Living in a world where the human population is constantly increasing comes with the concern of having enough resources to be able support the entire population. As time goes on more and more scientists are trying to determine the most efficient way to produce food. Genetic Modification has so far shown to be one of the most successful methods. This method has improved the efficiency of crop production and is so common today that for some crops in the United States, such as corn, 92 percent of the crops planted are genetically altered in some way (United States Department of Agriculture). Although this tactic is certainly efficient, it has also raised concern from the consumers which in turn sparked controversy throughout the public. The skepticism from the public is mainly due to the lack of awareness of what exactly happens during the genetic modification process, and whether or not it will end up becoming harmful. Over the years, consumer attitude towards biotechnology and genetic engineering has turned and has taken on a negative tone. It is extremely important to thoroughly contemplate the risks and rewards of this method, especially due to its role in helping provide for the world population. 

Improving crops through the use of genetics has been around for years, but for many who do not know anything about it, the process can appear as complicated and risky. To break it down, every organism has genetic material—DNA—that determines every trait and characteristic of the specific organism. There are two different types of genetic modification for plants: traditional plant breeding and genetic engineering. During traditional plant breeding, the genetic composition of a plant is modified by crossing and selecting desirable traits from another plant to create a more efficient genetic sequence. These plants are then bred to produce generations that have this desired trait. With this method comes limitations such as that the breeding can only be completed by two species of plants that can sexually mate, which limits the traits that can be transferred. This technique also has restraints on exactly what traits are transferred, so undesirable traits end up getting relocated as well (University of Nebraska-Lincoln). The other type of genetic modification is called genetic engineering, which unlike the traditional plant breeding method, does not have such limitations. Instead, this method “allows specific genes to be identified, isolated, copied, and introduced into other organisms in much more direct and controlled ways” (Jones 581). Due to the specificity of this process, there is more control over which traits are transferred over. This eliminates the need for sexually breeding because no crossing over occurs. An advantage to not being restrained by a sexual barrier allows for genes to be transferred from any organism, not just plants. To help understand this process, the University of Nebraska, Lincoln has broken it down into five main steps. The first step is DNA extraction, which is when specific genes are taken from another organism. This step is then followed by gene cloning, where scientists separate the desired gene by cloning it and making thousands of copies. Once the gene has been cloned, the gene sequence is cut apart to be replaced with the desired gene in order to work in the other organism. After the genes are prepared, “tissue culture is used to propagate masses of undifferentiated plant cells called callus”, which are the cells that the modified gene is transferred to (University of Nebraska-Lincoln). These genes are carefully transferred by various methods into the nucleus of the new cell while being sure not to kill it. The transformed cells are regenerated into transgenic plants which then grow up to reproduce with other transgenic plants, passing on the desirable trait.  Although very efficient, both types of genetic modification take a few years in order to reach a generation where the product yield for the crop is at its maximum. 

As stated earlier, when handling the sustainability of the world, it is important to look at every factor that plays a role in each method. Using genetic modification comes with many advantages both economically and environmentally. In the agricultural industry, the “benefits include new methods to improve productivity and profitability while at the same time reducing reliance on pesticides and herbicides” (Brandner 434). Due to the new modified traits that these plants now own, the crop yield is able to increase because the plants are naturally resistant to herbicides. With a higher crop yield, farmers are able to get back more of what they gave in the beginning, bringing economic success to the agricultural industry. By obtaining more desirable traits, the modified plants are also helping the economy by reducing the need to use harmful pesticides and herbicides. Through the use of genetic modification plants are also able to possess a gene that produces a toxin that is most commonly used in pest control. The plant possesses a gene that produces Bt, a bacterium that organic farmers use “because it kills plant-eating insects but not beneficial insects like bees. Insects ingest the Bt protein that binds to the epithelial cells of the midgut, killing the insect” (Brandner 434). The Bacillus thuringienis bacterium is not harmful to vertebrae organisms because it is only broken down in an acidic stomach, which most harmless organisms do not have. Many of those who oppose the methods of genetic modification “stress that the use of GM causes diffusion of environmental risk throughout time and space” (Klintman 72).  Although the plant produces a toxin that is harmful to some insects, the bacterium does not pose a threat to the environment, “Bt does not contaminate groundwater and is considered nontoxic to humans and livestock” (Brandner 434). By modifying the genetic sequence of these plant species and adding traits that are beneficial for successful crop yield and improved quality. Through intensive research it is possible for scientists to design plants to be resistant to various pathogens.  A group of researchers at the University of Hawaii and Cornell University “have developed two new varieties of papaya which are resistant to the papaya ringspot virus (PRSV)”, a major threat to the tropics, the worldwide disease “is a serious threat because it is rapidly transmitted and can quickly destroy entire plantations. The modification used in papaya is called ‘pathogen-derived resistance’, where a gene from the pathogen is inserted to fight the pathogen itself” (Brandner 434). Through genetic modification scientists are able to alter the gene sequence of plants so they are resistant to mass destructive pathogens. With more plants fit to survive in these conditions, there is less of a need for intense herbicides and pesticides in order to ensure crop growth. When less herbicides are used there is a reduction in harmful toxins that are damaging to the surrounding environment. Due to the surge in successful crops due to the added genes, there is a larger crop yield, therefore stimulating the environment. Along with the economic and environmental advantages to growing genetically modified crops, there are also benefits seen to other extents. With the opportunity to design a genetic sequence to appeal to certain characteristics, scientists are able to improve various parts of our world. Using genetic modification, the quality of food will increase with the introduction of vitamins and minerals. Scientists can alter the genetic sequence to guarantee that consumers are getting the full nutrition that they are supposed to. In golden rice, the “yellow-colored grains are produced by rice genetically altered to make beta-carotene, a pigment the body converts to Vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency leads to blindness and immune system impairment, especially in children” (Brandner 434). If some countries had modified crops to help prevent these deficiencies, the death of millions of children could have been spared. Along with increasing the nutrition in genetically modified foods, the use of GMO can help prevent diseases and offer huge advantages to the public health. By altering plants to one day be able to contain vaccinations, “children may get immunized by eating foods such as bananas, potatoes, and tomatoes”, with the medication in the food, “the modified plants could be grown locally at a low cost, eliminating problems of vaccine transport and refrigeration” (Brandner 435). Genetic engineering is able to provide the opportunity for an easier form of vaccinations as well as give a break to certain economic finances. 

