Settling the debate surrounding genetically modified organisms

There has been constant debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for as long as they’ve been around.

On one side, the thought is that genetically modified foods are unsafe for consumption and possibly harmful to the environment. The other side of the argument is that genetic engineering is the scientific progression of older breeding methods. The stigma surrounding companies who produce GMOs is an admittedly well deserved one, with large companies like Monsanto and Syngenta doing nothing to help their public image.

Both Monsanto and Syngenta are often used in arguments against GMOs as a whole. These arguments are usually based on the thought that many companies only make GMOs to line their pockets. Much of this debate over these large companies stems specifically from the very checkered past of Monsanto. During the Vietnam War, Monsanto sold the US government large quantities of Agent Orange, a herbicide which was used by the military to defoliate forests and crops. This deprived the guerrillas of food and defensive coverage. The problem, however, occurred on American soil, as those who were involved in the production of Agent Orange began to suffer from severe health problems caused by a contaminant in the chemical. Though I will not defend the production of Agent Orange, I will acknowledge the fact that the company did warn the government of the severe health risks that Agent Orange posed. While this does raise valid concerns over the safety of foods being made by the same people who produced this dangerous chemical, Monsanto has dealt with the problem by creating a separate company focused entirely on agriculture.

The issue of patents is a sore point for farmers and these biotech companies as well. Monsanto is often the plaintiff in court cases that involve the use of their products or patents as a whole. Out of more than 140 suits filed over the infringement of patents or breach of contract, only eleven have been brought to trial, all of which Monsanto has won. There are also many rumors of Monsanto suing farmers who have had tiny amounts of patented seeds that have blown over into their fields.

Though I have presented some of the popular stigmas regarding the inner workings of Monsanto, I do not wish to defend them. In fact, I think that companies like this have unfairly given GMOs a bad name. Certainly, there are many issues commonly discussed which are legitimate concerns. But the problem is that many facts seem to have been lost in translation or slightly altered by both sides of the debate.

The most common argument presented is about the supposedly negative effect GMOs have on the environment as a whole. Agriculture is one of the most environmentally damaging human activities practiced today, but genetically engineered crops can actually contribute to the easing of this negative environmental impact. For instance, the bacterial Bt gene found in many crops allows farmers to reduce the use of spray pesticides. Though this seems to ignore the creation of newly resistant, mutated strands known as the“super-pest” or “super-weed” which iscertainly a legitimate concern when using genetically modified crops, the issue has been addressed multiple times by successfully planting non-genetically modified crop fields (without the Bt gene) which avoids the promotion of Bt-resistant pests. This is of course only one side of the argument.

The other ongoing debate surrounding GMOs is their safety for both short and long term consumption. Once again, both sides have differing views on this part of the debate. The truth seems to be that there are no large differences between foods that are genetically modified and those from non-genetically modified crops. Genetically modified crops simply introduce new genes into the DNA of a specific seed to express a desired trait. Whether it is to enhance taste, increase shelf life, or protect from insects, these introduced traits serve a specific purpose to the life of the crop. Companies are held to a very high standard and those that wish to release a genetically modified seed are required to test the safety of that product. If a product is a known allergen, it must be tested for safety.

The stigma surrounding GMOs is one that can be very unfair, because it is not always based on scientific fact. Most media and non-government associations tend to look down on GMOs as a whole, as well as the companies they are connected to. But it seems clear that they can be as safe as any other crop and can actually be a benefit to the environment. So, the next time you read about how bad GMOs are, remember there are two sides to every story.