“What is genetic engineering? Is it simply another tool on par with plant and animal breeding, or is it a risky game of dice being played with the building blocks of life?” (Andreé) These are questions people ask themselves when purchasing food, but are they really questions which need to be asked? I say they do not need to be asked. Genetically modified organisms are ok to eat, but more than that, the world needs them. There is a stigma surrounding such a term…how dare GMOs are mentioned in good light! This is a reaction of someone who has been trapped by the social opinions of this food. Only knowledge and truth can bring about a change in the way GMOs are seen. 

First though, for those who may not have an opinion or do not know enough to make an educated opinion about GMOs, many today believe GMOs are unnatural beasts which are pieced together in a lab and sewed in a field for the profiting of the companies that control the spread of the seed. Some believe that GMOs are detrimental to human health and will cause incurable diseases and mutations in DNA which can never be reversed, yet others take a different route and say that GMOs should not have ever been created because the act of modifying the DNA of organisms for the benefit of humanity is too much like playing God and will get out of hand quickly. 

To give some background on what happens in a GMO (corn for example), genes within the corn can be modified, but genes from other organisms can be inserted into the corn’s genotype. Both procedures can increase the yield of corn or the pest resistance of the corn. For example, bacteria that have DNA which codes for fungal resistance can be removed from the bacteria using different enzymes and placed in the corn to be incorporated into the DNA. Once this happens, the corn will produce the protein which resists fungus, and the farmer then does not need to use as many pesticides as s/he would if the corn could not make itself fungal resistant. In continuing an overall explanation of GMOs, they are currently used primarily for high yield and pesticide production (making the plants make their own pesticides instead of spraying pesticides over the plants); that is, GMOs help farmers grow more crops in a smaller area of land. This in turn means that pests will have easy access to a concentrated abundance of their food, so how will farmers deter such pests? GMOs can do that for them. Though GMOs are not perfect, they are without a doubt an excellent option for the world to continue researching and funding. Again, despite what many people believe, “GMO foods cannot be generalized as either healthy or unhealthy” (Arnarson) and are not unethical. In a changing world, society needs to be more open to the progression of science which has only been dreamt about in the past. Today, GMOs push the economy forward, are better for the environment, and are a need which the world has and will continue to have.

A primary concern about GMOs is “risk to human health” (Domingo). Somehow, DNA inserted into the organism and the products made from the DNA are the causes of the harm. In actuality, “most experts will argue that GMOs aren’t all bad” (Bratskeir); “there is no good evidence that genetic modification itself causes foods to become unhealthy or toxic” (Arnarson). In fact, almost all corn is genetically modified, and almost all processed foods contain GMOs. So far, the only problem people have with processed food is simply the fact that they are processed. Many scientists say that “the available evidence indicates that GMO food is not harmful to human health” (Arnarson). There just simply is much backing to the argument “saying these foods negatively impact human health” (Arnarson). Unfortunately, the “worry that GM foods could harm human health and say support for GMOs is based on misinformation” (Miller).

Another problem some people have is the ethical consequence of genetically modifying food; however, we live in a world with scientific advancements happening all the time, and people need to understand that this is how humans better themselves. Apparently doing experiments with plants’ DNA is too much like playing God. The technology which exists today cannot break ethical codes because they are being implemented on organisms which have no consciousness. In fact, the new genes help the plants, not hurt them. As the world progresses with scientific advancements, things like gene insertion will become increasingly prevalent, and people need to be more accepting of this. In order for the world to be more sophisticated, ethical opinions will need to change as well. Genetically engineering and modifying is just a part of how many large-scale farming institutions operate today, and they will not revert back to organic. Another aspect of the ethical is providing for those who cannot make enough food to feed themselves as Dizon says. 

Ethically, the advantages of GM foods relate to the principles of beneficence and justice in the hope that GMO technology will be able to help others in improving food security and minimizing health disparities as the possibilities of creating food with higher nutritional content and overall quality.

The question that arises is do those who can produce surplus food have a responsibility to give to less fortunate people? Those who say yes can then see that the way to do that is through GMOs. In addition, the new genes in plants can help them stay fresher while being transported. So, through these examples, one can see that there cannot be an ethical debate because the world is moving fast into the age of technology and that includes modifying the genes of plants, whether people like it or not. 

Next, the economy (of food) is relatively dependent on GMOs. This is because many of the processed foods we eat contain some sort of GMO. In addition, many livestock consume GM corn. As Hank Green in SciShow says, “a majority of GM crops are known as commodity crops.” That means they are not directly eaten, but rather fed to animals that humans eat or used in the procedures of making processed food. Without genetically engineered crops, the food industry would take a huge hit, and prices of all processed food would skyrocket. Many families would have to work even more to be able to buy food. Reality has shown that humans need GMOs to push the economy forward with the amount of crops being successfully harvested so that the world with have enough food to feed its people. Another relatable part of the economy is the amount of land needed to grow plants. GM crops can be planted extremely close together which reduces the land area the farmer requires. In addition, the genetically engineered crops can be grown with less water and nutrient rich soil. This means that the farmer can save money on water and soil nutrients. Conversely, organic and all-natural have to be planted far away from each other relative to the GM crops. This takes up far more land and demands more water and soil abundant with nutrients. There is also a greater risk of pests destroying some of the yield because the plants cannot protect themselves unlike transgenic plants which can protect themselves against insects and other doers of harm. The destruction of crops loses the farmer money and lessens the amount of food output. Thus, GMOs are better overall because they save the farmer money through less water and nutrient requirements. They also have a higher yield because of the self-protection.

