With a recent report by the National Academy of Science earlier this month concluding that genetically-modified crops pose no significant health or environmental risk,[1] the debate about these controversial products has been reignited.  Naturally, shrill camps on opposite sides of the issue have either pointed to the study to claim victory or characterized it as inconclusive and cherry-picked.  The defenders of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cite the exhaustive research conducted in which over 1,000 studies on GMOs were examined and 80 experts interviewed.[2]  Critics of the study, not surprisingly, sing a different tune.  They argue that sufficient testing on animals was not conducted and that GM feed causes long-term damage to these animals and can therefore be potentially risky to consumers.[3]

So who should a discriminating consumer believe?  The National Academy of Science, who wouldn’t seem to have a dog in the fight but whose impartiality has been questioned by the anti-GMO crowd?  Big Agriculture, who was only too happy to tout the conclusions of this report as the final word but some of whose major companies (think Monsanto) are synonymous with corporate malfeasance?  Or the anti-GMO crowd, who call Frankenstein on all associated products and protest with pitchforks and torches in hand, ready to abolish these unnatural creations?  I would submit, as is almost always the case, that the answer lies in between these two extreme positions and requires a more balanced, nuanced solution.  A perspective that embraces a holistic view of the issue, often eschewed by the extremes of either camp, allows us to see the potential value to our and other societies of GMOs, while recognizing that there may be trade-offs and future concerns that merit continued attention.

Given the health and environmental conclusions of the NAS study alongside the fact that GMO crops can be produced more cheaply, reliably, and robustly, this is a technology worth investing in.  The genetic modifications to these crops do include some cosmetic features, making apples more red and crisp or blueberries more blue and plump, but they also make certain staples like rice, wheat, and millet more drought and pest resistant.  Clearly, the direct benefits for Big Ag profits are clear, but this technology is of greatest potential use in the developing world, where drought is more common and irrigation more difficult.  Having more resilient seeds and crops means more reliable, predictable harvests for small-scale subsistence-level farmers whose livelihoods continue to be endangered and marginalized by the ever-increasing effects of climate change.  GM crops and the Green Revolution that preceded it have probably lifted more people out of poverty than all of the well-meaning aid programs that have been dreamed up for the developed world in the last few decades.  The Green Revolution of the 1970s and 80s used more resilient higher-yield hybrid seeds (not to be confused with GM seeds), increased fertilizer, and employed better irrigation techniques to drastically increase agricultural yield.  The GM movement seeks to build on that scientific approach to bolstering food security, using pest resistant seeds to increase yield while potentially using less harmful pesticides.  Numerous studies, including a 2013 study from India on Bt (GM) cotton showed that farmers who used this technology had statistically significant higher income levels, living standards, and crop yields alongside reduced use of pesticides.[4]  We owe it to the 800 million food-insecure people across the globe to explore every potential avenue to boosting incomes and bolstering food security.

This does not mean, however, that we should be blind to the potential effects of genetic modifications of our food supply and the attendant costs.  At the core of the anti-GM argument is the fact that this technology has really only been around since the 1990s, and therefore we cannot know the true long-term health or environmental effects of these products.  Just because there have not been any demonstrable ill effects to-date does not mean there eventually will not be.  Moreover, the skepticism of companies like Monsanto, Cargill, and ConAgra is well founded.  These companies are not out to solve world poverty or hunger—at the end of the day, they’re out to make a profit.  It is they who control the patents and distribution of GM seeds that produce these higher yields.  There are very real price and dependency issues that are created when these companies sell their seeds at increasing cost to poor farmers who can barely afford them.  Add this to the fact that GM seeds do not reproduce on their own like natural or hybrid seeds and you have a perfect storm of seed addiction.  In addition to the dependency issue, there remain unresolved, long-term health concerns.  In the report, the NAS itself claimed that “sweeping statements about GE (genetically engineered) crops are problematic because issues related to them are multidimensional.”  The NAS only conducted tests on the 10 crops currently available in most markets; we have no idea of knowing if future GM crops will pose health risks or the wider effect that pest-resistant crops will have on the ecosystem.  Pesticide-resistant crops, in many cases, have resulted in increased use of pesticides because farmers do not have to worry about damaging their products with increasing use of these toxic chemicals.

To reject GMOs out-of-hand as an abomination or technological terror is patent alarmism.  Similarly, to say that GMO crops represent an unmitigated boon is to naively accept that all progress and invention is necessarily good, without weighing the attendant consequences.  GMOs that hold up under careful scrutiny and rigorous examination over the long term should be put to good use to solve the world’s intractable hunger and poverty problems.  But not at the expense of those it is asserting to help or the environment as a whole.  We owe it our citizens and those of other countries to know what we are putting in our bodies and to fully understand the short and long-term nutritional, economic, and environmental effects of these products.  There is no need to boycott these products out of fear.  But there is also no need to turn a blind eye toward their consequences, be they good or bad.

[1] http://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects

[2] http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/05/24/3780358/gmos-nas-study-complicated/

[3] http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/05/27/how-the-national-academy-of-sciences-misled-the-public-over-gmo-food-safety/#.V0klTfkrKM8

[4] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064879