Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Running head: GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 1
Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States of America
Community College of Vermont
Author Note
This paper was prepared for a class called Introduction to Research Methods.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 2
Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States of America
Introduction
Twenty years ago genetically modified organisms didn’t exist (Smith, 2012). Now in the
year 2013 “about 75 percent of processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients” in
the United States (Marsa, 2013). Almost everyone in the United States has consumed genetically
modified organisms (Smith, 2012). Many consumers don’t know what foods are genetically
modified because labeling of genetically modified organisms is not mandatory in the United
States and Canada (Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), 2013). There is
convincing evidence appearing with the increase of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that
GMOs have negative impacts on humans, animals, and the environment.
According to Smith (2007), genetically modified organisms or genetically engineered
organisms (GEOs) are organisms that have been scientifically altered by inserting genes from
one life form into a different life form (p. 13). GMOs can also be referred to as transgenic
organisms (“What are transgenic organisms?” 2013). For instance, genes from the animal
kingdom can be inserted into plants, an event that does not occur in nature (Smith, 2012). “GE
[genetically engineered] crops were first grown commercially in the United States in 1996”
(Batcha, 2011).
Statistics
Fernandez-Cornejo (2012) claimed that 22 percent of all soybeans planted in North
Dakota in the United States of America were genetically modified soybeans in the year 2000 (p.
4). Figure 1 clearly demonstrates how by the year 2012, the percent of genetically modified
soybeans in North Dakota steadily increased to 98 percent (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012). The
increase from 22 percent to 98 percent was the largest increase of genetically modified soybeans
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Perc
enta
ge
Year
Percent of Corn That is Genetically Modified Planted Across Five States in the United States of America From the Years 2000 to 2012
IllinoisKansasMinnesotaMissouriWisconsin
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 3
of the five states that were examined
(Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012). The trend in
Figure 1 shows that overall, the percentage of
genetically modified soybeans increased
from the year 2000 to 2012 in Ohio,
Mississippi, Kansas, Illinois, and North
Dakota (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012). By 2012,
genetically modified soybeans comprised over 85 percent of soybeans planted in each of the five
states (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012).
Fernandez-Cornejo (2012) indicated that less than 40 percent of corn crops planted in
Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin were genetically modified in the year 2000
(p. 1). Illinois had a dramatic increase in the percentage of genetically modified corn planted
from the year 2005 to 2007. Thirty-six percent of all the corn crops planted in Illinois in 2005
were genetically modified (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012). Just two years later in 2007, 74 percent of
Illinois’ corn crops were genetically modified (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012). Figure 2 has shown
that the whole state of Kansas only planted 33 percent of its corn in a genetically modified form
in the year 2000 (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012). Then, by 2012, 90 percent of the corn planted in
Kansas was genetically modified
(Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012). All five states
planted from 85 to 90 percent of their corn
crops as genetically modified corn in the
year 2012 (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012).
Figure 1: (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012)
Figure 2: (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Perc
enta
ge
Year
Comparison of the Percentage of Genetically Modified (GM) Corn, GM Cotton, and GM Soybeans Planted in the United States From the Years 2000 to 2012
CornCottonSoybean
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Plum
Alfalfa
Rice
Cantaloupe
Flax
Sugar Beet
Chicory
Papaya
Soybean
Potato
Corn
Cotton
Canola
Tomato
Squash
Year of Approval
Gen
etic
ally
Mod
ified
Foo
d
The Years That 15 Different Genetically Modified Foods Were Approved for Human Consumption in the United States of America
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 4
Fernandez-Cornejo (2012) has noted that 25
percent of all the corn planted throughout the
United States of America was genetically
modified in the year 2000 (p. 1). He also
declared that 61 percent of all the cotton
planted in the United States was genetically
modified in 2000 (p. 2). Fernandez-Cornejo
(2012) pointed out that 54 percent of all the soybeans planted in the United States were
genetically modified in 2000 (p. 4). Figure 3 has indicated that a higher percentage of soybean
plants were genetically modified from the years 2002 to 2009 than both corn and cotton planted
in the United States (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012). From 2009 to 2012, the percentage of
genetically modified corn, cotton, and soybean crops were all above 80 percent throughout the
United States (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012).
