Genetically modified organisms, also known as GMOs, are any organism that have had their genes altered. The alterations can be done for a number of reasons such as making the plant more resistant to heat, making it grow faster, needing less water to grow, etc. There is much debate about GMOs because they aren't always safe. GMOs can contaminate organic crops with allergens, so some unsuspecting person consumes the allergen and has a reaction (Khan). They can also may contain dangerous chemicals, such as ricin, which was used to assassinate people in the Soviet Union (Lallanilla). However, most of these potential hazards can be avoided. GMOs can help end world hunger through the use of more resistant crops and superfoods packed with extra nutrients. Genetically modified organisms can be animals too, and can lead to advances in health technology. Even with numerous potential issues, GMOs should continue to be used because the benefits far outweigh the possible consequences.

One of the main reasons to support GMOs is that they can help end world hunger. Hunger is one of the leading causes of death throughout the world, and millions of people die from it every year. Most of these cases of undernourishment occur in developing countries, such as Cameroon and Chad, and are the most frequent in Africa (2015 World Hunger). GMOs could help because the plants can have more resistance than their natural counterparts. For example, a plant that normally can't grow in an arid climate can be modified to allow it to survive. This would greatly help certain countries in the Middle East and in Africa. Also, some plants are modified to repel bugs. These kinds of plants would help impoverished countries where they can't afford, or even obtain, any sort of pesticide. In addition to that GMOs can also be cheaper all around and require less maintenance or resources, making it a better crop to grow. There is no need for pesticides and they are more resistant, so they can be successfully grown at a higher rate in impoverished countries.                                     

Many who support GMOs argue that if the technology is available, and it is proven to work, why is it not being utilized to the fullest extent? Dr. Kristian Toft, a reputable professor at Aalborg University in Denmark, goes as far to say that not using GMOs to end world hunger is unjust. He argues that by not using them we are just letting millions of people die without doing anything to stop it (Toft). To put it in comparison, it would be like a doctor finding a cure to cancer and not having FDA approval for it. This would essentially send millions of people to their deaths when the solution is right there. GMOs aren't being used enough to prevent world hunger due to safety concerns. However, if GMOs have the potential to save the lives of millions of people it is well worth the risk.

Another benefit of using GMOs is the fact that many of them do not require any pesticides (Maxmen). This helps the impoverished farmer, as they don't have to buy any pesticides. It also helps any farmers who operate near other people because they don't have to worry about the spread of the pesticide into drinking water or other crops. GMOs like this also eliminate any chances for the misuse of pesticides. Most of them work by a method called RNA interference (RNA acts as a messenger in the body), where once consumed the RNA can shut down genes in the insect. Monsanto, one of the leading GMO corporations, developed this method to kill insects without using harmful chemicals. Almost always, "the gene being shut down was one vital to the insect's survival" (Regalado). The seeds may be a more expensive initial investment, but over the course of their lifetime they could be cheaper due to the fact that pesticides are not needed.

When talking about GMOs, many people think they're just plants, however, GMOs can also be animals. Some examples of genetically modified animals are glow in the dark pigs, where DNA from a jellyfish that glows in the dark is injected into them (Lallanilla). This is also seen in fish and in kittens. Although it is harmless, people still disagree with it and claim it is cruel. Whether it is cruel or not depends on the situation. For example, having a glow in the dark animal as a pet just because you can may be considered cruel. However, much of the research on animals, including making them glow in the dark can help both humans and the animals (Choi). Glow in the dark kittens are genetically modified to glow for looks, but they are also more resistant to Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, also known as FIV. This virus is the equivalent of HIV in humans. The genetic modifications being done on the cats not only helps them, it also helps scientists fight HIV in humans (Choi). Another example of GMO animals is in the food industry. Some chickens are modified so that they grow so large they can't even walk (Lallanilla). Although animals like this provide humans with more food at a greater efficiency, it is cruel to the animals. This brings up the discussion of morality. Everyone has their own views of morality, but there is a point when most people can agree that it's just wrong. However, the only thing that needs to change is to not make the animals too big. There is no problem with genetically modifying an animal to make it bigger, it means or more food at a greater efficiency. Slightly changing an animal's physiology will not affect it negatively, but if it is taken too far and debilitates the animal, then it is cruel. Also, cloning is another form of genetically modifying an animal (Cloning Fact Sheet). So far a few animals have been cloned so far, such as sheep and pigs. The potential of this technology is limitless. In the future organs could be cloned and used to save lives. People who die from organ failure could be saved with a cloned organ (Cloning Fact Sheet). The possibilities for health advancements that result from genetically modified organisms are worth it, as long as the research is done ethically and responsibly.

