The science community, as well as the general public, have in recent years made strives to attempt to ban the use and production of Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs. A less-than thorough understanding of the science behind them, as well as the possible health concerns have caused a movement against the uses of GMOs. Despite the controversy, GMOs provide a simple solution to a more complicated problem, food shortage. The technology utilized improves the viability of the plant and increases the production rate for crops. This increases food production and allows for a higher yield in crop, allowing for access to more individuals. Genetically Modified Foods provide a positive contribution to society and can be the solution to eliminating the worldwide epidemic of a shortage of food.

To completely understand the impact of Genetically Modified Organisms, it is important to understand how exactly they have originated and developed. The earliest evidence of human modification of species originates in 7800 BCE with the use of domesticated wheat (Rangel). The domestication of organisms, specifically plants, gives a producer, or farmer, to control what is grown and the quantity of that product. The first truly engineered organism, however, did not come until 1973 by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen to introduce an antibiotic resistance to bacteria (Rangel). Research was quickly halted by scientific experts to allow time to analyze everything behind the research and risks that come along with it. "By the middle of 1974, a moratorium on GE projects was universally observed, allowing time for experts to come together and consider the next steps during what has come to be known as the Asilomar Conference of 1975," (Rangel). Research into Genetically Modified Organisms was allowed to continue, and further basic advancements in the technology continued for several years.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that organizations could patent the GMOs they created. What this created was the opportunity for companies to utilize their technology to preserve the right to utilize the product for themselves, and to make high profits off of their inventions. This is the origin to many of the arguments against GMOs, that companies possessed too much power in regards to food production. This became a reality in 1982, when scientists at the company Monsanto became the first to successfully modify a plant cell (Monsanto). The technology exploited in this accomplishment would open the door for many others to do the same. The potential for the technology would completely revolutionize the agricultural industry. By the 1990's, companies began introducing product lines of completely pesticide and insect-resistant seeds. "Genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans, canola and cotton, as well as Bollgard insect protected (Bt) corn and cotton, are introduced to the U.S. market (in the 1990's)," (Monsanto). The agriculture industry soon adopted these engineered products, beginning to use them as the industrial standards. Due to this adoption, companies like Monsanto and DuPont quickly gained a huge amount of power within the agriculture industry. Many concerns began arising with the use of GMOs. Fear of the power of the companies, as well as concerns with potential health risks emerged. Regardless of the opposition, GMOs have continued to dominate the agriculture industry and are growing at a faster rate than ever.

The main concern for many products meant for consumption, is often the safety of these products. The US Food and Drug Administration investigates and applies research to new products as a means of assuring the safety of them. Some products show little to no risks in the short-term, but show many in the long-term. Trans fats, for example, were exploited years after their introduction due to the health risks and concerns with high consumption. Food dyes have also gained opponents over the years due to side effects and risks with consuming foods with large amounts of food dye. The concern has been clearly evident in the history of GMOs. Some speculative concerns have arisen, including weakening immune systems, heart disease, and strokes. The largest concern by many of GMOs greatest opponents, is the potential increase in chance of cancer. As stated by Mother Earth News, a private research journal about the environment, "More than two decades ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted GMOs 'generally regarded as safe' status, meaning the industry had no obligation to conduct long-term safety studies," (Philpott 13). The federal organization in charge of assuring that products on the market are indeed safe, confirmed, after scientific research and evidence, that GMOs are indeed safe. Despite the stamp of approval from the federal agency, many people still had their doubts about the safety of the engineered food. Researchers at Consumers Union spent 90 days corn-feeding lab rats using the strand from Monsanto. What the study was attempting to do was to see if there was any sort of connection between the consumption of genetically modified crops and cancer. The rats were separated into groups based upon gender, some given the modified corn-diet, the others given a controlled, non-modified corn diet. There were two key findings, "In males, liver congestion and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than in the control group, and there were 1.3 to 2.3 times more instances of kidney disease. Overall, among the rats receiving GM corn and/or Roundup, up to 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group," (Philpott 13). The article goes on to state that the samples were not as big as they should be for this sort of study, but the conclusions could be concerning.

The experiment above attempts to exploit a potential cancer-causing ingredient in the genetically modified-plant. While the health concerns have been evidently made, the other concern comes to the potential long-term damage and effects to the environment. The potential consequences of manipulating the natural production of nature for the sake of gaining maximum potential out of it, could cause a disruption in regards to how the ecosystem responds to itself. The concerns can be simply put as, "The environmental risks related to GM crops involve the development of herbicide-resistant super weeds, non-target adverse effects on beneficial organisms, and loss of biological and genetic diversity," (Aslaken). Many environmental and ecological experts share this concern; they believe that there are many long-term risks with the mass-use of Genetically Modified Organisms. The idea of "super weeds" as stated in the article, is that since GMOs are virtually resistant to any significant weeds, very rare strands find their way to be viable in ecosystems with genetically modified plants. With the loss of diversity, that could cause unwarranted consequences essentially with limiting the diversity of the species of plants in an ecosystem. Research is being conducted on the potential long-term risks with the controlled species within an ecosystem and the controlled traits of specific plants.

