I have been interested in the arguments for and against genetically modified foods, although the standard reference has been “genetically modified organisms (GMO).” There is major conflict between those who believe we must develop this new technology to have a chance to feed an expanding world population and those who believe the technology of genetic modification presents significant risks. I was poorly informed about the technology, and the initial reaction is that “man should not be involved in modifying genetics.” Of course it isn’t quite that simple.  One side of the argument is that GMOs are useful to combating hunger, which is a powerful argument. Others contend that the technology is dangerous to the environment and consumers.  Some opponents consider the Monsanto, which has been a leader in development of GMOs, to be worthy of the harshest criticism possible.

I intend for this to the first of (at least) four commentaries on GMOs. The current plan is for this “introductory” commentary” to be followed by a discussion of the differences between genetic modification and hybrids. The third will focus on fears created by the technology that make the critics believe it is being accepted too quickly by the governmental agencies that are responsible for food safety. The final entry will present the list of positives about the technology. People who already have an opinion probably won’t be swayed. My purpose is to give people who are curious and want a place to start to better understand the controversy.

My early searches led me to a wonderful web site that, in my estimation, works diligently to present a fair discussion of a difficult subject. My advice is that you should click on the link to Tamar Haspel’s balanced discussion that presents both sides in a fair and reasonable manner. However, since this is my web site, I decided to “cherry pick” some of the content. First, in the introduction to the site titled “Unearthed,” Tamar says the site it “an effort to dig deep to try to figure out what’s true and what isn’t in the debate…” This is followed by the statement that “Debate” is a nice name for it. Sometimes it’s more like a melee…a name—calling free-for-all.” I couldn’t have described it better.

For those wanting to hear what the referenced web site says of the bottom line as to whether GMOs are safe or toxic, there is a discussion of whether groups and organization commenting on the issues passed an “impartiality test.” That test was based whether a commenting source was willing to accept there are both risks and benefits. Several organizations weighing in on the issue, including The National Academies, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Royal Society and the European Commission “…agree that there is no evidence that it’s dangerous to eat genetically modified foods.”  

In the interest of fairness, I’ll close with a link to “Earthopensource,” which disagrees. That site contends that GMOs can be “…toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural components…” and that they are not adequately regulated.   

I intend to continue reading on this subject. I plan to post a commentary that discusses the difference between hybrids and GMOs next week.