 Cross contamination is another issue that can be used to argue against GMOs. Cross contamination occurs when excess drainage reaches organic plants, wind carries spores, or even from insects. Needless to say GMO contamination can happen fairly easily, and sometimes may be out of the farmer's control, making it a real hazard. This cross contamination can lead to several issues, one of them being the loss of a farmer's organic certification. This happened to an Australian farmer whose organic crops were contaminated by his neighbor's GMOs. As a result he lost his organic certification, and there wasn't anything he could do about it. When the case was taken to court, the judge said that there wasn't anything he could legally do, as the contamination occurred because their farms were too close together. It took him some time to go through the Department of Agriculture to get his organic certification back, and by that time he had already lost a fair amount of business (Paull). Another serious issue involving cross contamination is the spread of allergens. Certain GMOs may contain allergens, and when they are spread to other crops it can be dangerous (Khan). For example, if a person is allergic to a chemical in GMO corn they buy organic corn thinking it won't have that chemical in it, and it turns out that contamination occurred and they have an allergic reaction to the "organic" corn. A similar situation occurred in 1989 in the United States when dozens of unsuspecting people died and thousands more had allergic reactions to a modified strand of L-tryptophan, an amino acid. The outbreak was caused by Showa Denko, one of the largest chemical companies in Japan (Khan). When not utilized properly, and sometimes even when they are used correctly, cross contamination can be a serious threat. It is up to the individual to prevent cross contamination, and sometimes it is out of their control. Either way it involves putting trust into a business whose sole interest may be money, and they may not care about how it affects anyone else.  

To elaborate on the fact that GMOs may be misused solely for monetary gains, Johnathan R. Latham, one of the first scientists to ever work on GMOs, says they should have never been released to the public at all. Latham, a plant biologist with a PhD, was one of the pioneers of GMOs. He is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Bioscience Research Project, who is the publisher of Independent Science News (Latham). He has also written a number of scientific papers about plant biology, genetics, and their effects. Latham began working on them in the early 1990's, injecting plants with DNA from bacteria and viruses. The thought of GMOs being eaten by humans never even crossed his mind at the time, as they were filled with chemicals and were for research purposes only (Latham). Companies saw an opportunity for profit, and didn't think about the consequences. Latham says, "GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks." Scientists still don't fully understand GMOs, yet most people consume them unknowingly (Latham). Another huge flaw Latham points out is that several GMO risk assessment applications, which are basically the GMO companies' evidence as to why their product is safe, are passed by the government when they really shouldn't have been. Many of them are filled with meaningless questions and information, and the experiments conducted in them are not very well executed and yield unexpected results (Latham). Latham suggests that the government regulators who either accept or deny the applications are not doing a good enough job. It is not entirely their fault though, as often times they have to take the word of the GMO manufacturer. Also, if private corporations ended up with control over most of the world's food sources via cross contamination, or just the growth of GMOs, they would have control over one of the most important resources on Earth, and as a result have nearly unlimited power. When dealing with a resource as important as food, which every living thing on Earth needs, no corners should be cut and the government should investigate the GMO applications more thoroughly and in depth to ensure their safety.

