genetically modified food for and against essay

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Intelligence Squared U.S.

Debate: should we genetically modify food.

Genomics researcher Alison Van Eenennaam, with Monsanto's Robert Fraley, argues that genetically modified foods have increased farmers' yields and profits around the world. Samuel LaHoz/Intelligence Squared U.S. hide caption

Genomics researcher Alison Van Eenennaam, with Monsanto's Robert Fraley, argues that genetically modified foods have increased farmers' yields and profits around the world.

Many plants we eat today are a result of genetic modifications that would never occur in nature. Scientists have long been altering the genes of food crops, to boost food production and to make crops more pest-, drought- and cold-resistant.

Proponents of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, say that farmers who grow these crops are able to use fewer environmentally damaging pesticides. The increased yields of GMO crops, they also argue, are essential to feeding the world's growing population. And proponents say that numerous studies have shown that genetically modified foods are safe to eat.

Critics, however, say the claims of those benefits are overblown. They say farmers growing GMO crops have actually increased their use of herbicides. And widespread use of the crops, they say, have also led to an increase in herbicide- and pesticide-resistant weeds and insects. And, they argue, there is still no scientific consensus on the long-term safety of these foods.

Four scientists recently took on those questions in an Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, facing off two against two on the motion, "Genetically Modify Food." In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people to its side by the end is the winner.

Before the debate, the audience at the Kaufman Music Center in New York voted 32 percent in favor of the motion, with 30 percent against and 38 percent undecided. Afterward, 60 percent agreed with the motion, and 31 percent disagreed — making the side arguing in favor of the motion the winners of this debate.

More From The Debate

Those debating:

FOR THE MOTION

Robert Fraley is executive vice president and chief technology officer at Monsanto, where he has worked for more than 30 years. He currently oversees the company's global technology division which includes plant breeding, biotechnology and crop protection research facilities in dozens of countries. Fraley has authored more than 100 publications and patent applications. In 2013, he was honored as a World Food Prize Laureate and is the recipient of numerous awards, including the 2008 National Academy of Sciences Award for the Industrial Application of Science for his work on crop improvement and the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1999.

Alison Van Eenennaam is a genomics and biotechnology researcher and cooperative extension specialist in the Department of Animal Science at University of California, Davis. The mission of her extension program is "to provide research and education on the use of animal genomics and biotechnology in livestock production systems." Her outreach program focuses on the development of science-based educational materials, including the controversial biotechnologies of genetic engineering and cloning. She has served on several national committees including the USDA National Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture, and as a temporary voting member of the 2010 FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee meeting on the AquAdvantage salmon, a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon. Van Eenennaam was the recipient of the 2014 Borlaug CAST Communication Award.

Science policy consultant Margaret Mellon argues that genetically modified crops have encouraged the evolution of resistant weeds and pests. Samuel LaHoz/Intelligence Squared U.S. hide caption

Science policy consultant Margaret Mellon argues that genetically modified crops have encouraged the evolution of resistant weeds and pests.

AGAINST THE MOTION

Charles Benbrook is a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, and leader of the center's program Measure to Manage: Farm and Food Diagnostics for Sustainability and Health. His career has focused on developing science-based systems for evaluating the public health, environmental and economic impacts of changes in agricultural systems, technology and policy. He spent the first 18 years of his career working in Washington, D.C., first for the Executive Office of the President, then as the staff director for a U.S. House of Representatives agricultural subcommittee. He was the executive director of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture, and has run a small consulting firm since 1991. He served as the chief scientist for The Organic Center, based in Washington, D.C., from 2004 to 2012, and has served as an appointed member on the USDA's Advisory Committee on 21st Century Agriculture since 2011. His 2012 peer-reviewed study documenting the big increase in herbicide use triggered by the planting of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. has been downloaded over 110,000 times.

Margaret Mellon is a science policy consultant in the areas of antibiotics, genetic engineering and sustainable agriculture. She holds a doctorate in molecular biology and a law degree from the University of Virginia. In 1993, Mellon founded the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists to promote the adoption of science-based farming systems that are simultaneously productive, environmentally benign and resilient in the face of stress. The program critically evaluated products of genetic engineering for their contribution to sustainable agriculture and urged the reduction of unnecessary antibiotic use in animal agriculture. After almost 20 years, Mellon stepped down as head of the program in 2012 and, after two additional years as a senior scientist, left UCS in 2014. Mellon has published widely on the potential environmental impacts of biotechnology applications, and served three terms on USDA's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture.

• food safety
• genetically modified food
• genetically engineered food
• genetically modified seeds

September 1, 2013

13 min read

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

Proponents of genetically modified crops say the technology is the only way to feed a warming, increasingly populous world. Critics say we tamper with nature at our peril. Who is right?

By David H. Freedman

Robert Goldberg sags into his desk chair and gestures at the air. “Frankenstein monsters, things crawling out of the lab,” he says. “This the most depressing thing I've ever dealt with.”

Goldberg, a plant molecular biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, is not battling psychosis. He is expressing despair at the relentless need to confront what he sees as bogus fears over the health risks of genetically modified (GM) crops. Particularly frustrating to him, he says, is that this debate should have ended decades ago, when researchers produced a stream of exonerating evidence: “Today we're facing the same objections we faced 40 years ago.”