These concerns could be considered valid, and many people believe that research should be conducted into these problems to see the potential risks with utilizing the technology of GMOs. Many studies have been conducted to draw a connection between GMOs and Cancer. The one, described earlier, specifies an intended target, that being the intent of concluding that GMOs cause cancer. The limited timeframe for exposure to the different diets, and in addition the limiting of the sample size may show a skewed perception of the subject coming into the experiment. The basis of the experiment, the rats, draw skepticism as well about the effectiveness in concluding a hypothesis correct about a specific treatment. " 'This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted,' he said. 'The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip.' ," (Hirschler). If that is indeed true, and the rats are more prone to cancer than other experimental species, then the credibility of the study is greatly skewed. The rats selected for the experiment and put into individual groups could have been done so based upon the likelihood that they get cancer, regardless of the diet. That may be speculative, but in all-actuality, the credibility that the subjects in the experiment were completely random and subject to the same outcome, is manipulated due to the fact that there is a clearly evident concern with the pre-existing condition of the subjects. In addition to this concern, the article states, "The study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors," (Hirschler). As stated before, the study used subjects that were very prone to getting various forms of cancerous tumors. A significant percentage of those subjects in the control group were also prone to tumors and got them as well. The study, while potentially drawing a link, fails to do so without manipulation, like every other major research proven at this point.

The other major concern that many of the opponents to GMOs have, is the potential risk to the environment that they could cause. As stated earlier, the claims have been made that GMOs are contributing to an imbalance within an ecosystem in regards to food production and consumption. A team of Italian researchers began to analyze all of the major and significant studies done in regards to research into the dietary and environmental risks of GMOs. The group lead by Alessandro Nicolia came to the conclusion that there are no environmental risks from GMOs. As Forbes contributor Jon Entine writes, "Studies investigated environmental impact on the crop-level, farm-level and landscape-level. Nicolia and his team found 'little to no evidence' that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their surroundings," (Entine). Some of the top researchers in the food and environmental industries in Italy found not a single link in regards to proper procedure or long-term, objective analysis of the subjects. The team also came to a similar conclusion in regard to human health with the regular consumption of GMOs. Entine states, "In the food and feeding category, the team found no evidence that approved GMOs introduce any unique allergens or toxins into the food supply," (Entine). These two are perfect examples of the failed measures that opponents have made in regards to GMOs. Not a single connection between them and environmental impacts, and the same can be said in regard to the claimed health consequences with the consumption of them.

It is clearly evident that GMOs are not destructive to one's health or to the environment like many are claiming them to be. GMOs are safe, and have no risks involved with utilizing them. The argument has been made strongly against them, but the same cannot be said for the argument made in favor of them. There have definitely been many articles and accounts made to convince the reader of the benefits of GMOs, however the general consensus is that there are far more accounts against GMOs than for them. There are periodical writings about GMOs, both for and against, as well as scientific studies both for and against. The articles written against GMOs, however, tend to pick up more steam and push the anti-GMO movement into the national spotlight. While the evidence and justification used by these articles is factual, there are common tendencies, like the French rat study, for the facts to be skewed in a specific way to be perceived. Monsanto and DuPont have their own team of scientists and researchers to investigate the safety of GMOs, but both they and most independent professional experts believe GMOs to be completely safe. Many articles have been written about the long-term benefits of GMOs, those accounting for not just the idea of having access to easier production of food, but the long-term contributions this technology could provide to society and individuals.

The world population is at a crossroads now more than ever, in regards to the amount of individuals unable to get three meals a day, or even one meal, the problem more commonly known as world hunger. The population of earth is the highest that it has ever been, and the production of food is also the highest that it has ever been. This is why the wide-spread use of GMOs is more important now than ever. The earth's population continues to grow at an alarming rate, and MIT researcher David Rotman states, "Biotech crops will have an essential role in ensuring that there's enough to eat," (Rotman 29). He claims that the technology they utilize allows for a far-greater yield in the production of crops. With the decrease in land available and the increase in the number of people, the key comes down to efficiency, and the means by which GM crops accomplish this is critical in doing so. He also mentions the concerns with climate change, and the constant adjustment in the weather. He states, "One advantage of using genetic engineering to help crops adapt to these sudden changes is that new varieties can be created quickly," (Rotman 31). With the concerns of the changing climate, and crops constantly being destroyed by the weather, new strands of plants can be produced to resist these weather patterns and to allow food to continue to be produced despite extreme weather conditions. They contribute much more to the food industry than a higher production of food.