Although some GMOs may be resistant to insects, pesticides may still be required for a variety of reasons. A new kind of pest may interfere with the growth of the plant, such as different insects, small animals, etc. When utilizing RNA interference, other insects may eat the plants that aren't effected by the RNA, and after some time the insects can become immune to the RNA that would normally kill them. Although some GMOs are marketed to not require any pesticides, that may not always be the entire truth.

Another issue related to GMOs is that they may contain harmful chemicals. One such chemical found in GMOs was ricin, which was also used by the KGB to assassinate a man in 1978. A small amount of ricin entered his bloodstream, yet it was enough to kill him (Lallanilla). Any amount of ricin in GMOs is not a good idea. The tiny amount of ricin present in certain GMOs may not hurt anyone, but it is extremely unlikely that it has any benefit whatsoever. GMOs also contain chemicals that are neither deemed safe nor dangerous, meaning no one really knows if they're safe or not. If people knew that there were possibly unsafe chemicals in their food, they may not end up buying it. The problem is that people are unknowingly ingesting them, since the majority of GMOs are not labeled and are byproducts or corn or soy (Latham).

Yet another issue surrounding GMOs is that fact that most people aren't well informed of them, and unknowingly ingest them (Latham). Almost all of the corn and soybean crops in the United States have been genetically modified. As a result, most of the corn syrup and canola oil are also considered GMOs. According to the Boston Globe, "It is estimated that two-thirds of all food sold in the US contain GMOs" (GMO Labeling Laws). Food that is organic or natural generally have labels stating so, GMOs on the other hand do not have labels that say they're genetically modified. People want GMOs to be labeled so they can avoid them, since 60% of adults in the United States think they aren't entirely safe (GMO Labeling Laws). The push for GMO labeling is consistently growing. Vermont passed a law that all GMO foods must put a label that says "partially produced with genetic engineering" (GMO Labeling Laws). Several other states, including Massachusetts and Connecticut, are working on getting bills passed that would require GMO foods to be labeled.

As previously stated, 60% of adults do not think GMOs are completely safe, so they tend to group all GMOs into one category and deem them as bad. However, some GMOs, such as certain bananas and rice are proven to be safe and even improve one's health (Ronald). These so called "superfoods" can have extra nutritional value, such as increased amounts of Vitamin A and beta carotene. Providing these superfoods to places like Africa, where Vitamin A deficiencies are a common issue would greatly help (Ronald). The superfoods can be packed with additional nutrients, so less food can go a longer way, which again would be extremely helpful in places where food is scarce. 

In order for GMOs to be accepted and further implemented into everyday life certain changes need to happen. First of all, the government needs to place strict regulations on them. It should start with very in depth investigations by the Department of Agriculture into whether or not each GMO is safe. The next step would be to heavily regulate the business side of it, which means not allowing one company to have too much power. Also, people need to become more educated on the subject of GMOs. From the GMO farmers themselves to ordinary consumers, everyone can learn more. Farmers should learn more about cross contamination and how to prevent it, and take it upon themselves to do so in order to preserve the environment. Consumers should be aware of what GMOs are and how to spot them, which leads to the GMO labeling issue. The government needs to make it mandatory for any genetically modified food to have a label saying so. Most importantly the misconception that all GMOs are dangerous needs to be addressed. This could be done scientists and the actual farmers, and the evidence that some GMOs are better for you should be shown. People need to trust where the information is coming from and likely won't trust the GMO companies themselves.

Genetically modified organisms are a widely debated topic. There numerous reasons why one wouldn't support GMOs, such as cross contamination, dangerous chemicals, and corporations only being in it for the money. However, the benefits of GMOs far outweigh the potential consequences. When used properly GMOs can be safe, and sometimes be even better for you than their natural counterparts (Ronald). GMOs can save millions of lives by stopping world hunger. We have the technology, and we know it works, so instead of passively allowing millions to die each year we need to spread the use of GMOs into developing countries. Genetically modified animals also lead to medical advances that can save even more lives. There are risks to using GMOs, but the reward of saving millions of lives is well worth the potential consequences, especially because most of them can be avoided through strict government regulation and increasing knowledge on the subject.

