Is it safe to eat genetically modified foods (GMOs)? Will they be destructive to the environment? Are GMOs the answer to world hunger? These questions remain largely unanswered as the debate over genetically modified organisms continues to rage.
People all along the political spectrum alternatively champion their potential and castigate their pitfalls. It's an important debate, but before jumping into the turbulent, scientific waters, you'll need to learn the basics...
A GMO is any living organism - plant or animal - that has genetically altered genes, resulting from the combination of DNA molecules from more than one species. This process is called genetic engineering, and is an example of biotechnology.
Although it sounds like science-fiction, we regularly come into contact with products of biotechnology in our daily lives. It is used to brew beer, produce antibiotics, and improve food crops and livestock through breeding.
But with the technology in its relative infancy and the long-term consequences still unclear, some experts want developers of GMO technology to wait until more research is conducted before unleashing a potential hazard into the world.
Others stress that the technology is safe and that the path should be cleared immediately as they believe GMOs are an important humanitarian tool and could bring life-saving benefits to the developing world.
Despite opposition, many food crops have already been genetically modified. Currently, the majority of genetically modified food crops are grown in the United States (note that many European countries refuse to import GMOs as they feel their safety has not been fully verified).
According to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, in 2004, 45 percent of corn, 85 percent of soybeans and 76 percent of cotton being grown in the United States were GMOs.
GMO technology is used to increase shelf life of crops and provide resistance to drought, disease, pesticides and herbicides. By increasing resistance to insects and drought, supporters of GMOs believe that adoption of the technology by developing countries could lead to increased crop yields. Such an increase in food availability, they argue, could potentially combat hunger.
Genetic engineering is also used to improve the nutrient content of certain plants. The most cited example is "golden rice" - a man-made rice strain that contains the nutrient beta-carotene, the precursor to Vitamin A.
Though found naturally in many vegetables (such as carrots and sweet potatoes), beta-carotene is often missing from the grain-heavy diets of people in the developing world. Without this important nutrient, Vitamin A deficiency may develop - a life-threatening condition that is the most significant cause of childhood blindness across the globe. By fortifying the grain supply with beta-carotene, researchers believe that golden rice may help combat Vitamin A deficiency in poor populations that do not eat a varied, nutrient-rich diet.
But interfering with Mother Nature, despite some of the proposed benefits, has garnered much resistance from consumer advocacy and environmental groups. Some are concerned that moving genes from one species to another will lead to the transfer of allergens.
For example, if a gene from peanuts is transferred to corn, someone who is allergic to peanuts might have an allergic reaction from eating the corn. Another argument against GMOs is that humans have been consuming them for less than a decade; thus, we don't know what, if any, long-term side effects there may be.
Opponents also fear that putting insect and herbicide resistant genes in crops will cause some plants to be unaffected by the chemicals, leading to the formation of "superbugs" and "superweeds" that can no longer be controlled by pesticides.
Moreover, breeding a single strain of a GMO crop and planting it across the country contributes to the loss of biodiversity.
Adding to the controversy is the lack of proper labeling. Since processed foods and beverages are laden with high fructose corn syrup, soy byproducts and cottonseed oil (all of which may potentially contain genetically altered crops), many Americans consume GMOs without even realizing it; currently, labeling of GMOs in the U.S. is completely voluntary.
Many people believe consumers have a right to know what is in their food and have lobbied for mandatory labeling.
Other skeptics want to halt the introduction of GMOs into the food supply altogether until increased testing is completed to ensure the safety of human health and the environment.
Ingo Potrykus, a plant scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and key golden rice researcher, questions this mentality. In his 2004 article, "Experience from the Humanitarian Golden Rice Project," he argues that speeding up the release of the product to farmers could "prevent blindness for hundreds of thousands of children."
He criticizes those who would sit on the technology in favor of more testing despite the many recognized benefits of the crop.
But critics chide back, arguing that the dangerous potential of GMOs in combating malnutrition is inflated when food insecurity is viewed in a larger context.
They argue that growing a single variety of any particular crop is risky, because, for example, an insect infestation could wipe out an entire food source. Also, increasing the nutrient content of a staple food does not help fight hunger if people can't afford to buy the food.
Many in the food policy arena think a more integrative approach is required, including maintaining biodiversity and improving the socioeconomic status of individuals suffering from malnutrition.
"This is an experiment in our food system and agricultural ecosystem of an unprecedented type and scale," notes Leah Horowitz, a Food Policy and Applied Nutrition student at Tufts' Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and contributing writer for the Balance section.
"It merits special attention to health and environmental safety and we should be methodical in the way it's implemented. There are other ways of improving agricultural productivity and malnutrition. Biotechnology should be one component in a basket of potential solutions to addressing these problems."
Julie Thayer is a graduate student in the Agriculture, Food, and Environment (AFE) program at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. She has a BS in Nutritional Sciences and Biology from the University of Wisconsin.