Environmental issues are also a hot topic amongst opponents of GMOs, but rest assured, they are not as bad for the environment as people make them out to be. In fact, the environmental aspect is very similar to the economy. That is, the crops need less water, less nutrients, and take up less land. Water is becoming an increasingly difficult resource to come by these days. Some people even go as far as to say there is a water crisis. Nonetheless, reducing the consumption of water in as many ways as reasonably possible is a good thing. Obviously never showering or not ever putting ice in a drink isn’t the argument. Things like overwatering or watering in the hottest part of the day is what should be reduced: the biggest water wasters. GMOs help with less water wasting. Because they need less water to grow effectively, the water which would have been used for irrigation can be used elsewhere in places which really need it, like cities in a drought. In addition, the lower usage of water promotes top soil staying in place and not getting washed away. In continuation, crops that need less nutrients (like GMOs) do not drain the soil as quickly as do other plants. This means that the same crop can be planted on the same field more times than a non-GMO crop. The fact that this can happen is a positive thing because less fertilizer is used to replaced consumed nutrients which means less of it gets washed away in rivers and such. Regular plants need the extra fertilizer and, it commonly ends up in water ways as runoff which can be a major problem because algae can feed on it and overtake lakes and ponds. With GMOs, this happens less often than with non-GMO plants. Next, smaller land usage helps lower habitat loss and land exploitation. Clearly those are great for the environment. In a world with urban expansion, reducing land usage in any way is good. 

The need overall for GMOs is too great for the world to ban them. All of the components of this debate combine to form all-encompassing reasons why humanity will always continue to require the production of GMOs: “They can help to feed the hungry and to amplify a crop’s resistance to insects and harsh weather conditions, making more food available for consumption” (Bratskeir); “GM foods have the potential to help developing nations in need of economic stimulation and food security” (Dizon). A prime example of how this can happen using a scientific example is stated well by Dizon.

Scientists have been able to use the Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t), a naturally occurring soil bacterium that produces crystal proteins or delta endotoxins, that are lethal to insect larva. These toxic crystals react with the cells in the lining of the gut and paralyze the digestive system of the insect, causing them to stop feeding within hours. As a consequence, the infected insects often die from starvation in a few days. The B.t gene is incorporated in the genome of corn and other crops such as cotton and potatoes enabling them to produce the toxin against the insects. This eliminates the need for excessive pesticide use.

The best example of the direct need of GMOs can be seen in Asian populations who grow what is known as Golden Rice. Many people living in Asia consume large amounts of rice, but unfortunately, rice contains almost no important nutrients that humans need. The malnourishment can especially be seen in poor rural areas where the diet is almost exclusively rice. Areas in that situation cannot grow more nourishing food because of the climate, but they also cannot afford to bring in better food because it is common for the government not to have the capability of making sure that all the citizens have healthy food options. The condition of these villages perpetually outputs children with diseases and deformities because of the mother’s lack of nutrition. They are then born and the cycle starts again, but with people even worse off than the last. This is why scientists created golden rice. The plant’s genes code for massive Vitamin A production which helps prevent blindness and malnourishment in young children, and “this can only be achieved using genetic engineering because there is no provitamin A in the [original] rice seeds” (Mayer). In cases like GMOs are literally saving lives. Organic rice could never achieve the success of Golden Rice: “genetically engineered crops can be a tool to improve the lives of the poor” (Charles) which is why the world needs GMOs to continue living and helping each other. Unfortunately, countries with shortages of food also have monetary issues. Dizon expertly supports GMOs again by saying that “GM foods have the potential to help developing nations in need of economic stimulation and food security.” 

Overall, the world needs GMOs to continue at its current pace. They help stimulate the economy, aid the environment, and are a continual need of the world. Opponents claim that they are negative for human health, but multiple sources show that that is not the case. They are not necessarily healthy, but they are certainly not harmful, just intermediate. People against GMOs also say that the is an ethical dilemma, but the world cannot afford to linger on an issue which must be overcome. Experimenting with DNA is technology of the future and must be used to its fullest potential. Choosing genes for a plant to express which may be from another animal is just science, not an ethical debate. GMOs heavily affect the economy too. The food industry relies on them to feed livestock and keep food fresh. Without them, foods which are usually cheap would become much more expensive and would not be able to be kept as long. GMOs are also better for the environment because they use less water, require less nutrients, and take up less land than do their non-GMO counterparts. The environment is a precious thing and helping it in any way is positive for all the people of Earth. People in poor areas also sometimes depend on GMOs like in some rural Asian countries where rice is a vast majority of their diet and malnourishment is rampant. By these points, one can see why GMOs are necessary for the world to continue living.