The GM Approval Database (2013) has reported that fifteen genetically modified crops
have been approved for human consumption in the United States of America. Genetically
modified forms of squash, tomato, canola, and cotton plants (from which cotton seed oil can be
derived and eaten) were all approved for
people to consume in the United States in
the year 1994 (GM Approval Database,
2013). Then, in 1995 genetically modified
forms of corn, potato, and soybean plants
were approved for humans to eat (GM
Approval Database, 2013). Genetically
Figure 3: (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012)
Figure 4: (GM Approval Database, 2013)
Herbicide Tolerant Crops61%
Insect Resistant Crops20%
Herbicide Tolerant and Insect Resistant Crops
17%
Other GM Varieties2%
Types of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Planted in the World in the Year 2010
Herbicide Tolerant Crops
Insect Resistant Crops
Herbicide Tolerant and Insect ResistantCropsOther GM Varieties
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 5
modified forms of papaya and chicory plants were approved to be food for people in the United
States in 1997 (GM Approval Database, 2013). By 1998, genetically modified types of sugar
beet and flax plants were deemed adequate for human consumption (GM Approval Database,
2013). From 1999 to 2009, genetically modified forms of cantaloupe, then rice, then alfalfa, and
later plum plants were all acceptable for people to eat (GM Approval Database, 2013). The GM
Approval Database (2013) wrote that all of the genetically modified food crops listed in Figure 4
were approved for animal feed the same year they were approved for human food, with one
exception, the cantaloupe. Genetically modified cantaloupe is not permitted to become animal
feed in the United States (GM Approval Database, 2013).
There are three different types of genetically modified organisms that are most often
planted (Batcha, 2011, p. 8). “HT [herbicide tolerant] crops are engineered to survive an
otherwise toxic dose of weed killer” (Smith, 2007, p. 7). Two hundred twenty two million acres
of herbicide tolerant crops were planted throughout the world in 2010, which accounted for 61
percent of the genetically modified crops planted (Batcha, 2011). Insect resistant crops are plants
that have been genetically modified to contain an element that is toxic to insects, thus protecting
the genetically modified crop from insects (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012). Seventy four million
acres of insect resistant crops were planted
globally in 2010 (Batcha, 2011, p. 8). Twenty
percent of all the genetically modified crops
planted in the year 2010 were insect resistant
crops (Batcha, 2011, p. 8). Genetically
modified crops that were both insect resistant
and herbicide tolerant crops were planted on Figure 5: (Batcha, 2011)
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 6
sixty one million acres of land on earth in 2010 (Batcha, 2011, p. 8). As depicted in Figure 5, 17
percent of genetically modified crops planted in 2010 throughout the world were engineered to
be insect resistant and herbicide tolerant (Batcha, 2011, p. 8).
A total of twenty nine countries grew genetically modified crops in 2010 (Batcha, 2011,
p. 8). The ten countries with the most acres of genetically modified crops in 2010 are listed in
Figure 6. The United States of America grew the greatest quantity of genetically modified crops
in 2010, amounting to one hundred sixty five million acres (Batcha, 2011, p. 8). Brazil grew
sixty three million acres of genetically modified crops in 2010 (Batcha, 2011, p. 8). Fifty six
million acres of genetically modified crops were grown in Argentina in the year 2010 (Batcha,
2011, p. 8). India had 23.5 million acres of land covered with genetically modified crops in 2010
(Batcha, 2011, p. 8). Figure 6 indicates that 22.25 million acres of genetically modified crops
were planted in Canada in the year 2010 (Batcha, 2011, p. 8). Uruguay, South Africa, Pakistan,
Paraguay, and China each planted a different amount of genetically modified crops, with a range
from 2.75 million acres to 8.75 million acres (Batcha, 2011, p. 8).
