Genetic modification of our food has become one of the most polarizing issues in the country. Too often, food advocates become mired down in political debates, forgetting to consider the scientific merit of their arguments. This happens frequently in the context of human health or the natural environment. On one side, GMOs find favor with environmentalists wary of heavy pesticide use, as well as nutritionists excited about the possibilities of enriching staple foods to solve world hunger. On the other side are agriculturalists who worry about the escape of genetically modified strains into the wild and skeptics who fear the possibility of allergens being spread, unbeknownst to consumers.
Genetically modified crops have led to higher yields and profit for farmers, nutrient enhancement vital for the developing world, and a decreased need for insecticide use. Moreover, there is strong scientific consensus that GM foods are safe to eat. Any new technology with the potential to affect human and environmental health should be subjected to intense scrutiny, however. In some places, GM crops have enabled overuse of herbicides, which could be damaging to the environment. Troubling land practices and lawsuits arising from cross-pollination are also the result of GMOs. The pros and cons should not eclipse each other. Rather, they should be separately considered in designing rational policy that protects consumers and the environment.
Related on the SLP
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: GMOs: Where the Science Stands on Nutrition and Agricultural Advancement
