Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been a hot topic in society ever since they were introduced to the population in the mid-1990s.The general consensus about GMOs, at least according to the media, is that GMOs pose health risks and they are thought to be harmful. One would think that since most people are aware of the health risks that GMOs present that most people would stop buying them, but the number of GMOs in the food market has only increased throughout the years. Most people should find it strange that, despite knowing the supposed harm associated with GMOs, people are still purchasing and consuming them. People continue to buy GMOs because, contrary to popular belief, the benefits that GMOs provide are much more impactful than the risks that they pose. While genetically modified foods may be harmful to human health, they are extremely beneficial in a lot of different aspects, for example like improving the economy and helping solve the problem of world hunger. 

It is easy to understand why most people would believe that GMOs are more harmful than beneficial. The media tends to focus on the negative aspects of GM foods, which are usually exaggerated and are used in an attempt to scare the customer away from GMOs. People who have read media articles like these have formed misconceptions because they have not been told all of the facts about GMOs and have only been told the negatives. For example, in January 2000 in Montreal the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was released to clarify exactly what GMOs were. Kurt Buechle points out this protocol and the misconceived fears that people have about GM foods: “The chief failure of the Protocol’s use of the precautionary principle and risk assessment of LMOs may be its fixation on potential harms, while ignoring potential benefits” (297). This Protocol was made for the purpose of easing people’s concerns about the risks of GMOs, but it just worried people more because it focused on the negatives rather than the positives of GM foods. Documentations such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety are reasons why people believe GMOs are dangerous and should be avoided. Unfortunately, many articles, similar to the Protocol, leave out a lot of valuable information and leave the public in the dark when it comes to the positive effects of bioengineered foods. 

Despite the consumer awareness of the harmful effects of GMOs, supermarket shoppers still continue to purchase them. Many argue that this is because consumers are unaware when they are shopping in a supermarket of what is and what is not genetically modified. This is why there has been an argument for the labeling of GMOs for quite some time now. Many people believe that if GM foods in supermarkets were labeled that most people would avoid them. The Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics at the University of Georgia recently conducted a research project to see if this would truly be the case if GMOs were labeled. They simulated different scenarios to see what the effect on the market would be if labeled foods were inserted into food stores. These are the results that they found: “When we introduce the certified GMO free label for fresh tomatoes, we find that not only does market share for no label products decrease, but market share for GMO free (but not certified) products 9 declines as well by 12%” (Berning and Campbell 8-9). This shows that, while consumers would rather have labeled foods in the supermarket than not, the GMO free products experience more of a decline in market share than the GM products. This is evidence that labeling GM foods would not discourage people from buying them. This discredits the notion that consumers only purchase GMOs because they are unaware of what is or is not genetically modified because even if consumers are aware of what is or is not genetically modified, they most likely will continue to buy GMOs and would actually prefer them over GMO free products. 

These statistics should make people wonder why consumers would continue to buy GM foods if they were labeled. There are many possible reasons as to why they would continue to purchase them. One of the reasons, and the simplest, is that GMOs are much cheaper than supposed healthier food options. The Economic Journal posted an article about an experiment in which people had to bid on GMOs and non-GMOs. The article explained the results of the experiment by saying, “Whereas 35% of our subjects refused to purchase a product containing GMOs, the remaining 65% of our subjects were willing to purchase a GM product if it was sufficiently inexpensive” (Noussair et al 116). The results of this experiment showed that more people would rather pay less to have GMOs than pay more and have non-GMOs. This is not very hard to believe, as most people would like to save money wherever they can. The inexpensiveness of GM foods is very appealing to many supermarket shoppers. 

It is not only that the prices of the GM foods are so low that people are leaning towards them, but it is also because organic foods are much more expensive for what seems like not too much extra benefit. According to Robert Paarlberg in his essay titled “Attention Whole Foods Shoppers,” health professionals do not believe that low pesticide residue in organic foods make them safer than GMOs. In his essay he specifically says, “Food and Drug Administration surveys have revealed that the highest dietary exposures to pesticide residues on foods in the United States are so trivial that the safety of gains from buying organic foods are insignificant” (385). People who are aware of this would almost undoubtedly rather purchase genetically modified foods than organic foods if they could get them at a cheaper price with little to no risk in health because of it.