Suzuki has argued that “The ability to introduce alien genes into a genome is an
impressive technological manipulation but we remain too ignorant of how the genome works to
anticipate all of the consequences, subtle or
obvious, immediate or long-term, of those
manipulations” (as cited in Smith, 2007,
para. 3). There has been documentation
regarding the negative health effects of
genetically modified crops on humans. For
example, Smith (2007) emphasized that
165
6356
23.5 22.25
8.75 6.5 6 5.5 2.750
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
UnitedStates
Brazil Argentina India Canada China Paraguay Pakistan SouthAfrica
Uruguay
Mill
ions
of A
cres
Country
Millions of Acres of Genetically Modified Crops Produced in the Top Ten Countries in the Year 2010
Figure 6: (Batcha, 2011)
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 7
“Agricultural laborers in six villages who picked or loaded Bt [Bacillus thuringiensis] cotton
reported reactions of the skin, eyes, and upper respiratory tract” (p. 30).
Dangers of GMOs
Genetically modified organisms can cause new food allergies (Nordlee, Taylor,
Townsend, Thomas, & Bush, 1996). One type of genetically modified soybean has a Brazil nut
gene inserted into it (Nordlee et al., 1996). In 1996 researchers did a skin pricking test to
determine if three people were allergic to the transgenic soybeans (Nordlee et al., 1996). All
three people were allergic to the Brazil nuts and the transgenic soybeans (Nordlee et al., 1996).
The people were not allergic to pure soybeans (Nordlee et al., 1996). This study indicates that the
allergen that was found in the Brazil nut gene was carried over to the genetically modified
soybean (Nordlee et al., 1996).
The biotechnology company, Calgene, created a GMO Flavr Savr Tomato that went
through a voluntary consultation process of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Smith,
2012). This was the only raw feeding data ever given to the FDA (Smith, 2012). Calgene did an
experiment which entailed offering the Flavr Savr Tomato to rats (Smith, 2012). The rats refused
to eat the genetically engineered Flavr Savr Tomato (Smith, 2012). Then the industry
experimenters force-fed the Flavr Savr Tomatoes to the rats and after 28 days of force-feeding
the rats, seven of 20 rats developed stomach lesions, then seven of 40 rats died within two weeks
(Smith, 2012).
According to the documentary by Smith (2012), another study of GMOs was conducted
in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom gave a three million dollar grant to Dr. Arpad
Pusztai, one of the world’s leading nutritional researchers to study a genetically modified potato
(Smith, 2012). He studied a GMO potato that was engineered to produce an insecticide (Smith,
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 8
2012). Dr. Pusztai had three different groups of rats (Smith, 2012). He fed the first group of rats
a complete and balanced diet that included the genetically engineered potato (Smith, 2012). He
fed the second group of rats the GMO-free potato (Smith, 2012). And he fed the third group of
rats a GMO-free potato with the insecticide added into the diet separately (Smith, 2012). The
only rats that got sick were the rats eating the genetically modified potato (Smith, 2012). The rats
that ate the GMO-free potato and the rats that ate the GMO-free potato with the added insecticide
did not get sick (Smith, 2012). Therefore, the problem was not the insecticide. This experiment
demonstrated that some part of the GMO potato sickened the rats (Smith, 2012). The rats that ate
the genetically engineered potatoes for ten days developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth
in their digestive tracts, smaller livers, brains, and testicles, partial degeneration of their livers,
and damage to their immune systems (Smith, 2012). This experiment’s results went public for
two days, but then the data was hidden and publicized to be false (Smith, 2012). Now, however
Dr. Pusztai has his data back and it was published in The Lancet in 1999 (Smith, 2012). The
Lancet is the world’s leading medical journal (Smith, 2012). Dr. Pusztai’s potato study was
widely publicized:
Seven hundred fifty articles were written in one month when the gag order was lifted on Dr. Pusztai’s potato study in the United Kingdom. Ten weeks later the tipping point of consumer rejection was achieved. One week later virtually every major food company committed to stop using GM ingredients in Europe. (Smith, 2012)
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) asked doctors “to educate
their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM [genetically modified] foods”
(Dean & Armstrong, 2009). The AAEM has come to the conclusion that “GM foods have not
been properly tested for human consumption, and . . . there is ample evidence of probable harm”
(Dean & Armstrong, 2009). GM foods pose a serious health risk based on the results from
multiple animal studies (Dean & Armstrong, 2009). With mounting data, one can deduce that
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 9
GM foods “cause adverse health effects in humans” (Dean & Armstrong, 2009). The following
predicaments in humans are likely to be correlated with GMOs: reproductive problems, immune
system problems, accelerated aging, organ damage, and dysfunctional regulation of cholesterol
and insulin (Dean & Armstrong, 2009).