Although genetic modification provides multiple benefits, there is still concern with some aspects of the risks that come with it. Not all consumers are completely educated on the topic and are unaware of the genetic modification process. With this comes a lot of hesitation for accepting the method completely. The thought of being able to put different proteins and chemicals in the genome of an organism is overwhelming, not many people are really aware of what they are actually eating. Not only do they not know what they are eating but they also do not know the effects that it may have on their health and the risk they are taking by ingesting it. A common misconception of the public is that genetically modified foods are harmful, but is exposed to be false because “many of the food crops currently being developed with gene splicing techniques do not contain substances that are significantly different from substances already in the diet” (Wohlers 22). There have been cases that have claimed that genetically modified foods are dangerous to humans. The US company Pioneer Hi-Breed was trying to introduce a set of genes from Brazil nuts into soybeans in order to increase the level of Sulphur-rich amino acids when it was discovered that the soya was not supposed to be in human food, but was intended for animal food. It was during safety tests that “it became clear that the nut protein that was transferred to soybean was allergenic to humans, and the company elected not to pursue the development, citing the potential difficulties of preventing the soya from entering the human food chain” (Jones 583). When dealing with the genetic engineering process, as with anything there are risks of error that can occur during it. Due to that risk, there are multiple tests to assure consumers that the product their ingesting is safe, and it is because of these intensive tests that these errors can be found and removed. Although many advancements have been made in the scientific field over the past years, our knowledge of food allergies is not fully understood. There are still many aspects that are unclear, such as why it is only certain individuals affected by specific foods. With that still unknown, “it is difficult to determine with absolute certainty whether a protein introduced into a food by genetic engineering is a potential allergen” (Buchanan 5). Without full knowledge of a topic it is not possible to prove that something is or is not the cause of something. Most consumers are weary over the thought of the proteins in genetically modified foods could potentially instigate allergies. 

In the eyes of the public, the main concern with genetically engineering food is whether or not the risks are greater than the benefits. When the advances in biotechnology were initially introduced, the consumer support for the methods were high. Although as time passed, the skepticism grew and a number of surveys showed that “the percentage of people who predicted that biotechnology would provide benefits for themselves and their family within the next 5 years dropped from 78 percent in 1997 to 59 percent in 2000” (Shanahan, Scheufele, Lee 270). Public opinion for biotechnical advancements, especially genetic modification, has shifted from supportive to skeptic. Although most of these doubts are concerned with the safety of these methods, some have concerns with the moral aspects, “since genes are naturally occurring entities which can be discovered (not invented), some argue that granting patents on genetic findings and processes is morally and ethically untenable” (Onyango, Nayga 568). The thought of going against nature and altering something as essential as the genetic makeup of an organism is terrifying, and those who oppose GMO’s feel as though it should not be done. Even though genetic modification shows to be the most successful method, some still believe it is not worth it. 

Since the beginning of the agricultural industry, farmers have been using a form of genetic modification through selective breeding in order to further enhance their food production. As with any technological advancement, genetic modification provides many benefits for the community and helps enhance the efficiency of food production. In a world where it is undeniable that a more viable source of food is the only way to feed the ever-growing population and “genetic manipulation is essential to feed the earths growing population sustainably” (Borrell 4).  Although it offers many opportunities for development, there are also many risks that should not be overlooked. The pros and cons of genetic modification must be deeply contemplated in order to conclude whether or not this method is the most efficient procedure of food production. When looked over the main question is what is more important; the possible risk of a method or the ability to sustain the world population.