Across campus, David Williams, a cellular biologist who specializes in vision, has the opposite complaint. “A lot of naive science has been involved in pushing this technology,” he says. “Thirty years ago we didn't know that when you throw any gene into a different genome, the genome reacts to it. But now anyone in this field knows the genome is not a static environment. Inserted genes can be transformed by several different means, and it can happen generations later.” The result, he insists, could very well be potentially toxic plants slipping through testing.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Williams concedes that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops. But he says this is only because the field of plant molecular biology is protecting its interests. Funding, much of it from the companies that sell GM seeds, heavily favors researchers who are exploring ways to further the use of genetic modification in agriculture. He says that biologists who point out health or other risks associated with GM crops—who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks—find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet.

Whether Williams is right or wrong, one thing is undeniable: despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat, the debate over their use continues to rage, and in some parts of the world, it is growing ever louder. Skeptics would argue that this contentiousness is a good thing—that we cannot be too cautious when tinkering with the genetic basis of the world's food supply. To researchers such as Goldberg, however, the persistence of fears about GM foods is nothing short of exasperating. “In spite of hundreds of millions of genetic experiments involving every type of organism on earth,” he says, “and people eating billions of meals without a problem, we've gone back to being ignorant.”

So who is right: advocates of GM or critics? When we look carefully at the evidence for both sides and weigh the risks and benefits, we find a surprisingly clear path out of this dilemma.

Benefits and worries

The bulk of the science on GM safety points in one direction. Take it from David Zilberman, a U.C. Berkeley agricultural and environmental economist and one of the few researchers considered credible by both agricultural chemical companies and their critics. He argues that the benefits of GM crops greatly outweigh the health risks, which so far remain theoretical. The use of GM crops “has lowered the price of food,” Zilberman says. “It has increased farmer safety by allowing them to use less pesticide. It has raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger.”

In the future, Zilberman says, those advantages will become all the more significant. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the world will have to grow 70 percent more food by 2050 just to keep up with population growth. Climate change will make much of the world's arable land more difficult to farm. GM crops, Zilberman says, could produce higher yields, grow in dry and salty land, withstand high and low temperatures, and tolerate insects, disease and herbicides.

Credit: Jen Christiansen

Despite such promise, much of the world has been busy banning, restricting and otherwise shunning GM foods. Nearly all the corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, but only two GM crops, Monsanto's MON810 maize and BASF's Amflora potato, are accepted in the European Union. Ten E.U. nations have banned MON810, and although BASF withdrew Amflora from the market in 2012, four E.U. nations have taken the trouble to ban that, too. Approval of a few new GM corn strains has been proposed there, but so far it has been repeatedly and soundly voted down. Throughout Asia, including in India and China, governments have yet to approve most GM crops, including an insect-resistant rice that produces higher yields with less pesticide. In Africa, where millions go hungry, several nations have refused to import GM foods in spite of their lower costs (the result of higher yields and a reduced need for water and pesticides). Kenya has banned them altogether amid widespread malnutrition. No country has definite plans to grow Golden Rice, a crop engineered to deliver more vitamin A than spinach (rice normally has no vitamin A), even though vitamin A deficiency causes more than one million deaths annually and half a million cases of irreversible blindness in the developing world.

Globally, only a tenth of the world's cropland includes GM plants. Four countries—the U.S., Canada, Brazil and Argentina—grow 90 percent of the planet's GM crops. Other Latin American countries are pushing away from the plants. And even in the U.S., voices decrying genetically modified foods are becoming louder. In 2016 the U.S. federal government passed a law requiring labeling of GM ingredients in food products, replacing GM-labeling laws in force or proposed in several dozen states.

The fear fueling all this activity has a long history. The public has been worried about the safety of GM foods since scientists at the University of Washington developed the first genetically modified tobacco plants in the 1970s. In the mid-1990s, when the first GM crops reached the market, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader, Prince Charles and a number of celebrity chefs took highly visible stands against them. Consumers in Europe became particularly alarmed: a survey conducted in 1997, for example, found that 69 percent of the Austrian public saw serious risks in GM foods, compared with only 14 percent of Americans.

In Europe, skepticism about GM foods has long been bundled with other concerns, such as a resentment of American agribusiness. Whatever it is based on, however, the European attitude reverberates across the world, influencing policy in countries where GM crops could have tremendous benefits. “In Africa, they don't care what us savages in America are doing,” Zilberman says. “They look to Europe and see countries there rejecting GM, so they don't use it.” Forces fighting genetic modification in Europe have rallied support for “the precautionary principle,” which holds that given the kind of catastrophe that would emerge from loosing a toxic, invasive GM crop on the world, GM efforts should be shut down until the technology is proved absolutely safe.

But as medical researchers know, nothing can really be “proved safe.” One can only fail to turn up significant risk after trying hard to find it—as is the case with GM crops.

A clean record

The human race has been selectively breeding crops, thus altering plants' genomes, for millennia. Ordinary wheat has long been strictly a human-engineered plant; it could not exist outside of farms, because its seeds do not scatter. For some 60 years scientists have been using “mutagenic” techniques to scramble the DNA of plants with radiation and chemicals, creating strains of wheat, rice, peanuts and pears that have become agricultural mainstays. The practice has inspired little objection from scientists or the public and has caused no known health problems.