Bt-corn is a genetically modified form of corn that has Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) spliced
into the corn plant (Friedlander, 1999). Researchers at Cornell University found that Bt-corn
“pollen kills monarch butterfly larvae” (Friedlander, 1999). The group of monarch caterpillars
that ate the milkweed leaves covered in Bt-corn pollen ate less food and grew at a slower rate
than the monarch caterpillars fed milkweed with non-genetically modified corn pollen
(Friedlander, 1999). Almost half of the monarch caterpillars eating Bt-corn pollen died during
the study (Friedlander, 1999). All the monarch caterpillars eating non-genetically modified “corn
pollen survived the study” (Friedlander, 1999).
From 2011 to 2012 there was a 59 percent decrease in the monarch butterfly’s population
(Conniff, 2013). In December, 2012 only 2.74 acres of trees had monarch butterflies living there,
the smallest amount of monarch butterflies ever measured (Conniff, 2013). In 1996 monarch
butterflies occupied almost 49.32 acres of trees in the winter in Mexico (Conniff, 2013). Among
the factors causing the sharp decline in butterflies, Orley Taylor, director of Monarch Watch
highlighted that “the increased planting of genetically modified corn in the U.S. Midwest, which
has led to a greater use of herbicides, which in turn kills the milkweed that is a prime food source
for the butterflies” (Conniff, 2013).
Monsanto is a large biotechnology company that has created and sold genetically
engineered plant seeds and a weed killer known as Roundup (Monsanto Website, 2013).
According to Mclure (2012), “Farmers who buy Monsanto GM [genetically modified] seeds
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 10
while they are covered by patents are barred from saving them from season to season as they
may do with conventional crops” (p. 723).
Monsanto did multiple studies on their genetically modified soybean plant before it was
placed on the consumer market (Fedoroff & Brown, 2004, p. 172). The studies consisted of:
Monsanto’s researchers checked the fatty acid composition of the oil and its total quantity. They looked at the amount of fiber, ash, and water, and compared the carbohydrates and proteins. They gave special attention to chemicals typically found in soybeans that could be toxic at higher levels or act as antinutrients. They did feeding studies in rats, chickens, catfish, and cattle to show that there were no nutritional differences between Roundup Ready soy and its market rivals. They found no substantial differences. (Fedoroff & Brown, 2004, p. 172)
Traavik and Heinemann have explained how some of the GMO studies are limited:
Most of the animal feeding studies conducted so far have been designed exclusively to reveal husbandry production differences between GEOs and their unmodified counterparts. Studies designed to reveal physiological or pathological effects are extremely few, and they demonstrate a quite worrisome trend: Studies performed by the industry find no problems, while studies from independent research groups often reveal effects that should have merited immediate follow-up, confirmation and extension. (as cited in Smith, 2007, p. 194)
Super pests and weeds are appearing. Only the pests that can eat and survive the
genetically modified plants mate, thus pests proliferate that can eat the GM crops and survive
(Smith, 2012). Then the farmer has to put more pesticide on the plants than before, usually a
more harmful pesticide to get rid of the pests (Smith, 2012). A high amount of herbicide being
sprayed on crop fields depletes the soil of vital nutrients (Smith, 2012). Mclure (2012) noted that
“Researchers have documented cases of resistance to Bt insecticide by the corn borer and corn
rootworm, the two main pests killed by Bt corn – and a Roundup-resistant strain of a weed called
waterhemp already has spread to 10 states” (pp. 723-724).
