GMOs are here to stay, simply because conventional breeding of crops is not efficient enough to cater to the needs of the entire population of the world. The only way forward is to improve it through research, studies, and innovation

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one of the highly debated topics in recent times and rightly so because of the magnitude of its consumption worldwide and the growing discernment of the general public about its implications.

GMOs are organisms that have their DNA altered through a complex procedure called genetic engineering. More than in animals, GMOs have been extensively used in large scale agricultural produce like rice, soy, and corn. In fact, crossing plant species is how we make our crops free from viruses, immune to insect attacks, and ready to sow before drought hits them.

There are two main areas of contention here: the environmental impacts of its use and the consumer’s health.

It was generally believed that GMOs contribute to environmental damage. Contrary to this belief, it was later established that GMOs do not deteriorate the environment. One of the main reasons for the dissociation of GMOs from the environment is that it requires less insecticides and pesticides than conventional crops. Both GMOs and conventional crops require inorganic fertilizers to some extent, and GMOs requiring less, does less harm to nature.

While scientists are yet to discover clear links, opinions still diverge when issues of potential effects of GMOs on our health arise. Critics of GMOs have long asserted that, GMOs, being a product of lab manufacturing, really do deteriorate our wellness. And while there have been experiments on animals showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility, the same cannot be said for humans as they have different immune systems.

After extensive research spanning two years, the 2016 report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shows no difference in the health impacts of consuming genetically engineered food crops and crops grown by conventional methods. It also dismisses the connection between GMOs and cancer and the chronic problem of obesity as presumed before.

In the eyes of the general public, GMOs conjures up an image of crops with profusion of inorganic insecticides and pesticides which, when consumed, damage our health, which is untrue. The quality of food crops depends on how they are grown; conventional agricultural methods may be more harmful than GMOs if inorganic fertilizers are used extensively.

Thus, the safety of crops is disconnected from the type of breeding of the crops.

There are many reasons which various interest groups present in support of genetic engineering on food crops. The most compelling reasons under discussion are: to increase resistance to certain kinds of viruses and to reduce crop damage from pesticide, to maximize agricultural productivity given the limited arable land.

Developing nations are latecomers in this field, mainly because of the lack of the technology or expertise. For increasing food production to feed the fast growing population, farmers there have no choice but to use insecticides and pesticides rampantly, which jeopardizes their own health and that of the consumers. Frequent use of inorganic insecticides also decreases the fertility of the soil.

Not only this, rain and other agents carry these harmful insecticides to water bodies nearby, contaminating the water and harming aquatic life. Thus, damage in one part of the ecosystem has ripple effects. These seemingly complex and interconnected problems, however, can be easily mitigated through the gradual replacement of conventional crops by GMOs which requires less inorganic fertilizers than conventional crops, all the while maximizing profits for the farmers.

GMOs have the upper hand to conventional crops, when they are grown in large scale for commercial purposes by using inorganic fertilizers. While for household purposes, conventional crops using organic fertilizers would be the ideal method as it eliminates the exposure to chemical pesticides, improving the wellbeing of the family. Genetic engineering in crops also requires a significant gestation period before it gives out longer-term results.

GMOs are no longer an option of breeding crops, but probably the only option left on the table in the coming decades. The population of the world is burgeoning and we will have twice the number of mouths to feed in 2050 compared to today. A far-reaching innovation in agriculture is quintessential to avert potential famine—the world experienced it many times.

Sustainable transformation in agriculture is inevitable since the arable land on the Earth is limited. A delicate balance, therefore, must be struck among environment, human health, food quality, and the production capacity.

There are several things that can be done to ensure safety and minimize potential impacts of GMOs in the future. First, stringent policies may be adopted to cut back, on the already low use of inorganic insecticides and pesticides, on GMOs.

Second, we can increase cooperation between countries in exchanging expertise in this less explored field so that developing nations can reap the benefits of this practice. Third, continued research and development in this field would be essential while keeping the genetic engineering companies under government’s regular scrutiny.

GMOs are here to stay, simply because conventional breeding of crops is not efficient enough to cater to the needs of the entire population of the world. The only way forward is to improve it through research, studies, and innovation.