As the world population grows and the climate changes, feeding global citizens has become a major challenge for humanity. Researchers and stakeholders in the food industry have been forced to propose innovative yet effective ways to tackle this problem with varying degrees of success. Gene editing and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been proposed to solve the current challenge. Gene editing allows scientists to alter the genetic makeup of organisms and introduce desired traits such as disease resistance, drought-withstanding capabilities, and nutritional output. These technologies face multiple hurdles because they are still relatively young, and the long-term effects of genetically modified foods are still unclear. This raises ethical concerns as some stakeholders are concerned that the proposed solutions might have far-reaching unforeseen consequences for humanity. This essay evaluates the arguments for and against gene editing and GMOs to educate the public on the gains and potential drawbacks of the technologies.
The major point in support of genetic editing is its capability to introduce desirable traits into organisms while suppressing negative features. Extant research suggests that humanity could utilize gene editing to enhance the quality of food available for consumption and allow people to eliminate disease-causing mutations in human bodies. In an article investigating this phenomenon, Gyngell et al. argue that heritable genome editing (HGE) can improve the disease-fighting capabilities of future generations and enhance their quality of life (521). Similar benefits can be replicated in food items with a high degree of success, enabling global populations to overcome existing shortages. The study shows that many biological components of human and crop diseases can be eliminated through gene editing. The benefits here are two-fold: global food production increases, and people have a better quality of life due to an ability to withstand specific medical conditions.
Another argument supporting gene editing and GMOs is increased yield and higher nutritional capacity. Studies over the past ten years indicate that gene editing has enhanced agricultural production by 22% (Norero). As a result, farmers can harvest more than they did in the past, directly addressing the growing demand for food worldwide. Increased output from the same piece of land translates to higher profits for farmers and allows them to lower the price of produce. This is a major step toward overcoming current challenges, and stakeholders should consider these facts before opposing these technologies (Norero). At the same time, GMOs have better nutrient capacity because scientists can manipulate their genes. As a result, consumers access better-balanced meals that are more readily available than in the past, solving current food shortages.
The proponents of gene editing also link the practice to environmental conservation and sustainability. As highlighted above, genetically modified organisms are more resistant to disease. They are also better positioned to overcome drought and harsh weather conditions. Farmers require minimal pesticides and drugs when rearing genetically altered plants and animals. This translates to a balanced ecosystem since there is minimal interference with weeds and other organisms that reside in the soil. The American Food and Drug Administration postulates that contrary to popular belief that eating GMOs converts the consumer to a genetically altered organism, animals across the world have been consuming GMOs with no changes to their genetic makeup. This dispels fears that GMOs’ ability to withstand harsh conditions affects humanity. Consequently, people can use these products without the fear that their safety and genetic makeup are at risk.
Despite the benefits of gene editing and GMOs, these technologies have various concerns. One of the primary issues of editing is the lack of long-term studies on their impact on human health and the environment. Unlike traditional plant and animal breeding methods, genetically modified organisms are a relatively new and untested technology. Short-term studies, such as the one by the American Food and Drug Administration, show that consuming GMOs has no adverse effects on humans. Indeed, animals have been consuming genetically edited foods with no changes to their genetic makeup. However, (Henry et al.) posit that limited literature on the long-term effects of people consuming GMOs should concern stakeholders (1). Caution should be applied to ensure humanity does not invite unforeseen challenges as scientists address food shortages. Until extensive studies address these concerns, there is a legitimate cause for caution in the widespread adoption of GMOs and gene editing technologies.
The use of GMOs and gene editing technologies also raises ethical concerns. Opponents fear that altering natural processes can have unintended consequences and impact ecosystems. Changing the genetic makeup of organisms causes uncertainty about the morality of interfering with natural processes. Some argue that this technology could lead to unforeseen consequences and disrupt ecological balances, introducing new risks to human health. Additionally, observers contend that the current legal framework that seeks to compel farmers to adopt specific types of genetically edited crops contravenes ethical values. They argue that deciding whether to adopt GMOs should be voluntary and not mandatory. The widespread adoption of GMOs could force farmers to rely on a narrow range of genetically modified crops (Landry). This can reduce the crop diversity and the resilience of agricultural systems.
At the same time, gene editing and GMOs lead to worries about the ownership and control of genetic resources. The patenting of genes and the potential for corporate dominance over these technologies could lead to restricted access and inequitable distribution of their benefits. The profit motives of international corporations could overshadow the benefits of gene editing and GMOs for global food security. The concentration of power over genetic resources can disadvantage small-scale farmers, limiting their access to these technologies and hindering their ability to participate in the development of sustainable agricultural practices (Ahmad et al.). Importantly, the history of unethical human experimentation reminds humanity of the dangers of unregulated scientific experiments. The Nazi experiments during World War 2 underscore the risks that can arise if such technologies are uncontrolled. It is crucial to establish ethical frameworks to prevent such abuses and ensure that genetic technologies are used for the benefit of humanity.
This discussion explores gene editing and GMOs. It seeks to understand whether these technologies can help humanity solve the food challenges that the world is currently facing. For some, GMOs are the magic solution to the problem. For others, they embody evil and should not be allowed. This essay shows that these technologies have shortcomings as well as weaknesses that stakeholders must consider when determining a way forward. Indeed, gene editing will increase food production capabilities and boost the resilience of agricultural systems. However, concerns such as the absence of long-term studies and potential ethical abuse remind scientists to approach the issue carefully. The major beneficiary of controlled research in this area is humanity. As such, all concerns regarding GMOs should be addressed before they are adopted on a wide scale.
Works Cited
Ahmad, Aftab, et al. “GMOs or Non-GMOs? The CRISPR Conundrum.” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 14, 9 Oct. 2023, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1232938.
Gyngell, Christopher, et al. “Moral Reasons to Edit the Human Genome: Picking up from the Nuffield Report.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 45, no. 8, 24 Jan. 2019, pp. 514–523, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105084.
Henry, Christine, et al. “Cumulative Long-Term Effects of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops on Human/Animal Health and the Environment.” Central Science Laboratory, 2016, pp. 1–236, https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-10/gmo_rep-stud_2006_report_lt-effects.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023.
Landry, Heather. “Challenging Evolution: How GMOs Can Influence Genetic Diversity.” Science in the News, Harvard University, 10 Aug. 2015, https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/challenging-evolution-how-gmos-can-influence-genetic-diversity/. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023.
Norero, Daniel. “GMO Crops Have Been Increasing Yield for 20 Years, with More Progress Ahead.” Alliance for Science, 23 Feb. 2018, allianceforscience.org/blog/2018/02/gmo-crops-increasing-yield-20-years-progress-ahead/. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond.” GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond, 3 Aug. 2022, www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/gmo-crops-animal-food-and-beyond. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023.
write