Part 1:
What are GMOs?
GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism. The term is used to refer to food
products, usually plants, which have had their genes altered directly using various technologies.
Creating new, artificial orgasmisms can be done via cultivation, or the process of carefully
managing several organisms over generations in order to create a desired trait. There is also
hybridization, which involved breeding or cross-pollinating organisms in order to hopefully
combine the best traits of both. However, GMOs refer to products created via direct human
modification of an organism’s DNA or genome. Even though all three processes alter the genes
of organisms, the fact that GMOs are created immediately, as opposed to over the course of
many generations, separates them in both function and cultural regard.
Genetic modification is generally considered to start in 1940, when the process of using
radiation to cause mutation was used in order to randomly alter the genes of plants. This process
was primitive and inefficient, but could be used in order to create new plants. The US
government also passed legislation allowing for artificially cultivated plants to be patented,
which would slowly expand over time. However, since the structure of DNA wouldn’t even be
discovered for over a decade afterwards, the results of this were not seriously useful.
The next major development would not be made until 1986, when the process of creating
insulin artificially would popularize the idea of commercial GMOs. From there, rapid progress
lead to the US government creating the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of
Biotechnology. This policy describes how the FDA, EPA, and USDA work together to regulate
the safety of GMOs. In simple terms, GMOs are required to follow the same policies as plants
created via the other 2 methods. After this, several plants were approved, including a GMO
tomato and papaya. GMO meats have become more common after 2000, including a GMO
salmon and pig.
GMOs have historically increased crop yields and nutrition compared to heritage crops,
or natural crops, or crops created via other artificial methods. This has allowed for increased
population density whilst allowing for more people to work in secondary and tertiary sector jobs.
This not only contributes to disproving Thomas Malthus yet again, which is not particularly
difficult, but also lead to economic improvement worldwide.
Part 2:
Benefits of GMOS
It is hard to precisely define how GMOs differ from non-GMO crops, since a GMO can
essentially have any trait or function. This means that there is no lower or upper bound to the
theoretical benefits of GMOs. However, when analyzing the actual benefits that these can have,
the numbers are much clearer. According A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically
Modified Crops, the technology is providing reductions in agricultural chemical use of 37%,
increased agriculture yields of 22%, and improved farm profits of 68%.
These numbers are, quite frankly, staggering. There is no simple way to summarize them.
Given the standard estimate of 10 billion people on earth as the maximum sustainable
population, these numbers would mean that the simple act of altering the DNA of plants would
allow for an extra 2.2 BILLION people to inhabit earth sustainably. Arguably more importantly,
this allows for many farmers’ children to seek education. This improves the economies of
developing countries, and allows them to move into the semi-periphery of the global economy.
In addition to economic benefits, the lower chemical use in both pesticides and fertilizer
reduces the prevelence of many health complications which these chemicals can cause. Pestide
poisoning affects millions of people, so a 37% reduction likely means saving millions of lives.
Chemical manufacturing is also a huge cause of greenhouse gas emmissions, since chemical
byproducts of these industrial processes are far more potent than carbon dioxide, at least by
volume. For instance, one of the most common byproducts of the pesticide industry is Nitrous
Oxide, or N2O, which can be up to 265 times as potent as CO2.
However, despite the potential benefits of GMO cultivation, there are several criticisms
of it which have hampered its widespread adoption
Part 3:
Criticisms of of GMOS
GMOs are, ultimately, a technology. They utilize scientific principles in order to achieve
a goal. This fact is counterintuitive, since most people see “natural” and “technological” as 2
mutually exclusive categories. However, understanding this fact is essential to understanding
how people see GMOs. You see, there are very few technologies which are not surrounded by
various degrees of skepticism, regardless of actual risks or benefits. Vaccines, 5G internet, and
cell phones are all surrounded by an air of skepticism that is based more in paranoia than
evidence or logic.
While these suspicions are very common, they are mostly rooted in psychology rather
than clinical science. Simply put, the rise of a new, confusing, seemingly unnatural technology
that could change the world tends to prime people to believe conspiracy theories, often simply
because they offer a simpler and easier explanation. Regardless of the capabilities of individuals,
humans as a group are change-averse, quick to judge, and have a lot of trouble changing their
views once their are formed. While you, the reader, are obviously an exception to this pattern,
and I am exclusively referring to the people whom you disagree with, it is nevertheless a major
reason for the spread of unfounded claims.
For instance, if a new virus started spreading throughout the world, taking over news
cycles with scary, confusing, and often conflicting reports, and your government ordered you to
stay inside and wear masks for over a year, only for a miracle cure to suddenly appear and that
same government to order you to take it, it would be simpler, easier, and likely more comforting,
so simply believe that it was a hoax, or a lie. While this completely hypothetical scenario is
rather extreme, believing in unfounded theries that discredit novel technologies is common. As
such, while skepticism of GMOs for purely psychological reasons is fascinating, and likely has
just as much of an impact as more scientific criticisms, this paper will henceforth only be
addressing criticisms of GMOs which are backed by some form of scientific evidence.
With that in mind, the various citicisms of GMOs can be divided into 2 categories. The
first category criticises the actual GMO products, such as claims of allergenicity or outright
poisoning. The second category criticises the process itself, such as the dangers of monocropping
or the ethics of allowing agribusiness companies to legally control the foods we eat.
When it comes to category 1, the WHO has found no compelling evidence that GMOs are
any more dangerous than non-GMO food. Simply put, once an organism has gone through all of
the tests and quality assurance needed to reach market, it is almost impossible for it to have any
inherent poisonous qualities. If anything, the fact that GMOs require less chemical pesticides
means they may well be less likely to be dangerous. Though GMOs can of course cause allergic
reactions, they are no more likely to do so than anything else.
However, GMOs don’t need to be poisonous to be harmful. A much more reasonable
concern is nutritional deficiency. That is to say, GMOs are designed by for-profit companies, and
bought by for-profit farms, so it isn’t unreasonable to think that they may be designed for profit
over nutrition. The biggest flaw with this argument is that thre isn’t reallly any evidence for it.
Any nutritional difference between GMOs and other plants are marginal at best.
So, if the products of GMOs aren’t any worse than “natural” food, what could be wrong
with them? This brings us the category 2, criticisms of the process. Among uninformed people
and anti-GMO websites, there are a lot of misconceptions, which are broadly based on the idea
that taking DNA from an organism and putting it into another would give the new organism
aspects of both. In one survey