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 11
The benefits that biotechnology companies like Monsanto predicted would be true of GM
crops seem to be untrue after the GM crops have been planted, grown, and harvested for a
number of years (Ho & Ching, 2004). A United Kingdom Soil Association pointed out that:
The evidence we set out suggests that … virtually every benefit claimed for GM crops has not occurred. Instead, farmers are reporting lower yields, continuing dependency on herbicides and pesticides, loss of access to markets and, critically, reduced profitability leaving food production even more vulnerable to the interests of the biotechnology companies and in need of subsidies. (as cited in Ho & Ching, 2004, pp. 5-6)
Labeling
VPIRG (2013) stated that over sixty countries in the world have labeling laws in place
that require genetically modified foods to be labeled. The following excerpt provides basic
information about global labeling laws surrounding genetically modified organisms:
The first labeling policies were introduced by the European Union (EU) in 1997. Since then, many other countries, including developing countries, have adopted some type of labeling policy for GM food. There are 31 countries plus the 27 countries of the European Union that have promulgated GE food labeling laws or requirements. . . . Only four countries of those with labeling laws—Argentina, Canada, Hong Kong, and the Philippines – allow voluntary labeling. Voluntary labeling guidelines dictate rules that define what food can be called GM or non-GM, allowing food companies to decide if they want to use such labels on their products. The remaining countries have mandatory labeling that requires all or parts of the supply chain to label raw agricultural ingredients or finished food products with a phrase or mark that indicates that the product may contain, contains or is derived from GE crops. A certain number of countries with mandatory labeling for GM ingredients also have voluntary guidelines for the labeling of non-GM food (e.g., Japan, Korea and the EU). (Batcha, 2011, p. 34)
The United States doesn’t require any labeling for genetically modified foods (VPIRG, 2013).
Many United States citizens want genetically modified organisms to be labeled (D’Ambrosio,
2013). The only way to avoid GM food in the US is to eat certified organic food guaranteed to be
free of genetically modified organisms or any food product verified by the non-GMO Project
(Wilkinson, 2013).
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 12
Conclusion
The last seventeen years have seen a dramatic increase in genetically modified crops
around the world, and particularly in the United States. Independent animal studies indicate that
GMOs are harmful to animals and most likely humans as well. Farmers are using additional and
stronger chemicals to fend off the evolved super pests and super weeds and their crop yields are
decreasing. Between the Bt-corn pollen killing off the monarch butterfly larvae directly, and the
increased herbicide use killing off the monarch’s food, milkweed, the monarch population has
precipitously dropped to the lowest levels ever counted. Sixty four countries, including all of the
countries that are part of Europe, have mandatory labeling laws that require all genetically
modified organisms to be labeled (D’Ambrosio, 2013). Europe has severely limited the
production and distribution of GMOs and the United States would do well to have GMOs labeled
and eliminated, too.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 13
References
Batcha, L. (2011, May). OTA GMO white paper. In Organic trade association. Retrieved June
24, 2013, from http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/OTA-GMO-White-Paper.pdf
Conniff, R. (2013, April 1). Tracking the causes of sharp decline of the monarch butterfly. In
Yale environment 360. Retrieved July 30, 2013, from
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/tracking_the_causes_of_sharp__decline_of_the_monarch_bu
tterfly/2634/
D'Ambrosio, D. (2013, June 9). With Vermont in front, GMO fight heats up. Burlington Free
Press, pp. 1C, 4C.
Dean, A., & Armstrong, J. (2009, May 8). Genetically modified foods. In American Academy of
Environmental Medicine. Retrieved July 30, 2013, from
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
Fedoroff, N. V., & Brown, N. M. (2004). Mendel in the kitchen: A scientist's view of genetically
modified foods (pp. ix-316). Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. (2012, July 3). Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. In
USDA economic research service. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-
us.aspx
Friedlander, B. (1999, April 19). Toxic pollen from widely planted, genetically modified corn
can kill monarch butterflies, Cornell study shows. Cornell Chronicle. Retrieved July 24,
2013, from http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn-can-kill-
monarch-butterflies
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 14
GM Approval Database. (2013). In International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech
applications. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from
http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/advsearch/default.asp?