The difference is that selective breeding or mutagenic techniques tend to result in large swaths of genes being swapped or altered. GM technology, in contrast, enables scientists to insert into a plant's genome a single gene (or a few of them) from another species of plant or even from a bacterium, virus or animal. Supporters argue that this precision makes the technology much less likely to produce surprises. Most plant molecular biologists also say that in the highly unlikely case that an unexpected health threat emerged from a new GM plant, scientists would quickly identify and eliminate it. “We know where the gene goes and can measure the activity of every single gene around it,” Goldberg says. “We can show exactly which changes occur and which don't.”

And although it might seem creepy to add virus DNA to a plant, doing so is, in fact, no big deal, proponents say. Viruses have been inserting their DNA into the genomes of crops, as well as humans and all other organisms, for millions of years. They often deliver the genes of other species while they are at it, which is why our own genome is loaded with genetic sequences that originated in viruses and nonhuman species. “When GM critics say that genes don't cross the species barrier in nature, that's just simple ignorance,” says Alan McHughen, a plant molecular geneticist at U.C. Riverside. Pea aphids contain fungi genes. Triticale is a century-plus-old hybrid of wheat and rye found in some flours and breakfast cereals. Wheat itself, for that matter, is a cross-species hybrid. “Mother Nature does it all the time, and so do conventional plant breeders,” McHughen says.

Could eating plants with altered genes allow new DNA to work its way into our own? It is possible but hugely improbable. Scientists have never found genetic material that could survive a trip through the human gut and make it into cells. Besides, we are routinely exposed to—and even consume—the viruses and bacteria whose genes end up in GM foods. The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis , for example, which produces proteins fatal to insects, is sometimes enlisted as a natural pesticide in organic farming. “We've been eating this stuff for thousands of years,” Goldberg says.

In any case, proponents say, people have consumed as many as trillions of meals containing genetically modified ingredients over the past few decades. Not a single verified case of illness has ever been attributed to the genetic alterations. Mark Lynas, a prominent anti-GM activist who in 2013 publicly switched to strongly supporting the technology, has pointed out that every single news-making food disaster on record has been attributed to non-GM crops, such as the Escherichia coli –infected organic bean sprouts that killed 53 people in Europe in 2011.

Critics often disparage U.S. research on the safety of genetically modified foods, which is often funded or even conducted by GM companies, such as Monsanto. But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E.U., which cannot be so easily dismissed as an industry tool. The European Commission has funded 130 research projects, carried out by more than 500 independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of those studies found any special risks from GM crops.

Plenty of other credible groups have arrived at the same conclusion. Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a science-based consumer-watchdog group in Washington, D.C., takes pains to note that the center has no official stance, pro or con, with regard to genetically modifying food plants. Yet Jaffe insists the scientific record is clear. “Current GM crops are safe to eat and can be grown safely in the environment,” he says. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences have all unreservedly backed GM crops. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with its counterparts in several other countries, has repeatedly reviewed large bodies of research and concluded that GM crops pose no unique health threats. Dozens of review studies carried out by academic researchers have backed that view.

Opponents of genetically modified foods point to a handful of studies indicating possible safety problems. But reviewers have dismantled almost all of those reports. For example, a 1998 study by plant biochemist Árpád Pusztai, then at the Rowett Institute in Scotland, found that rats fed a GM potato suffered from stunted growth and immune system–related changes. But the potato was not intended for human consumption—it was, in fact, designed to be toxic for research purposes. The Rowett Institute later deemed the experiment so sloppy that it refuted the findings and charged Pusztai with misconduct.

Similar stories abound. Most recently, a team led by Gilles-Éric Séralini, a researcher at the University of Caen Lower Normandy in France, found that rats eating a common type of GM corn contracted cancer at an alarmingly high rate. But Séralini has long been an anti-GM campaigner, and critics charged that in his study, he relied on a strain of rat that too easily develops tumors, did not use enough rats, did not include proper control groups and failed to report many details of the experiment, including how the analysis was performed. After a review, the European Food Safety Authority dismissed the study's findings. Several other European agencies came to the same conclusion. “If GM corn were that toxic, someone would have noticed by now,” McHughen says. “Séralini has been refuted by everyone who has cared to comment.”

Some scientists say the objections to GM food stem from politics rather than science—that they are motivated by an objection to large multinational corporations having enormous influence over the food supply; invoking risks from genetic modification just provides a convenient way of whipping up the masses against industrial agriculture. “This has nothing to do with science,” Goldberg says. “It's about ideology.” Former anti-GM activist Lynas agrees. He has gone as far as labeling the anti-GM crowd “explicitly an antiscience movement.”

Persistent doubts

Not all objections to genetically modified foods are so easily dismissed, however. Long-term health effects can be subtle and nearly impossible to link to specific changes in the environment. Scientists have long believed that Alzheimer's disease and many cancers have environmental components, but few would argue we have identified all of them.

And opponents say that it is not true that the GM process is less likely to cause problems simply because fewer, more clearly identified genes are replaced. David Schubert, an Alzheimer's researcher who heads the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., asserts that a single, well-characterized gene can still settle in the target plant's genome in many different ways. “It can go in forward, backward, at different locations, in multiple copies, and they all do different things,” he says. And as U.C.L.A.'s Williams notes, a genome often continues to change in the successive generations after the insertion, leaving it with a different arrangement than the one intended and initially tested. There is also the phenomenon of “insertional mutagenesis,” Williams adds, in which the insertion of a gene ends up quieting the activity of nearby genes.