One of the most important answers as to why people continue to buy GMOs is the fact that the health concerns about them are unwarranted and are not supported by any evidence. Not only are these concerns lacking in evidence, some of them have even been proven to be untrue. Among these concerns is that GMOs can induce allergies and that the antibiotics used in GM crops are detrimental to human health. The Journal of Economic Perspectives once posted an article in which the author stated, “… European Food Safety Authority, among others, have determined that the risk of horizontal gene transfer from the plant to microorganisms is extremely low and that consequences would be minimal even if the transfers were to occur” (Barrows et al 111). This supports the statement that the media tends to exaggerate the negative effects of GMOs. While the risk may be there, it is so minimal that it is unlikely to affect any consumers.

Consumers may also continue to purchase GMOs not only for personal reasons, but also because of the benefits they provide economically. GMOs are considered to be a subcategory of what is known as the bioeconomy, which is the economy in terms of scientific and research activity. The bioeconomy is growing, which as a result has led to a demand for more biologically engineered feedstock. An increase in demand may lead to a change in food prices and new production methods as well. New methods of production could then lead to new sources of income for producers. A project called BioSTEP describes the extent of the impact that bioengineered foods could have by saying, “Changing demand and prices for bioeconomy-related products and processes could also have a significant influence on regional and national trade balances” (Hasenheit et al 10). The sky is the limit when it comes to the benefits that GMOs could provide the economy. The fact that they could possibly impact national trade balances shows how important GMOs are to the economy. More economically aware consumers may realize all of these aspects, which would make purchasing genetically modified foods more appealing to them. 

Consumers who are aware of the economic advantages that GMOs can provide are most likely also aware of the social benefits that would arise as a result. The BioSTEP project describes how these economic advancements would aid society by saying, “Changing income levels, new markets and production processes, for example, have potentially positive effects on employment, health and food security” (Hasenheit et al 12). The economic impact of bioengineered foods has an effect on most people’s quality of life. One of the factors that is included in a person or family’s quality of life is income. The new markets created by the advancement of GM foods can lead to more job opportunities, which could help people find jobs and increase their income, which improves their quality of life. The growing popularity of GM foods therefore have the potential to improve people’s lives. For example, a supermarket shopper may continue to purchase GMOs because he or she may have a job in a company that distributes GMOs to supermarkets to become available for sale. Consumers are possibly saving other people’s jobs and increasing those people’s quality of life by purchasing GM foods

Supermarket shoppers may also continue buying GMOs because they realize, contrary to popular to popular belief, that bioengineered crops actually benefit the environment. For example, in the final segment of the BioSTEP project the authors describe an environmental benefit by saying, “An essential reason for promoting bio-based products are beneficial environmental impacts of the bioeconomy by replacing oil or oil-based products” (Hasenheit et al 14). This shows that bioengineering crops allows farmers to use less harmful substances and allows them to avoid using nonrenewable resources. Using genetically modified crops has a positive impact on land use as well. Planting GM crops rather than natural crops in a part of land allows that land to be used more often and does not deplete its nutrients nearly as much. GM crops are grown quicker and usually in larger quantities than natural crops. 

It is possible that consumers still purchase GMOs for reasons other than the ones explained above. The shoppers who have more knowledge about GMOs may realize that they serve an important purpose in the world. GM foods are the most promising solution to the problem of world hunger. Farmers are able to make more food at a faster rate than through natural means by bioengineering crops. In a study published by ScienceDirect, people were polled on whether or not farmers should be able to produce bioengineered crops. The people were polled before and after seeing a presentation from HungerU, a non-profit organization that promotes agricultural advancements to help serve the needs of the world’s growing population. Before the presentation, 72.4% of people said yes or maybe about letting farmers produce bioengineered crops. After the presentation, that percentage increased by 13.3% (Carter et al). This poll, barring that the people selected were chosen through means of random selection, shows that most people do know that GMOs could be the solution to ending world hunger, which is why many people continue to purchase them. The study also proves that if more people became aware of this that most people would agree that farmers should continue cultivating genetically modified crops.  

The advancement of genetically modified foods affects almost everyone. It affects the lives of supermarket shoppers, who may be taking advantage of the low prices and prices could become even lower. It also affects a lot of the working population, as job opportunities and new markets arise for the labor force to seize. It even affects the food deprived nations and the people that live in them, for GMOs are a plausible solution to the world hunger problem. Basically everyone has a stake in the advancement of GM foods and it benefits everybody if the bioeconomy continues to grow. 

There are many reasons why consumers continue to purchase GMOs despite all of the negative health effects they hear about them. Among them are that GM foods sell for lower prices than other foods, the negative health effects are exaggerated, and that they actually have a positive impact on the economy, social life, and the environment. People continue to buy genetically modified foods because they have more positive effects than negative effects. It is important to know why people continue to buy GMOs because they are very important to society. GM foods have the potential to change the future of the world for the better and they are a resource that should be taken full advantage of. 