CropID=Any&TraitTypeID=Any&DeveloperID=Any&CountryID=US&ApprovalTypeI
D=1
Ho, M., & Ching, L. L. (2004). GMO free: Exposing the hazards of biotechnology to ensure the
integrity of our food supply (pp. ix-106). Ridgefield, CT: Vital Health Publishing.
Marsa, L. (2013). Anti giyio grass-roots effort gains ground in U.S. Discover, 34(3), 42-43.
Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.hrt-proxy.libraries.vsc.edu/ehost/detail?
vid=5&sid=ac4bf76f-a4ab-4578-b4a0-8305825612be
%40sessionmgr110&hid=120&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLGNvb2tpZSZzaXRlPWVo
b3N0LWxpdmU%3d#db=aph&AN=85898276
Mclure, J. (2012, August 31). Genetically modified food. CQ Researcher, 22(30), 723-724.
Retrieved June 24, 2013, from CQ Researcher.
Monsanto Website. (2013). Weed control. In Monsanto. Retrieved July 11, 2013, from
http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/weed-control.aspx
Nordlee, J. A., Taylor, S. L., Townsend, J. A., Thomas, L. A., & Bush, R. K. (1996, March 14).
Identification of a brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. The New England Journal
of Medicine. doi:10.1056/NEJM199603143341103
Smith, J. M. (2007). Genetic roulette: The documented health risks of genetically engineered
foods (pp. 1-260). Fairfield, IA: Yes! Books.
Smith, J. M. (Director). Oz, L. (Narrator). (2012). Genetic roulette: The gamble of our lives
[Motion picture]. United States: Institute for Responsible Technology.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS 15
Vermont Public Interest Research Group. (2013). More about GMOs. In Vermont: Label GMOS.
Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://www.vpirg.org/vt-label-gmos/more/
What are transgenic organisms?. (2013). In Wise geek. Retrieved July 11, 2013, from
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-transgenic-organisms.htm
Wilkinson, M. (2013, May 6). Understanding GMO foods: Missy Wilkinson breaks down the
battle over labeling genetically modified foods. In Gambit. Retrieved July 23, 2013, from
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/planting-controversy/Content?oid=219328
Appendix 16
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Perc
enta
ge
Year
Percent of Soybeans that are Genetically Modified Planted Across Five States in the United States From the Years 2000 to 2012
OhioNorth DakotaMississippiKansasIllinois
Figure 1: (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Perc
enta
ge
Year
Percent of Corn That is Genetically Modified Planted Across Five States in the United States of America From the Years 2000 to 2012
IllinoisKansasMinnesotaMissouriWisconsin
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Perc
enta
ge
Year
Comparison of the Percentage of Genetically Modified (GM) Corn, GM Cotton, and GM Soybeans Planted in the United States From the Years 2000 to 2012
CornCottonSoybean
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Plum
Alfalfa
Rice
Cantaloupe
Flax
Sugar Beet
Chicory
Papaya
Soybean
Potato
Corn
Cotton
Canola
Tomato
Squash
Year of Approval
Gen
etic
ally
Mod
ified
Foo
dThe Years That 15 Different Genetically Modified Foods Were Approved for Human
Consumption in the United States of America
Herbicide Tolerant Crops61%
Insect Resistant Crops20%
Herbicide Tolerant and Insect Resistant Crops
17%
Other GM Varieties2%
Types of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Planted in the World in the Year 2010
Herbicide Tolerant Crops
Insect Resistant Crops
Herbicide Tolerant and Insect ResistantCropsOther GM Varieties
165
6356
23.5 22.25
8.75 6.5 6 5.5 2.750
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
UnitedStates
Brazil Argentina India Canada China Paraguay Pakistan SouthAfrica
Uruguay
Mill
ions
of A
cres
Country
Millions of Acres of Genetically Modified Crops Produced in the Top Ten Countries in the Year 2010
Figure 2: (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012)Figure 3: (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2012)Figure 4: (GM Approval Database, 2013)Figure 5: (Batcha, 2011)Figure 6: (Batcha, 2011)