True, the number of genes affected in a GM plant most likely will be far, far smaller than in conventional breeding techniques. Yet opponents maintain that because the wholesale swapping or alteration of entire packages of genes is a natural process that has been happening in plants for half a billion years, it tends to produce few scary surprises today. Changing a single gene, on the other hand, might turn out to be a more subversive action, with unexpected ripple effects, including the production of new proteins that might be toxins or allergens.

Opponents also point out that the kinds of alterations caused by the insertion of genes from other species might be more impactful, more complex or more subtle than those caused by the intraspecies gene swapping of conventional breeding. And just because there is no evidence to date that genetic material from an altered crop can make it into the genome of people who eat it does not mean such a transfer will never happen—or that it has not already happened and we have yet to spot it. These changes might be difficult to catch; their impact on the production of proteins might not even turn up in testing. “You'd certainly find out if the result is that the plant doesn't grow very well,” Williams says. “But will you find the change if it results in the production of proteins with long-term effects on the health of the people eating it?”

It is also true that many pro-GM scientists in the field are unduly harsh—even unscientific—in their treatment of critics. GM proponents sometimes lump every scientist who raises safety questions together with activists and discredited researchers. And even Séralini, the scientist behind the study that found high cancer rates for GM-fed rats, has his defenders. Most of them are nonscientists, or retired researchers from obscure institutions, or nonbiologist scientists, but the Salk Institute's Schubert also insists the study was unfairly dismissed. He says that as someone who runs drug-safety studies, he is well versed on what constitutes a good-quality animal toxicology study and that Séralini's makes the grade. He insists that the breed of rat in the study is commonly used in respected drug studies, typically in numbers no greater than in Séralini's study; that the methodology was standard; and that the details of the data analysis are irrelevant because the results were so striking.

Schubert joins Williams as one of a handful of biologists from respected institutions who are willing to sharply challenge the GM-foods-are-safe majority. Both charge that more scientists would speak up against genetic modification if doing so did not invariably lead to being excoriated in journals and the media. These attacks, they argue, are motivated by the fear that airing doubts could lead to less funding for the field. Says Williams: “Whether it's conscious or not, it's in their interest to promote this field, and they're not objective.”

Both scientists say that after publishing comments in respected journals questioning the safety of GM foods, they became the victims of coordinated attacks on their reputations. Schubert even charges that researchers who turn up results that might raise safety questions avoid publishing their findings out of fear of repercussions. “If it doesn't come out the right way,” he says, “you're going to get trashed.”

There is evidence to support that charge. In 2009 Nature detailed the backlash to a reasonably solid study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA by researchers from Loyola University Chicago and the University of Notre Dame. The paper showed that GM corn seemed to be finding its way from farms into nearby streams and that it might pose a risk to some insects there because, according to the researchers' lab studies, caddis flies appeared to suffer on diets of pollen from GM corn. Many scientists immediately attacked the study, some of them suggesting the researchers were sloppy to the point of misconduct.

A way forward

There is a middle ground in this debate. Many moderate voices call for continuing the distribution of GM foods while maintaining or even stepping up safety testing on new GM crops. They advocate keeping a close eye on the health and environmental impact of existing ones. But they do not single out GM crops for special scrutiny, the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Jaffe notes: all crops could use more testing. “We should be doing a better job with food oversight altogether,” he says.

Even Schubert agrees. In spite of his concerns, he believes future GM crops can be introduced safely if testing is improved. “Ninety percent of the scientists I talk to assume that new GM plants are safety-tested the same way new drugs are by the FDA,” he says. “They absolutely aren't, and they absolutely should be.”

Stepped-up testing would pose a burden for GM researchers, and it could slow down the introduction of new crops. “Even under the current testing standards for GM crops, most conventionally bred crops wouldn't have made it to market,” McHughen says. “What's going to happen if we become even more strict?”

That is a fair question. But with governments and consumers increasingly coming down against GM crops altogether, additional testing may be the compromise that enables the human race to benefit from those crops' significant advantages.

David H. Freedman is a journalist who has been covering science, business and technology for more than 30 years.

The Oxford Scientist

The University of Oxford's independent science magazine

Are GMOs safe? The debate over genetically altered foods

By Isabel Schmidt

The debate over the safety of genetically altered foods has been present since their inception in the 1990s . Indeed, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have often been viewed as being ‘unnatural’ . Greenpeace went as far as to destroy a field of GM corn in Norfolk in 1999, but the defendants were later acquitted by a sympathetic jury in a landmark trial. Yet, the advent of newer gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 (where a nuclease and guide RNA are used to specifically cleave DNA and remove or insert genes) has expanded the field of genetically altered foods worldwide. Despite distinctions between the historically-used method of gene modification and these new gene editing technologies, the use of GMOs continues to be viewed as dangerous by the public.

Genetic Modification versus Gene Editing

First, some definitions. Genetic modification refers specifically to the identification of desirable traits in an organism followed by the copying and insertion of these pieces of information into a new organism. Gene editing, on the other hand, refers to the process of snipping out and removing specific DNA sequences using CRISPR-Cas9 to switch certain genes on or off, all within the same organism. The process of gene editing is often perceived as a sped-up process of what could occur via natural or artificial selection.  Conversely, the end result of genetic modification typically would not occur naturally.

