The use of genetically modified organisms, a broad term describing any living thing thatís original genetic makeup has been modified, has been a worldwide hotbed issue, sparking controversy and staunch opinions from both sides.Opponents say genetically engineered food items are health-hazardous and hurt the environment, but GMO proponents argue they are a solution to serious issues, including hunger, the reduction of crop destruction by natural pests and fighting the spread of tropical diseases.In his Dec. 9 article (posted on Forbes.com), ìGMOs Are A Real Solution for Todayís Real Problems,î H. Sterling Burnett argued that ìonly the widespread embrace of bioengineered or genetically modified Ö crops and animals can solve the persistent problem of hunger and lessen the impact of pest-borne diseases without doing untold damage to the environment.îCiting extensive studies done on GMOs as the reason major research bodies like the National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, World Health Organization and American Medical Association endorse the use of GMOs, Burnett wrote that GMOs could also ì(reduce) peoplesí impact on the environment.îThe Non GMO Project, a nonprofit founded in 2003, with a mission, in part,ìto preserve and build sources of non-GMO productsî (according to its website), states that GMOs are unhealthy and unsafe for human or animal consumption.Describing genetic modification as a ìrelatively new science,î the organization claims that it ìcreates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.îThe Non GMO Project asserts that GMOs are used in as much as 80 percent of conventional processed food in the U.S. Using data compiled from a 2012 Mellman Group poll, the nonprofit reported up to 91 percent of American consumers want GMOs to be labeled. The group also cited a ìCBS/New York Timesî poll showing that 53 percent of American consumers said they would not buy genetically modified food. Currently, regulations do not require labels on GMO foods.The nonprofit claims GMOs can be linked to health problems, environmental damage and a violation of both farmersí and consumersí rights, and asserts that no GMO traits currently on the market ìoffer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition or any other consumer benefit.îAccording to the Non GMO Project, up to 60 countries have either banned or significantly restricted the use of GMOs.Nations like Russia and Bulgaria have banned GMOs, while others such as all those in the European Union, South Korea and the Philippines have placed strict limitations on GMO use, according to an Oct. 29, 2013, article written by Walden Bello and Foreign Policy in Focus titled, ìTwenty-Six Countries Ban GMOs — Why Wonít the US?î posted on TheNation.com.ìCritics say that genetic engineering disrupts the precise sequence of a foodís genetic code and disturbs the functions of neighboring genes, which can give rise to potentially toxic or allergenic molecules or even alter the nutritional value of food produced,î the article stated.The FDA on its website claims the opposite: ìCredible evidence has demonstrated that foods from the (genetically engineered) plant varieties marketed to date are as safe as comparable, non-GE foods.îBurnett contended that GMOs can reduce the destruction of crops by modifying natural pests, like the diamondback moth. Scientists can even help lessen the spread of tropical diseases, like yellow fever, dengue fever and chikungunya, with genetically modified mosquitoes, Burnett wrote.In contrast, the Non GMO Project claims ìover 80 percent of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides Ö has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced.î Genetically engineered crops are also responsible for ìsuper weedsî and ìsuper bugs,î according to the nonprofitís website.A U.S. News Health report published April 29, 2015, on the safety of GMOs cited Steven Drukerís new book, ìAltered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer our Food has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.îDruker referenced a 2015 study, signed by more than 300 scientists and published in the Journal of Environmental Sciences Europe. The scientists all agree there is ìno scientific consensus on GMO safety.î Drucker said the fact that there is scientific conflict should be reason enough to avoid eating genetically modified foods.In the end, consumers will make their own choices. Is the proof in the pudding?
