In 1973, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Meyer made a discovery that sparked a revolution in science. After a series of preliminary experiments, they demonstrated that they had transferred DNA between two species of bacteria, creating the first genetically modified organism. This achievement had far-reaching implications. For thousands of years, farmers have guided the course of evolution to breed crops with more desirable traits. Much agricultural progress is a result of this artificial selection. Breeding, however, is relatively slow because it relies on random mutations, and desirable new traits only arise due to chance errors in the genetic material of new cells. (Nutrition). With gene editing, scientists can specifically alter plants by cutting and pasting their genes with enzymes. Edited plants display beneficial characteristics, like insect and herbicide resistance, but concerned consumers are pushing against new DNA technology. The government should not place restrictions on GMO crops because they enable efficient farming and make cheaper, more nutritious foods available to consumers.
The genetic modification of plants provides myriad benefits to farmers. Scientists can create herbicide-resistant plants with specific genes, reducing crop injury and facilitating weed control. When farmers use these modified plants, they can spray their fields with glyphosate and glufosinate, chemicals that kill non-GMO crops. Compared to traditional herbicides, these chemicals “cause almost no crop injury… especially in soybeans” (Knezevic). These herbicides also simplify farm management with their broad spectrum of efficacy and lack of run-off. Because of these qualities, the technology associated with glyphosate and glufosinate is “simple to use… [and] requires neither special skills nor training” (Knezevic), greatly enhancing its worth to growers. Scientists have also modified GMO plants to produce the insect-killing proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (abbreviated to Bt), which creates a “built-in defense against attacks by the larvae of European corn borers and other insect pests.” (New Study Shows). Larvae that eat these proteins stop eating within 48 hours and die. The primary benefit of insect resistance is economic. Between 1996 and 2009, growers in “Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin received cumulative economic benefits of nearly 7 billion [dollars]” (New Study Shows) from Bt plants, significantly boosting agricultural profits. Additionally, insect resistance “enhances[s] safety for farmers” (Brody) because it reduces pesticide use and increases yields. The combined effect of these modifications has increased productivity for farmers. Reports from scientists in Pisa, Italy, indicate that genetically engineered corn has “a significantly higher yield than non-genetically modified varieties,” while the growth of corn, cotton, and soybeans “[has] risen 20 percent to 30 percent” (Brody) across the board.
The genetic modification of plants also benefits consumers. By modifying crops’ nutritional content, scientists have given GMO plants the potential to positively impact health. They have designed products like “low-calorie sugar beets and oils with lower saturated fat content” (Should We Grow) to help people lose weight and combat hypertension. Scientists have already created products “bearing higher nutritional content,” like “high-fiber corn and high-starch potatoes” (Should We Grow), in an attempt to supplement diets. The enhanced energy content of these foods will greatly benefit low-income countries, where “777 million people… including one-third of the population of sub-Saharan Africa, are undernourished” (Nuffield Bioethics). People in developing countries can also gain from the improved protein, vitamin, and mineral content that GMO crops provide. Diets in poor regions often rely on a single staple crop, like wheat or rice, with limited nutritional possibilities (Should We Grow). When a diet is deficient in a single nutrient, serious diseases can occur even if a person is eating enough calories. Scientists can combat these nutritional deficiencies by altering plants to produce a vast range of vitamins and minerals. Golden rice, engineered with genes from daffodil, has significantly higher beta-carotene content that can “help prevent blindness and death caused by vitamin A deficiencies in some developing nations.” (National Academies of Science). Additionally, genetic manipulation presents tangible economic benefits for consumers. The reduced use of land, water, pesticides, and herbicides to grow the same harvest “lower[s] the cost of food and increase[s] its availability.” (Brody).
Those opposed to GMO foods believe that they negatively impact human health. They argue that transgene products can “upset complex biochemical networks” (Should We Grow) in plants, with effects like “unwanted changes in nutritional content, the creation of allergens, and [novel] toxic effects on bodily organs” (Brody). Critics of genetic modification assert that scientists must stringently prove the long-term safety of transgenic plants before they reach the market. Their fears are grounded in concern for public health, which every consumer, farmer, and scientist must protect. However, scientists have failed to find any evidence that GMO crops carry health risks. In 2016, the National Academies of Science conducted a comprehensive review of genetically modified plants, using evidence from over two decades to assess the safety of these foods. After extensive discussion and review, the committee concluded that current studies “reveal no differences that would implicate a higher risk to human health and safety than from eating their non-GE counterparts.” (National Academies of Science). Additionally, 90 percent of scientists believe that GMO foods are safe, a view “endorsed by the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the World Health Organization ” (Brody). The scientific consensus is clear: genetically modified products do not adversely affect health. Their improved nutritional content even suggests that they are healthier than their non-modified counterparts. In addition, GMO crops are not fundamentally different from plants altered by conventional methods. Farmers have been modifying crops for millennia through breeding and natural mutations, techniques that often “involve mixing… the genes from two different sources” (Nutrition). This artificial selection has created many common fruits, including corn and seedless watermelon, and experts stress that GMOs are a natural extension of traditional practices. In the opinion of Dr. Werner Arber, Nobel laureate, “We’ve been breeding hybrids of plants for decades… [and] biotechnology is really not that much different” (Should We Grow). Given the similarities between traditional breeding and genetic modification, it is unfair to doubt the safety of GMO plants, and the novelty of genomic technology is no justification for fearing it.
The government should not place restrictions on the development, growth, or sale of GMO crops in America because the benefits of genetically modified crops greatly eclipse any potential risks. Through genome alteration, scientists have created herbicide and insecticide-resistant plants, benefiting farmers with increased yields and easy weed control. The augmented nutritional content of GMOs also promises to benefit consumers in both developed and developing countries while other modifications simultaneously reduce costs. Though some critics argue that forced recombination of DNA could lead to deleterious health effects, the scientific community has found no evidence to support this claim. Farmers have been modifying genes for centuries through selective breeding, and genomic technology simply extends this practice to modern times. Given the benefits of genetically modified crops, it is clear that the government should not act to stymie the products of technological progress.
Sources:
Brody, Jane E. “Are G.M.O. Foods Safe?” The New York Times, 20 July 2021, www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html?searchResultPosition=6
Knezevic, Steven. “Use of Herbicide-Tolerant Crops as Part of an Integrated Weed Management Program.” https://extensionpubs.unl.edu/publication/g1484/html/view, extensionpubs.unl.edu/publication/g1484/html/view.
New Study Shows Benefits of Bt Corn to Farmers : USDA ARS. www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2010/new-study-shows-benefits-of-bt-corn-to-farmers/#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20reducing%20the,wound%20sites%20from%20borer%20feeding.
Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied. “Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes.” U.S. Food And Drug Administration, 19 Apr. 2023, www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/science-and-history-gmos-and-other-food-modification-processes.
Nuffield Bioethics. “The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries.” Nuffield Bioethics, www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/GM-Crops-short-version-FINAL.pdf.
“Should We Grow GM Crops?” PBS, www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html. Accessed 29 Feb. 2024.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects- New Report.” National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 17 May 2016, www.nationalacademies.org/news/2016/05/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects-new-report.–
Be First to Comment