Plants being genetically altered through the artificial selection of desired traits is nothing new. The plant Brassica oleracea manifests as cabbage, brussels sprouts, kale, broccoli, cauliflower, or kohlrabi depending on how the plant has been cultivated. Each form of the crop—known as ‘cultivars’—stems from farmers selectively planting seeds from plants that displayed desirable characteristics (called ‘phenotypes’), and these characteristics then becoming more prevalent over time. For example, European farmers specifically selecting crops with flower clusters has given us cauliflowers. Yet, these products are generally not recognised as GMOs as their evolution is seen as being ‘natural’.

Genetic modification of food crops should either improve the nutritional value and quality of the resource or ease its production, as highlighted in international agreements like the Cartagena Protocol. Genetic modification enabled the creation of insect resistant corn in the 1990s , fulfilling the requirement of improving food quality by bypassing the need to use pesticide on the crop yields. Scientists isolated a specific DNA sequence in the soil bacterium Bacillus thiurengensis that was known to produce an insecticidal protein. This sequence was then copied and transformed into the corn plant, now dubbed “Bt corn”. The location and expression of this insecticidal protein can then be moderated with different promoters (DNA sequences that proteins bind to and initiate transcription), such as CaMV 35S or PEP carboxylase. These GMO plants are then resistant to damage from insects such as the European corn borer.

This process is much more controversial. Critics have raised concerns about the potentially detrimental effects of Bt corn on non-target insects as well as the risk of Bt toxin leaking into the soil. But these concerns are not unique to genetically modified crops, with traditional pesticides sharing these risks. A more unique concern, however, is the transfer of herbicide-resistant gene markers from GMOs to invasive species through horizontal gene transfer. This could wreak havoc on surrounding environments (although, to date, this has been very rare). To safeguard against this risk, strategies using alternative markers have been developed, and strict regulations have accompanied the rise in GMOs. For example, GMOs undergo strict testing regimes before release onto the market, and many are only used as feed for livestock.

And yet, the potential benefits of altering species to produce more food with greater nutritional value ( such as golden rice containing vitamin A or carrots with a higher calcium content that prevent osteoporosis ) are undeniable, especially as the worldwide population continues to rise. Production of GM crops has increased 100-fold in the last 25 years , with genetically altered crops such as corn, soybean, cotton, potato, canola approved for commercialisation in the US alone .

The international response to GMOs

International treaties have been established to tackle the lingering distrust and confusion around genetically modified foods. A key aim of these treaties has been to dissociate new GMO and gene editing techniques from traditional plant breeding and selection strategies. For example, the 2000 Cartagena protocol —currently including 173 signatories—outlined the differences between genetically edited versus genetically modified foods.

The purpose of GMO regulations are broadly similar worldwide: to ensure they are safe for human consumption, animal consumption, and the environment. Yet, the approaches taken varies from country to country. Indeed, process-oriented approach es tend to focus on the regulation of the specific genetic modification techniques, while product-oriented approaches emphasise the safety of the resultant product, without regard for the process. This can lead to discrepancies in approaches internationally, which can hinder trade and stifle innovation in the field.

In fact, rules and acceptance of farming GMOs varies internationally. For example, India is pro the cultivation of GM crops, with an adoption rate of 95% for Bt cotton. But, countries such as Ecuador, Venezuela, and Peru have extremely strict rules preventing GMO cultivation—the prohibition of transgenic seeds and crops is even mentioned in Ecuador’s constitution!

International legislation is continually changing. In the United Kingdom, a bill was introduced to Parliament in May to relax EU–era restrictions which forbade the use of gene editing technology in food production. If this passes, gene edited tomatoes that are rich in Vitamin D could soon be on UK shelves . However, this bill specifically excludes genetically modified plants. In the United States, where typically more GM crops are cultivated, a 2016 federal law mandated that foods made with GMOs should be explicitly labelled as such.

Ultimately, genetically modified crops should be approached with caution while also recognising their potential benefits. Farmers were indirectly altering the genetics of plants decades before gene modification techniques were introduced, and the processes of gene modification and gene editing are simply further examples of scientific progress.

From this section

Disorders of consciousness are a clinical minefield. Here’s how we could be doing better

To believe or not believe: Does free will exist?

BioArt: Producing art through biochemistry

CBD: Miracle or myth? 

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides Over Food Science
• 3. Public opinion about genetically modified foods and trust in scientists connected with these foods

Table of Contents

• 1. Public views about Americans’ eating habits
• 2. Americans’ views about and consumption of organic foods
• About this report
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

Genetically modified (GM) foods contain at least one ingredient coming from a plant with an altered genetic composition. 16 Genetic modification, also known as genetic engineering, often introduces new, desirable characteristics to plants, such as greater resistance to pests. Many U.S. crops are grown using genetically engineered seeds, including a large share of the soybean, corn, cotton and canola crop. As a result, the majority of processed foods in the U.S. contain at least one genetically modified ingredient.

Despite the growing use of genetically modified crops over the past 20 years, most Americans say they know only a little about GM foods. And many people appear to hold “soft” views about the health effects of GM foods, saying they are not sure about whether such foods are better or worse for one’s health. When asked which of three positions best fits their viewpoints, about half of Americans (48%) say the health effects of GM foods are no different than other foods, 39% say GM foods are worse for one’s health and one-in-ten (10%) say such foods are better for one’s health.

About one-in-six (16%) Americans care a great deal about the issue of GM foods. These more deeply concerned Americans predominantly believe GM foods pose health risks. A majority of this group also believe GM foods are very likely to bring problems for the environment along with health problems for the population as a whole.

