Savannah Clinton

A3
Genetically Modified (GM) Foods
Genetically modified foods (GM) have been a topic of widespread debate throughout the
world. There are organizations, companies, and governments both endorsing and condemning
their use. Throughout the conflict, it has been noted that opponents tend to inflate the risks
while proponents at times overstate the benefits. (University of Queensland). This is not an
issue, however, that demands absolute acceptance or denial. Its benefits include a more
sustainable and cost-effective production of food to feed ever-growing populations, and an
increased resistance to crop failure. Negative effects include possible health hazards. All facts
considered, GM foods should certainly have a role in the global food supply, so long as they are
effectively monitored.
Much of the praise surrounding GMs relate to efficiency. Widespread food shortages
around the world affect about a billion people today (McKie). GM crops will help dramatically
reduce that number. They are larger, grow more quickly, and have more nutrients than the
average food source. They are more dependable then harvests of organic goods as they are more
resistant to pests, disease, and herbicides (Human Genome Project). They are a great option in
regards to lowering costs while increasing food output. A more affordable, plentiful supply of
food will reach and benefit even the most impoverished countries.
The argument against GMs focuses on public an environmental health, and the possible
risks associated with genetic modification. There is a potential for a spike in allergies among
consumers of GMs. Anther possibility is the development of antibiotic resistance markers. In
addition, the environment may suffer from a loss of flora and fauna biodiversity, as well as an
unintended transfer of transgenes through cross pollination (Human Genome Project). In short,
GMs can have adverse effects on the health of both humans and ecosystems.
The abundance of benefits accompanying GMs provide more than enough reason to use
them, especially when any negative effects can be curbed. The GMs in commercial planting can
be held to a universal health standard. Adherence to the standard would be easily gauged through
regular risk assessments (University of Queensland). So long as these GMs meet acceptable
health standards, there is no reason to limit their use. The same concept is applied every day to
things such as the automotive industry; the products have the potential to be dangerous, yet they
are necessary and thus approved as long as they conform to set regulations. Some governments
have implemented the cautionary principle, which states that when results are uncertain, no
action should be taken (Manda). Risk assessments ensure certainty, of quality and safety, and
render the said principle unnecessary. There is no logical reason to avoid the use of GMs.
While genetically modified foods do have their drawbacks, such as potential health
issues, the good they bring greatly outweighs the risks. They can provide for an ever growing
worldwide population in a way that regular methods cannot. They offer more nutrients to the
consumer and more output to the producer. The speculated dangers of GMs is easily combatted

by regulation; public safety is ensured when products must meet certain health standards to enter
the marketplace. So long as GMs are monitored, widespread use of this important food source
can only benefit the global community in the long run.