are living in a world that is quickly

using up natural resources and not funding enough sustainable farming or energy practices.

At this point, I agree with the main points of the proponents as I would rather take

precaution on the issue than disregard pertinent information as inconclusive. I do not wish to

discount the possibilities associated with the technology of genetic modification as I truly believe

the technology could be used for a greater purpose. I just believe that there is no room for any

product on the free market that could possibly have adverse effects of the people who produce,

plant, and consume the product, in the long run. People who might object to such a stark ban of

GMOs would assert that the technology can be used to really change the world for the better.

They would say that the lives of the millions of people suffering from hunger could be drastically

changed forever. Research on that particular point is inconclusive, though I will admit

genetically engineered crops would allow countries to have access to food that they may have

not necessarily been able to traditionally grow before. On the other hand, however, the chance of

world degradation through contaminating the environment and the people consuming GMOs is

heightened. In an increasingly industrialized world, pollution and human health cannot take a

backseat to corporate endeavors or economic prosperity. Sustainable and independent farming on

a local or communal level would do better to feed the masses than genetically engineered food

and seeds sent to areas where hunger is prevalent. My view is easily explained by applying the

Utilitarian Principle of Morality. The ends justify the means. A world without GMOs in the long

run will be healthier and full of biodiversity. In my viewpoint, the ultimate goal is to save the

planet and create the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people. This would mean

a safe and reliable food source and companies that listen to the real needs of the people. There is


27/38

Vance27

no easy answer to solve the problem of hunger, but with the fact that every 36 seconds a person

dies of starvation, Im sure that GMOs are not what we should be focusing on, as there is a

definite time constraint plaguing the most affected countries (Khush, 2). The consequences from

allowing genetically engineered products to flourish would eventually counteract all the good

that they may have had progress on. In the long-run, a world without GMOs is better for the

sustainment of the human race. The Farmer Assurance Provision does little to help farmers

themselves and instead serves to promote the power and reach of large bio-technology

corporations. I want to live in a world created for the people, by the people. I dont want future

generations to deal with the problems our generation has created. Ultimately, a world without

GMOs is a world with a smaller chance of self-destruction. The next time you find yourself

grocery shopping, choose wisely. You have the power to change the world with your dollar.

Appendix A

H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013: Section 735: Farmer

Assurance Provision

In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the

Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall,

notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or

producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to

necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant

Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued

cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements,


28/38

Vance28

including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if

any, relevant to the Secretary's evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring

that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry

out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be

applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required

analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That

nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411,

412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act

Appendix B

Interview Questions

Proponent:

Proponents of genetically modified foods say that they can be used to solve world hunger. Do

you believe this to be true? If not, what is a better alternative to sustainable farming for an ever

growing population?

Do you believe, as some people do that are against GMOs, that there is a form of

corruption being orchestrated by individuals in high ranking positions in the federal government

(EPA, FDA, USDA) with those in large agri-biotchenology corporations like Monsanto and

Syngenta? If so, what sort of checks and balances can be used to inhibit these abuses?

Some pro-GMO scientists claim that bananas (for example) will someday be able to

administer lifesaving vaccines to populations that may have not had access to those resources

before. Should these allegations be discounted? Can they not over great technological

advantages?

There has been a large amount of research conducted on the effects of growing

genetically modified products and then feeding them to animals and humans alike. Some

research has claimed there have been adverse health effects from consuming these products.

Other research has claimed the opposite. How can an organization, like March Against

Monsanto, account for these conflicting conclusions?


29/38

Vance29

Again, various research has reached conflicting conclusions about the safety of growing

these crops and their effects on the environment, including soil, water, and air quality.? Are there

natural alternatives to having to use a larger quantity of herbicides and pesticides due to

environmental tolerances?

How do you feel about the Farmer Assurance Provision and other policies that revolvearound genetically modified organisms? Do you think they are slanted in any way?