While a 2016 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine suggests there is scientific consensus that GM foods are safe, a majority of Americans perceive disagreement in the scientific community over whether or not GM foods are safe to eat. And, only a minority of Americans perceive scientists as having a strong understanding of the health risks and benefits of GM foods.

Perhaps some of this skepticism comes from people’s concerns about the motives of research scientists. Some three-in-ten Americans say that research findings about GM foods are often influenced by the researchers’ desires to help their industries. And people deeply concerned about this issue are particularly skeptical about the influence of industries behind research findings. A minority of three-in-ten Americans say that research findings from scientists about GM foods are often influenced by the best available evidence. People who know more about science topics, generally, are more likely to trust information from scientists and see scientific research findings about GM foods in a more favorable light.

Public awareness of genetically modified foods runs the gamut

Foods with genetically modified ingredients have been available to Americans since about the mid-1990s when U.S. farmers began using genetically engineered crop varieties designed to better tolerate herbicides and resist pests. 17  Today, many processed foods in the United States contain ingredients that are genetically modified. More than 90% of the soybeans, corn, cotton and canola grown in the United States come from genetically engineered seeds. Genetically engineered ingredients are widely used in processed foods from breakfast cereals to cooking oils to corn chips.

Most Americans have heard something about GM foods; 29% have heard “a lot,” roughly half (52%) have heard “a little.” About one-in-five (19%) Americans have heard “nothing at all” about GM foods.

People’s perceptions of how much GM food they eat is often seen as a benchmark for the public’s familiarity with GM foods. The argument goes that people who see themselves as not eating GM foods must be largely unaware that much of today’s food supply contains at least some GM ingredients, particularly foods using genetically modified corn or corn oil.

Overall, just 11% of Americans estimate that most of the food they eat has GM ingredients, another four-in-ten (40%) say some of the food they eat has GM ingredients. About half of the public (48%) says they do not eat GM foods or do so not too much.

Familiarity with GM foods is linked with people’s perceptions of their own consumptions. Some 23% of those who say they have heard or read a lot about GM foods say that most of what they eat contains genetically modified ingredients. Another 42% of this group says they eat some GM foods. Just 1% of those who say they have heard nothing about GM foods estimate that most of the food they eat contains genetically modified ingredients.

About half of Americans see no difference between GM and other foods, while a sizable minority say GM foods are a health risk

A number of observers have suggested that Americans’ limited familiarity with genetically modified foods suggests that people’s opinions about GM are “soft” and, therefore, more likely to change over time and, potentially, to be sensitive to differences in survey question wording.

The Pew Research Center survey explored this possibility by first asking about the safety of eating of GM foods with an explicit option for those not sure of their opinions to register that uncertainty. Roughly a quarter of adults (26%) said they were not sure of their views on this topic. A follow up question among the unsure asked for their “leaning” about whether GM foods were generally better for one’s health, worse, or neither. Some 58% of this group opted for a neutral position that GM foods were neither better nor worse for one’s health than foods without GM ingredients.

Overall, some 39% of Americans say that GM foods are worse for one’s health after combining the responses to the first question with “leaning” views on the second question. About half (48%) of Americans say GM foods are neither better nor worse for one’s health than other foods, and a minority of 10% say that GM foods are better for one’s health.

The Pew Research Center survey asked respondents who say foods with GM ingredients are worse for one’s health to evaluate the magnitude of the risk of eating GM foods. More Americans consider the risk either medium (15% of all U.S. adults) or high (20% of all U.S. adults) than consider the health threat of GM foods to be low (just 4% of all U.S. adults).

People who have heard or read more about GM foods are much more likely to consider these foods worse for one’s health. Those who are less familiar with GM foods are comparatively more inclined to say the effect of GM foods is neither better nor worse than non-GM foods. For example, about half (50%) of those who have heard or read a lot about GM foods say such foods are worse for one’s health. By contrast, just two-in-ten (20%) of those who have heard nothing about GM foods consider these foods worse for one’s health. Six-in-ten of those who have heard nothing about GM foods prior to taking the survey say such foods are neither better nor worse for one’s health.

People who have heard or read a lot about GM foods are also much more likely to say the health risks from genetically modified foods are high (31% vs. 9%).

Younger adults and those more concerned about the issue say GM foods are a health risk

People’s views about the health effects of GM foods tend to vary with their own levels of concern about the issue as well as with age.

Three-quarters of people who care a great deal about the issue of GM foods say such foods are worse for one’s health than foods without GM ingredients. By contrast, only 17% of those who do not care at all or not too much about this issue say that GM foods are health risks. Those who care “some” about this issue fall in between with 51% of this group saying that GM foods are worse for one’s health.

Younger adults are more likely than their elders to consider GM foods health risks. About half (48%) of those ages 18 to 29 say GM foods are worse for one’s health than non-GM foods. In comparison, roughly three-in-ten (29%) of those ages 65 and older say the same.

There are modest differences in views by gender. Women are more likely to say foods with GM ingredients are worse for one’s health (42% vs. 36%), while men are more inclined to say foods with GM ingredients are neither better nor worse for health (53% vs. 44%). A 2014 Pew Research Center survey also found women were more likely than men to say it is generally unsafe to eat GM foods.

