CONCLUSION
Overall, the GMO debate is complex and multifaceted, with both sides presenting often directly contradictory arguments. Scientific consensus is generally in favor of the safety and potential benefits of GMOs. However, their impact on the pesticide industry as a whole and controversy over conflicts of interest within profiting corporations are among some of the understandable reasons for social pushback. While numerous studies claim no evidence of harm to human health from consumption, the existence of differing perceptions alone could determine the prominence and implementation of these kinds of organisms. Therefore, proper exploration and acknowledgment of all narratives is crucial.
Supporters argue that GMOs can improve agricultural productivity and reduce hunger. For example, in developing countries, crops that have been genetically modified to be resistant to pests or drought could help increase yields and decrease the need for costly pesticides and fertilizers. GM crops such as Bt cotton, which have been modified to self-produce insecticide, have been shown to increase yields and reduce the use of pesticides in places like India, China, and South Africa.
GMO-opponents argue that GMOs can have unintended consequences, including potential harm to human health, biodiversity, and the environment. For example, some anti-GMO activists claim that they can lead to the creation of other, undesirable bi-products such as "superweeds" and "superbugs" that are resistant to herbicides and pesticides. This would ultimately lead to increased use of harmful chemicals. Additionally, some opponents claim that GMOs could potentially cause allergic in some humans.
Conversely, supporters argue that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that GMOs are harmful to human health. Many studies have been conducted on the safety of GMOs, and most have found no evidence of harm to human health. This is further emphasized by the claim that herbicide GM crops are bred with resistance specifically catered to insects, and therefore would not translate to harmful human consumption
Opponents argue that GMOs are often created and patented by large corporations, which can lead to the consolidation of the agricultural industry and reduce the autonomy of farmers. For example, some opponents claim that the widespread adoption of GM crops such as Roundup Ready soybeans has led to the consolidation of the seed industry, and forces smaller farmers to adopt less-natural practices to keep up with the industry. This point is particularly strengthened by the famous controversy surrounding Monsanto's contribution to pesticide resistant crops in order to profit from the sales of pesticides without transparency to the human health risks of those pesticides.
Supporters argue that GMOs offer benefits such as increased resistance to pests and diseases, enhanced nutrient content, and improved environmental sustainability. For example, GM crops such as Golden Rice, which has been genetically modified to produce more vitamin A, could help combat vitamin A deficiency in developing countries. Additionally, some GM crops have been modified to require less water or fertilizer, which could lead to improved environmental sustainability.
Ultimately, there will likely continue to be debate surrounding the adoption of genetic modification (particularly in the realm of consumable goods). While this is in part due to misinformation (as many GMO-supporters claim), it ultimately relates to the fact that it is not an absolute, right-or-wrong, good-or-bad issue. Perhaps one of the most significant concerns that arises from the seemingly un-settleable dispute is the impact it can have on the use of genetically modified crops in lesser developed parts of the world.