Genetically modified foods (GMOs) have dominated the nation’s grocery stores for decades, and rarely can a consumer purchase food without it containing genetically modified ingredients. I also can’t seem to walk into any grocery store without running into bags of popcorn that advertise a GMO-free experience. A war rages between two very different ideas about GMOs, one side of arguing for the benefits of genetically modified foods and the other side arguing about ethical and health problems associated with the altered organisms.
I hear a lot of slams against genetically modified organisms on campus, and I understand the anger and resentments towards the altered products. I think people have the right to consciously question what kind of food they put in their bodies. However, I think that GMOs have a lot of promise and incredible potential to both improve nutritional value in foods and to address resource distribution problems. The genetic makeup of food has been altered since the dawn of the agricultural revolution around 10,000 B.C. Traditionally, specific phenotypes (the outward expressions of genes) were selected and bred together to produce genetically superior crops that expressed traits valued by farmers. Genetically modified organisms actually arise from a process similar to selective breeding. Instead of relying on reproduction generation to generation to produce phenotypic change, genetic modification consists of taking the genetic code of one organism and inserting it into the genetic code of another organism. The altered genes can encode for traits like pest-resistance, environmental tolerance, nutrition, and palatability.
Critics claim that GMOs pose health risks to consumers due to the “artificial” nature of their genes. However, DNA molecules are found in every cell of every organism. The subunits that comprise DNA float around in cell cytoplasm. The sequence of the genes might be altered during genetic modification, but the code is still the same. No food enters the market without extensive testing, thanks to the Food and Drug Administration. While a few cases exist where consumers suffered negative consequences after ingesting genetically modified foods, GMOs have more often than not provided consumers with more nutrients and better taste.
As a future scientist, I respect the necessity for testing new developments in technology, but I also don’t think fear should inhibit exploration of the potential GMOs have. Scientists have produced modified crops, including corn, that resist pests on their own, decreasing the need for harmful pesticides. This not only protects the environment, it provides a cheaper product to grow for farmers. Golden rice, a strand of genetically altered rice, contains a higher amount of vitamin A and promises to decrease negative symptoms associated with deficiencies of the nutrient.
I think some of the negative stigmas surrounding GMOs rises from a fear of the unnatural. I’d argue that these products aren’t necessarily unnatural because they speed up evolutionary processes already at work. Like all new technologies, genetic engineering should be explored responsibly and utilized in a safe and ethical manner. Any new technology should be explored carefully in order to avoid negative consequences on the environment. Large corporations like Monsanto have definitely used the power of genetically modifying crops for profit. I think some of the negative energy surrounding GMOs should instead target misuses of the technology.
I think the outright rejection of GMOs because genetic modification utilizes human manipulation ignores so many of the good potentials promised by the technologies. Should products label GMO ingredients on packaging? Of course, all ingredients should be labeled. But GMOs aren’t the enemy when responsibly grown. I love the C store’s GMO-free popcorn; it’s everything I want at 11:59 on a Wednesday night. I’d also love the kernels even if their DNA had been combined with potato genes that make the corn crops resistant to cutworms. I’d be eating an altered snack, but I’d also be eating a snack that didn’t require pesticides that kill baby eagles.
Kate Mcginn
Latest posts by Kate Mcginn (see all)
- GMOs: Ubiquitous & Misunderstood – Jan 30, 2016
- Highest Powerball, Lowest Odds – Jan 26, 2016
- The Pope is speaking in symbols about women – Sep 5, 2015