Frequent consumers of organic foods are also relatively more inclined to see GM foods as worse for one’s health. But people who are focused on eating healthy and nutritious are about equally likely as those with little or no focus on this to say that GM foods are worse for one’s health than other foods.

Other factors – including people’s education and general level of science knowledge –are only modestly linked with beliefs about the health effects of GM foods. While a related Pew Research Center report found issues related to climate and energy issues are strongly divided along political lines, Democrats and Republicans hold similar views on the effects of eating GM foods.

Who is particularly concerned about the issue of genetically modified foods?

One-in-six (16%) U.S. adults say they care a great deal about the issue of GM foods. Some 37% care some about this issue. About three-in-ten Americans do not care too much (31%) and 15% do not care at all about the GM foods issue.

Those who care a great deal about the GM foods issue are also more likely to follow news on this topic. Some 68% of those who are engaged with this issue follow news on the topic very or somewhat closely. In contrast, only about one-quarter of other Americans follow news on GM foods somewhat or very closely.

Those who care a great deal about this issue are more likely to report greater awareness about the topic. Some 68% of those who care deeply about this issue say they have heard or read a lot about GM foods. In contrast, 28% of those who care some and just 15% of those do not care at all or not too much about this issue say they have heard or read a lot about GM foods.

Americans’ eating choices tend to be linked with their degree of concern about the issue of GM foods.

About three-in-ten (31%) frequent consumers of organic foods care a great deal about the GM foods issue, compared with just 6% among those who eat little organic foods.

Vegans/vegetarians are more likely to care about the issue of GM foods; 39% of people who are at least mostly vegan or vegetarian care a great deal about this issue.

People with food allergies are slightly more inclined to care about the issue of GM foods (22% care a great deal compared with 14% among those with no allergies or intolerances to food).

Women are more likely to care a great deal about the GM foods issue than men (20% vs. 12%).

There are only modest differences in concern about this issue by other demographic and educational groups. Older adults, ages 65 and older, are a bit less likely than their younger counterparts to care deeply about the issue of GM foods. Those with high school degrees or less are a bit less likely than other educational groups to care about the issue of GM foods. And those with family incomes under $30,000 annually have a bit less concern about this issue than those with higher incomes.

There are no differences by political party in people’s degree of concern about the issue of GM foods.

Public expectations about the effects of GM foods are mixed; some worry that GMOs will affect environment as well as public health

Americans have mixed expectations about the likely effects from genetically modified foods, with many expressing both optimism and pessimism about consequences of GM foods.

Most of the public expects GM foods to increase the global food supply. One-quarter say this is very likely and an additional 44% say this is fairly likely. A somewhat smaller majority says GM foods are very (20%) or fairly likely (36%) to result in more affordably priced foods.

At the same time, about half of Americans say environment and health problems will result from GM foods. Some 18% say it is very likely and 31% say it is fairly likely that GM foods will create problems for the environment. And similar shares say it is very (16%) or fairly likely (33%) that GM foods will lead to health problems for the population as a whole.

People who are most concerned about the GM foods issue are far more likely to foresee environmental and health problems because of these foods

People who are more personally concerned about the issue of GM foods are especially worried that such foods will lead to health and environmental problems for society. Some 58% of those with deep personal concern about the GM foods issue say it is very likely that these foods will lead to problems for the environment; a similar share (53%) expects GM foods to result in health problems for the population as a whole. In contrast, majorities of those who are less engaged with this issue say environmental and health problems stemming from GM foods are not too or not at all likely.

These expectations of risks for society from GM foods are in keeping with the wide differences among these groups in their views of the health risks associated with eating GM foods.

More men expect positive effects from GM foods; more women expect negative effects

Men and women have somewhat different expectations for GM foods. Men are more optimistic, while women are more pessimistic about the likely impact of GM foods on society.

Men are more inclined than women to expect GM foods to increase the global food supply (29% of men vs. 21% of women who say this is very likely). Similarly men are more likely than women to say that GM foods will lead to lower food costs (25% vs. 16% who say this is very likely). But, women are more likely than men to think GM foods will create problems for the environment (21% of women vs. 14% of men who say this is very likely) and to bring health problems for the population as a whole (20% of women vs. 11% of men who say this is very likely).

These modest differences in expectations by gender are in keeping with other studies. For example, a 2016 Pew Research Center study found women are more wary than men of emerging biomedical technologies to enhance human abilities, and a 2014 survey found women less likely to expect future technological changes, in general, to make people’s lives better.

There are modest generational differences in expected effects from GM foods. Adults ages 65 and older are less pessimistic than their younger counterparts about the likely effects of GM foods for society; more adults ages 65 and older say harm to the environment or to public health from GM foods is not at all or not too likely to occur. But younger adults, especially those ages 18 to 29, are more likely to think that GMOs will result in more affordably priced foods.

Those with high science knowledge are more optimistic in their expectations that GM foods will bring benefits to society. Roughly four-in-ten (41%) of those with high science knowledge say it is very likely that GM foods will increase the global food supply. And 35% of those with high science knowledge say it is very likely GM foods will lead to more affordably priced foods. In comparison, just 11% of those low in science knowledge say GM foods are very likely to increase the global food supply and 13% say GM foods are very likely to bring more affordably priced food.

Education, which is closely linked with levels of science knowledge, shows a similar pattern. Postgraduate degree-holders are more inclined to say GM foods are very likely to increase the global food supply and to lead to more affordably priced food than those with less education.