Can any good come from genetically altering any organism?

Many countries have already banned genetically modified foods inside their borders. Why do

you think this is? Is using the Precautionary Principle, as many European countries do,

something that the United States should consider?

Opponent:

What exactly do you do at Texas A&M/Council for Biotechnology Information?

There has been a large amount of research conducted on the effects, if any, of growing

genetically modified products and then feeding them to animals and humans alike. Some

research has suggests there can be adverse health effects from consuming these products. Other

research has claimed the opposite. How can any organization that promotes agricultural

biotechnology account for these conflicting conclusions?

Again, various research has reached conflicting conclusions about the safety of growing

these crops and their effects on the environment, including soil, water, and air quality.

Environmental tolerances are always being built so doesnt it mean that more and more

herbicides and pesticides will have to be used? How do you think these chemicals do not harm

the environment or vital species, like bees?

Do you conduct research on these topics? Who funds such research projects? Is there ever

a concern about manipulating or slightly tweaking conclusions to support the ideals of the entity

who funds them?

Many countries have already banned genetically modified foods inside their borders.

Why do you think this is? Is using the Precautionary Principle, as many European countries do,

something that the United States should not consider?

Do you think it is possible that there really is a risk? Why do you think large numbers of

people are so up in arms about this issue? Is this something that needs to be investigated further?

Is our current understanding of DNA and genomes so far advanced that stability is

ensured when manipulating them? As these organisms evolve, how can we ensure our own

safety from them? (An extreme and fanciful example would be related to the nature of the cult

classic movie Attack of the Killer Tomatoes)


30/38

Vance30

Though the FDA, EPA, and USDA do indeed set certain regulations for the cultivation

and marketing of genetically modified crops, my understanding is that companies like Monsanto

and Syngenta only have to share information with these organizations at their own discretion

most of the time. They are not forced to do so. Do you think this is helpful? Should these

procedures be changed?

Some critics of GMOs think that the funds that large agri-biotechnology corporations

make should be used to first research all the effects of these crops for a longer period of time to

verify, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are safe to be on the world market. Do you agree

with this? Are there any long-term research projects going on right now that you know of?

How do you feel about the Farmer Assurance Provision and other policies that revolve

around genetically modified organisms? Critics claim they are slanted in large agricultural

biotechnology companys favor. Do you agree?

With the attempts at patenting seeds and introducing kill-switch mechanisms insidethose seeds, how do you respond to those that claim huge corporations like Monsanto and

Syngenta are monopolizing the market and forcing farmers into contracts that compel them to

buy new and expensive seeds after every harvest, leading them away from traditional means of

farming, like reusing their old seeds? Do you think these policies are fair to all parties?

Appendix C

Picture of material gathered at March Against Monsanto and letter to Sen. John Cornyn


31/38

Vance31

August 4th

, 2013

Dear Senator Cornyn,

I am an undergraduate student at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas, and I am

writing you today in the hopes that you will consider further investigation on the issue of

genetically modified organisms. I have conducted a fair share of unbiased research on

environmental safety, human health concerns, and the possibility of finding a solution to world

hunger through GM foods.

I am aware that you currently support GMOs for multiple reasons, but I implore you to

re-evaluate your stance and take a more analytical view of the issue.

I ask this because I want to live in a world where pollution and human health do not take

a backseat to corporate endeavors or economic prosperity. Sustainable and independent farmingon a local or communal level would do better to feed the masses than genetically engineered

food and seeds sent to areas where hunger is prevalent.

Have you heard of the Food Forest that is being built in Seattle? Please look into doing

the same for other parts of this great nation of ours. Just like you, I also want to best for our

citizens and I believe this project can feasibly be implemented on a grander scale.

You have the power to change the worlds future for the better, just as we all do. Please,

take a moment to imagine a world without GMOs. It is the world our children deserve to flourish

in.

Thank you so much for your time.

