Imagine if we could produce crops that do not require any pesticides, grow quicker than normal, and are produced with vital nutrients not previously found in them. This isn’t fantasy, as we already do all of the above through GMOs. According to the World Health Organization, GMOs or genetically modified organisms, are defined as organisms, such as plants, in which the genetic material, or DNA, has been modified in a manner that would not occur in nature. This is generally done by either directly injecting the plant cells of the subject organism with the desired DNA traits from another plant or by exposing the plants cells to bacteria containing the desired genes. Though the results of GMOs have been scientifically proven to be incredibly beneficial for us, there are still a large amount of people with a negative attitude towards them. In this essay I hope to take an in-depth look at both of the arguments and come to a scientific conclusion with the evidence at hand.
A major concern that many individuals have relating to GMOs are that they are unhealthy or even dangerous for us to consume. They believe that GMO crops may cause cancer, birth defects, and a multiple of other serious diseases or conditions. However, numerous scientific studies and studies have proven otherwise. In 2016, according to Cornell University who analyzed dozens of scientific reports regarding GMOs, both for and against, while also considering the plausibility and claims made by anti-GMO activists. The Academy ultimately concluded that they 'found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops.' Furthermore, much of the scientific studies finding GMOs to be dangerous are full with inaccuracies and poor research. One such example is the 2012 report by the French scientist, Gilles Eric Seralini. In his article, Seralini claimed that his study found that rats fed with genetically modified corn ended up developing massive and debilitating cancer tumors. This report would be used by those against GMOs as proof that genetic modification of crops is dangerous. However, a rigorous peer review of the study by fellow scientists found that Seralini not only failed to adequately gather data, he also tested this experiment on a breed of rat that were highly susceptible to cancer. These findings would lead to the removal of Seralini’s paper, a major blow to the anti-GMO arguments. Though the safety of GM crops is unfairly questioned, the efficiency of the crops is criticized as well.
A second argument that anti-GMO activists frequently make is that the results of genetically modified crops are not significant or beneficial enough to justify using them. Once again, their arguments are incorrect and unfounded. A 2014 scientific report by a German professor, Vilhelm Klumper, found that the genetic advantages GMO crops possess over organic crops enabled farmers to increase their crop yields, the amount of crops produced per area, by 22% which led to a 68% increase in their profits. If these major economic results of GMOs fail to sway those of you who still remain skeptical, please consider the potential humanitarian effects of these crops. Many people across the globe, many of them children, die or are disabled every year as a result of vitamin A deficiency. During the 90’s, scientists modified rice to create a genetically modified version which contains a far greater amount of vitamin A than regular rice. According to Harvard university, a study found that a daily consumption of only a third of a cup of this ‘golden rice’, would be enough to stop a child from developing a vitamin A deficiency. This GMO could potentially help millions if it were introduced in impoverished countries, but the controversy of GMOs has prevented much of the rice from spreading to these regions. While anti-GMO activists have questioned the productiveness and benefits of GMOs, they have also incorrectly concluded that these crops will negatively affect nature.
Another major GMO concern is that genetically modified crops are harmful to the environment. Anti-GMO activists are worried that the insect-resistant properties many genetically modified crops possess are contributing to the current declining population of bees and butterflies that is occurring worldwide. However, as Purdue university notes, when genetically modifying crops, scientists are able to introduce genes to the plant which only kills specific pests when eaten, such as flies, while not harming beneficial insects like the before mentioned bees and butterflies. Additionally, as most are already pest resistant, GMOs are actually advantageous to the environment as they do not require the large amounts of pesticides that non-gm crops need, which frequently kill beneficial insects and other animals. GM crops are furthermore advantageous to the environment in numerous other ways. One example is due to the fact that GMOs produce a higher yield than non-genetically modified crops. This greater agricultural output will require less land for farms, protecting precious forestlands from conversion to farmland. As trees absorb carbon dioxide, this act of conservation on the part of GMOs will also help lessen the effects of climate change, which is aggravated by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
In conclusion, it is in my opinion that GMOs are harmless, productive, and are advantageous for the environment. Though I understand concerns regarding the unsavory business practices that Monsanto and other GMO companies are infamous for and I agree that GMO foods should be labeled, as we have a right to know what we eat, the concern of the science of genetic modification will be ultimately harmful to us. A 2017 pew research poll finds that while 57 percent of the public have a negative perception of GMOs, over 88 percent of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science have a positive one. I know which group I’ll put my trust in.