GMOs are genetically engineered to increase productivity and functionality, and could help solve food shortages and prevent disease, but concerns about safety and ecosystem disruption have led to an ongoing debate.
GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism, which is often translated as “genetically modified organism. GMOs are organisms that have had their genes manipulated to insert some components or remove existing genes to make them more productive and marketable. In other words, genetic modification is the art of altering an organism’s genes to change its existing characteristics. The history of GMOs has paralleled the advances in DNA research. In 1953, Watson and Crick unraveled the structure of DNA, followed by the development of techniques to selectively cut specific regions of DNA in 1971, and the ability to join cut DNA to other DNA in 1973. This led to the mass production of insulin, which helped cure diabetes, and a variety of other GMO foods, including rice, corn, and potatoes, have since been developed and distributed around the world. In the United States, the world’s largest grain producer, 70 million hectares were planted to GMO grains as of 2013, with 93% of corn and more than 99% of soybeans being GMO varieties. With more than 80% of food in the U.S. containing GMOs, GMOs are already deeply embedded in our daily lives. However, the debate surrounding GMOs is still fierce.
The main concern of GMO opponents is safety. GMOs are foods that have been genetically engineered to maximize productivity and quality. However, opponents argue that the technology of genetic engineering is still new and hasn’t been fully tested for safety, as it’s only been commercially available for 20-30 years. They argue that GMO foods can be harmful to humans, citing experiments in which animals fed GMO foods developed diseases or tumors. They also worry about the potential for GMO creatures to disrupt natural ecosystems. Just as invasive species such as the bullfrog and loggerhead turtle have disrupted ecosystems in South Korea, GMOs could threaten natural ecosystems. Opponents also accuse the companies that dominate the GMO market of selling GMO foods for commercial gain, not for the cause of solving food scarcity, and claim that companies such as Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer cover up the risks and mislead consumers and farmers.
I think the naysayers have a valid point – GMO foods are dangerous, and there’s a commercial motive behind their global distribution – but I believe the net benefits of GMOs outweigh the negatives.
The development of GMO crops basically involves manipulating the DNA of a particular seed so that a desired trait is expressed. This is primarily done to increase productivity. For example, ‘super rice’ is popular in China, which produces twice as many spikelets as regular rice, thus more than doubling the yield. In the past, ‘super corn’ developed by Dr. Soon-Kwon Kim was more than twice the size of regular corn, which helped solve South Korea’s food shortage.
Conventional agriculture uses a large amount of chemicals such as pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, of which chemical fertilizers deplete the soil’s nutrients when used repeatedly, causing land degradation. Furthermore, pesticides and herbicides can be spread incorrectly, leading to resistant pests and weeds that require increasingly stronger pesticides, creating a vicious cycle. By contrast, genetically engineering pests and weeds to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides through GMO technology can reduce the need for pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides and keep ecosystems healthy. GMO organisms pose a lower risk of spreading than pests and weeds because, if managed carefully, they can be prevented from spreading into natural ecosystems. Additionally, if genes are engineered to grow without fertilizer, soil degradation can be prevented due to reduced fertilizer use.
Chemical fertilizers have the potential to be harmful to humans, and the company claims that they are thoroughly tested for safety. This is a logic often cited by proponents of GMOs in response to opponents’ concerns about safety issues. The proponents’ argument is compelling because we’re already using new chemicals that don’t exist in nature, and no adverse effects from GMO crops have yet been found in humans.
Currently, the human population is growing at a rate unprecedented in history, and food shortages are becoming a growing problem. By 2050, the population is expected to reach 9 billion, and 800 million people are hungry today. Economic growth, especially in China and India, will drive increased meat consumption, which will further increase the demand for grain. At the same time, global urbanization and development are reducing agricultural land, so food shortages will only get worse in the future. GMO crops are highly productive, allowing more food to be produced in a smaller area, which could contribute to solving the food shortage problem at a lower cost.
Of course, while the companies that develop GMO crops will reap huge profits, the benefits will also go to the farmers and hungry people who use the GMO seeds. In fact, Indonesia has agreed to produce GMO grains and enacted laws to help solve its food shortage, and some countries in Africa and Eastern Europe are making similar efforts. Instead of focusing on the corporate profits from the widespread use of GMO crops, we need to focus on the positive impact they will have on poor farmers, people suffering from hunger, and our future generations as they struggle to feed themselves.
GMO crops can have various functions other than increasing agricultural productivity. In particular, GMO crops containing anti-cancer ingredients are being developed to prevent cancer, the leading cause of death in Korea. For example, rice containing isoflavones, an anti-cancer component, tomatoes containing high amounts of resveratrol, an anti-cancer substance, and rice with a high content of anthocyanins, an antioxidant, are among the various functional GMO crops on the market. Not only will this increase consumer satisfaction, but it will also allow agriculture to grow into a high-value industry, providing new opportunities for farmers.
Beyond food, GMOs can also be utilized in the bioenergy sector. In the modern world, petroleum resources are becoming increasingly depleted and there is an urgent need to develop alternative energy sources, with bioenergy emerging as a major alternative. Bioenergy is energy derived from biomass (living organisms) and includes bioethanol, biodiesel, and biogas. GMO crops are well-suited as feedstock for bioenergy due to their high productivity, and can be utilized as a low-cost resource for energy production with fewer stability concerns.
Safety concerns are at the heart of the debate for and against GMOs, but to date, no cases of human harm have been reported during the shelf life of GMO foods. The animal tests cited by opponents are often on animals with different structures and lack sufficient controls for variables. On the other hand, companies that develop GMO seeds undergo more than 75 tests, including toxicity, allergies, and environmental impact, and it takes an average of $136 million and more than 13 years to commercialize a GMO.
While the safety, commercialization, and ecosystem disruption concerns raised by naysayers are important to consider, the benefits of GMOs are far too great to abandon their development. GMO crops can contribute to solving many of humanity’s problems, such as feeding the world, providing alternative energy, and curing cancer. The issues raised by naysayers can be addressed in other ways as we move forward with GMO policy, so I am in favor of the development and distribution of GMO crops.