Respectfully,

Ariella Vance

Appendix D

Power Point slides from Submission Four: Oral Presentations


32/38

Vance32


33/38

Vance33

Work Cited

A. M. Salariya, et al. "Genetically Modified Organisms (Gmos): Food Security or Threat to Food

Safety."Pakistan Journal Of Science64.2 (2012): 6-12.Academic Search Complete.

Web. 6 June 2013.

"A Brief History of Genetic Modification." GM Education- Making Sense of Science and

Evidence. Citizens Concerned About GM. n.d.. Web. 20 Jun 2013.

Agricultural Retailers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade

Association, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association,

Biotechnology Industry Organization, National Association of Wheat Growers, National

Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer

Cooperatives. Letter to The Honorable Harold Rogers and The Honorable Norm Dicks.

www.monsanto.comWeb. 20 Jun. 2013

Agriculture and Food Security. U.S. Agency for International Development, 4 Jun. 2013. Web.

05 Jun. 2013.

Barlett, Donald L., Steele, James B. Monsantos Harvest of Fear Vanity Fair, 2008. Web. 16

Jun. 2013

Bell, Andre R. Cole, Lindsay, USDA Announces Decision to Deregulate Genetically

Engineered Sugar Beets APHIS Jul. 2013 Web. 8 Aug. 2013

Berge, Jean-Baptiste, Bernheim, Aude, Kuntz, Marcel, Pascal, Gerard, Paris, Alain, Eicroch,

Agnes E., Snell, Chelsea. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-
http://www.monsanto.com/http://www.monsanto.com/http://www.monsanto.com/


34/38

Vance34

term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature reviewwww.elsevier.com.

Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 1134-1148. Web. 9 Jun. 2013

Billingsley, Gloria, Bongyu, Moye, Nwagwu, Emeka, Younis, Mustafa. Genetically Modified

Foods and Public Health Debate: Designing Programs to Mitigate RisksPublic

Administration & Management, Vol. 13, Number 3, 191-217. Web. 9 Jun. 2013

Castaneda Liedecke, March Against Monsanto Austin Chapter, Lead Organizer. Skype. 28 Jul.

2013

CNN; Millions Protest Genetically Modified Food, Monsanto, Organizers Say. Occupy

Monsanto. Web. 9 Jun. 2013

Cunha, Mario, Diels, Johan, Sabugosa-Madeira, Bernardo, Silva, Margarida. Association of

financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or

nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Elsevier. Food Policy

2010. Web. 23 Jun. 2013

Devos, Yann, Maeseele, Pieter, Reheul, Dirk, Van Speybroeck, Linda, De Waele, Danny.

Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re)quest for Sense

and Sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2008) 21:29-61, 4

Apr. 2007. Web. 18 Jun. 2013

Dickman, Martin B., Ph.D professor at Texas A&M, Director for the Institute for Plant

Genomics and Biotechnology, Center for Cell Death and Differentiation, and Department

of Plant Pathology and Microbiology. Skype. 28 Jul. 2013

Do GM Crops Increase Yield? Monsanto, 26 Nov. 2012. Web, 9 Jun. 2013
http://www.elsevier.com/http://www.elsevier.com/http://www.elsevier.com/http://www.elsevier.com/


35/38

Vance35

Eriksson, Mikael, Hardell, Lennart. A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and

Exposure to Pesticides. American Cancer Society 1999. Web. 18 Jun. 2013

Ermakova, Irina V. "GM SoybeansRevisiting A Controversial Format."Nature

Biotechnology25.12 (2007): 1351-1354.Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 June 2013.

Finamore, Alberto, Roselli, Marianna, Britti, Serena, Monastra, Giovanni, Ambra, Roberto,

Turrini, Aida, Mengheri, Elena. Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810

Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, (23), 11533-

11539. 12 Nov. 2008 Wed. 9 Jun. 2013

Food Democracy Now! Monsanto Protection Act: 5 Terrifying Things to Know About the HR

933 Provisionwww.fooddemocracynow.org4 Apr. 2013. Web. 13 Jun. 2013

Food Safetywww.monsanto.comWeb. 9 Jun. 2013

Genetically Modified Organisms: The Basics of GMOs Farm & Ranch Freedom Alliance.