Genetic modification to foods allows for a higher yield in production, through fighting things such as insects, disease, and drought that kill a high percentage of the crop. The viability of a plant is critical in the context of producing enough crop to sustain the living population. An example of how GM technology helps to combat some of these problems is explained by scientist Pamela Ronald in her TED Talk. She states, "You can see the genetically engineered papaya in the center. It's immune to infection. The conventional papaya around the outside is severely infected with the virus. Dennis' pioneering work is credited with rescuing the papaya industry," (Ronald). She discusses that the solution to many of the problems that the agricultural industry faces, is Genetic Modification. Adjusting the genome or utilizing technology to alter how something is grown is beneficial to the farmer and the consumer since it will yield more product. Bill Gates mentions a similar theory in a video for "The Verge" as he states, "The GMO-derived seeds will provide far better productive, better drought tolerance, and if the safety is proven, then the African countries will be among the biggest beneficiaries," (Gates). He argues that with the betterments in technology and quickly-advancing technologies that are utilized for GM crops, they can come to the assistance of a continent like Africa that struggles heavily in regards to inefficiencies in food production. If GM technology is utilized correctly, then the increased production of crops will dramatically improve the total yield in the agricultural industry. There comes a benefit, as well, and that is the increase in nutrients. Many opponents of GMOs claim that they lack the same nutrients and vitamins as non-GMO plants, but that is simply not true. Online medical periodical, WebMD, discusses the truth behind the nutrients in GMOs. "Genetic modification has made plants with extra vitamins, minerals, and other benefits. Swiss researchers created a strain of "golden" rice with a lot of beta-carotene. This antioxidant is good for the eyes and skin," (Paturel 2). They do not remove any of the nutrients, but rather they increase the vitamins within them. The quality of the food increases, as the quantity of the food increases, making more nutritious food available to a larger population.

Analyzing the problem with world hunger is essential in viewing the great lengths the technology of Genetically Modified Foods make toward providing a great benefit to society. The numbers of those hungry and starving is staggering. Carl Jordan mentions in his article for BioScience, "Average grain yields throughout the world must increase by 80 percent of the 1990 average to meet projected food demands by 2025," (Jordan 526). It is important to note that Jordan wrote the article in 2002 using figures from the 1990's, however his claim that he makes in regard to the need for a higher food production matches the claims made by other professional researchers today. There is a great need in the world for higher production, there was so at the time, and as he predicts, biotech foods could help accomplish this. He states, "Biotechnology is by default our best and, maybe, only way to increase production to meet future food needs," (Jordan 526). They have greatly decreased the problem to this point already, and will continue to do so, assuming that greater lengths are made to put them to their fullest possible use. 

Skepticism has grown in the public with the claims made by individuals to the potential benefit of using GMOs to help solve world hunger. People believe that they could reduce the problem, but doubt the theories that they could completely eliminate the problem all together. Claire Morris discusses this theory, "Participants were aware of the argument that agricultural GMOs could perhaps improve living conditions in developing countries, but they tended to be skeptical as to whether such research would ever be carried out," (Morris). She discusses the concerns that many observers in her social experiment had with the considered solution. The public view has clearly been skewed by members of the media and organizations that argue firmly against the use of GMOs. The explanation by Bill Gates about the methods that could be utilized and research done to predict the effectiveness of a sort of solution in this regard, clearly prove that they would be worthwhile. The technology is available, the solution is there, and it is in the best interest of the world to utilize this possible method to help eliminate world hunger.

Genetically Modified Organisms have drawn opponents since the beginning of their use, and may very likely have opponents for a very long time. Studies have been conducted as an attempt to connect them with an increase in the risk of cancer. Health studies attempt to prove potential long-term health risks with GMOs. Environmental studies sought to prove a connection with GMOs and environmental issues. Evidence has been discovered, although the methods to which experts come to those conclusions is done so in ways to manipulate the data and to perceive the observant that GMOs are far worse than they are. The technology available to the agricultural industry could benefit the economy since they allow for a higher production of crop with a far higher yield. The epidemic the world is facing with a shortage of land and an increase in population could easily have a solution, if they sought it completely. World Hunger could be reduced and virtually eliminated if the agricultural industry utilized the maximum potential from GMOs. The benefits from GMOs far exceed any scientific advancements ever accomplished, and the social benefits could be more than enough to stabilize the earth's health. They are in use in the United States, but the rest of the world should adopt the universal use of Genetically Modified Organisms. Genetically Modified Foods provide a positive contribution to society and can be the solution to eliminating the worldwide epidemic of a shortage of food.