Handout. Print. 25 May 2013

Gurian-Sherman, Doug.Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered

CropsUnion of Concerned Scientists2009. Print. 20 Jun. 2013

Kenfield, Isabella. Monsantos man in the Obama administration, with an eye on Africa

www.FoodFirst.org12 Aug. 2009 Web. 17 Jul. 2013

Keefe-Feldman, Mike. "Center for Food Safety Blasts "Monsanto Protection Act"."Nonprofit

Quarterly "Promoting an active and engaged democracy". Nonprofit Quarterly, 03 Apr

2013. Web. 20 Jun 2013.
http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/http://www.monsanto.com/http://www.monsanto.com/http://www.monsanto.com/http://www.foodfirst.org/http://www.foodfirst.org/http://www.foodfirst.org/http://www.monsanto.com/http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/


36/38

Vance36

Khush, Gurdev S. What it will take the Feed 5.0 Billion Rice consumers in 2030International

Rice Research Institute, 11 Feb. 2005. Springer 2005. Web. 20 Jun. 2013

Lobb, Richard L. Managing Director for the Council for Biotechnology Information. Skype 27

Jul. 2013

New Study Links Monsantos Roundup to Cancer. Organic Consumers Association, 22 Jun.

Web. 9 Jun. 2013

Noted Food Safety Expert Michael R. Taylor Named Advisor to FDA Commissioner FDA

U.S. Food and Drug Administration.www.fda.govNews Release 7 Jul. 2009. Web. 18

Jun. 2013

Paarlberg, Robert. GMO foods and crops: Africas choice Elsevier. New Biotechnology, Vol.

27, Number 5, Nov. 2010. Web. 9 Jun. 2013

Petit, Michel. The Benefits of Modern Agriculture. A Reassessment Following Recent

Controversies. Global Harvest Initiative, n.d.. Web 9 Jun. 2013

Pusztai, Arpad, Ewen, Stanley W.B. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes

expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intenstine. The Lancet. Vol 354, 16 Oct.

1999. Web. 9 Jun. 2013

Trabalza-Marinucci, Massimo, Brandi, Giorgio, Rondini, Cristina, Avellini, Luca, Giammarini,

Camilla, Costarelli, Silvia, Acuti, Gabriele, Orlandi, Chiara, Filippini, Giovanni,

Chiaradia, Elisabetta, Malatesta, Manuela, Crotti, Silvia, Antonini, Chiara, Amagliani,

Giulia, Manuadli, Elisabetta, Mastrogiacombo, Anna Rita, Moscati, Livia, Haouet,

Mohamed Naceur, Gaiti, Alberto, Magnani, Mauro. A three-year longitudinal study on
http://www.fda.gov/http://www.fda.gov/http://www.fda.gov/http://www.fda.gov/


37/38

Vance37

the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and

performance of sheep Elsevier. ScienceDirect. Livestock Science 113 (2008) 178-190.

Web. 9 Jun. 2013

USDAs National Agricultural Statistics Service. USDA Economic Research Service. United

States Department of Agriculture, 12 Jul. 2012.Excelfile.

United States of America. Congress. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,

2013. Mar. 2013. Web. 20 Jun 2013

Whiteside, K. H. Precautionary Politics: Principle and Practice in Confronting Environmental

Risk MIT Press. Web. 18 Jun. 2013

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/sept_20_bios.pdfWeb. 18 Jun. 2013
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/sept_20_bios.pdfhttp://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/sept_20_bios.pdfhttp://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/sept_20_bios.pdf


38/38

Vance38

Documents

Ariella's Capstone