Americans hold mixed views of scientists and the research connected with GM foods

Public views of scientists and their understanding about the health risks and benefits of GM foods are mixed and, often, skeptical. Most Americans perceive considerable disagreement among scientific experts about whether or not GM foods are safe to eat. While most people trust scientists more than they trust each of several other groups to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods, only a minority of the public says they have a lot of trust in scientists to do this. At the same time, most Americans say that scientists should have a major role in policy decisions about GM foods, but so, too, should small farm owners and the general public. Fewer Americans say that food industry leaders should play a major role at the policy-making table.

But views of scientists connected with GM foods are often similar among those who with deep personal concern about the issue of GM foods and those with less concern. Differences are more pronounced between these groups when it comes to views of industry influence on scientific research findings and trust in food industry leaders to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods. In other respects, people with deeper concern about this issue vary only modestly from other Americans in their views of scientists and the scientific research on GM foods.

People who tend to know more about science topics, in general, tend to have more positive views of scientists’ understanding and see the influences on their research findings about the health effects of GM foods in a positive light.

Relatively few Americans perceive broad scientific consensus on safety of GM foods

A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded there was no persuasive evidence that genetically engineered crops have caused health or environmental problems. 18  Other reviews of the scientific literature have found almost all researchers working on this topic think GM foods are as safe as non-GM foods. 19  Similarly, a 2014 Pew Research Center survey found 88% of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and 92% of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists said it is safe to eat genetically modified foods.

But in the public’s view, scientists appear divided over the safety of GM foods. Only a small minority (14%) of Americans say almost all scientists agree that GM foods are safe. Another 28% say more than half of scientists say that GM foods are safe. But 53% of U.S. adults say that half or fewer scientists agree that GM foods are safe to eat.

People’s own views about the safety of foods with GM ingredients are closely related to their perceptions of scientific consensus. For example, those who view GM foods as worse for health are especially inclined to say that there is little agreement among scientists about the safety of GM foods. Past Pew Research Center studies have found a similar pattern when it comes to perceptions of scientific consensus and beliefs about climate change as well as beliefs about evolution .

Across all levels of concern about this issue, few see broad consensus among scientists that GM foods are safe to eat. Those who care a great deal about this issue are a bit more likely to see majority consensus among scientists (50% compared with 37% of those who care some and 43% of those who care not too much or not at all about the GM foods issue).

Similarly, people who have heard or read a lot about GM foods are far more likely than those who have heard or read nothing about this issue to see consensus among scientists that GM foods are safe.

A minority of Americans say scientists understand the health effects of GM foods very well

Most of the public has at least some reservations about scientists’ understanding of the health effects of GM foods. Only 19% of Americans say scientists understand the health risks and benefits of eating GM foods very well, while an additional 44% say scientists understand this fairly well. About one-third of Americans say scientists understand the risks and benefits of eating GM foods not too well or not at all well. For comparison, in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey two-thirds (67%) of U.S. adults said that scientists generally do not have a clear understanding of the health effects of GM crops.

Those who perceive broad scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods are more likely to think scientists understand this topic. Some 45% of those who think almost all scientists agree that GM foods are safe to eat also say scientists understand this topic very well.

Paradoxically, people who are care a great deal about the issue of GM foods tend to say that scientists understand the health risks and benefits of eating GM foods very well (32%). By comparison, fewer people who do not care at all or not too much about this issue give scientists high marks for their understanding of the health effects of GM foods. Although, roughly similar shares of each group say that scientists understand the effects of GM foods at least fairly well. A similar pattern occurs among those focused on eating healthy and nutritious; more among this group (29%) say that scientists understand the effects of GM foods very well, compared with 16% of those who are less focused on healthy eating.

As noted above, those who care a great deal about the issue of GM foods are also a bit more likely than others to see scientists as agreeing that GM foods are generally safe to eat.

Americans are most trusting of scientists, small farm owners for information about the effects of GM foods

Americans are, comparatively speaking, more trusting of information from scientists and small farm owners on the safety of GM foods than they are of information from food industry leaders, the news media or elected officials.

In absolute terms, however, Americans are somewhat skeptical of information from scientists. A minority of 35% say they trust scientists a lot to give full and accurate information about the health effects of eating GM foods. About one-in-five say they do not trust information from scientists at all or not too much. Another 43% of U.S. adults report some trust in scientists’ information.

A similar share of Americans trust small farm owners a lot (29%) or some (49%) to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods. Public trust in information on the effects of GM foods from the news media, food industry leaders and elected officials is much lower. No more than one-in-ten Americans trust each of these groups a lot; majorities say they have no trust or not too much trust in the news media, food industry leaders and elected officials to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods.

Those who have heard or read a lot about GM foods are more likely to trust scientists (44% of this group say they trust scientists a lot, compared with 20% among those who say they have heard or read nothing about GM foods.) People who care more deeply about this issue express a similar level of trust in scientists as those with less concern about the issue of GM foods.

However, people deeply concerned about the issue of GM foods are especially skeptical of information from food industry leaders. Just 21% of those deeply concerned about this issue trust food industry leaders at least some to provide full and accurate information about the effects of GM foods, compared with 48% among those who do not care about the issue of GM foods at all or not too much. Fully half of those who care deeply about the issue of GM foods (50%) say that scientific findings about GM foods are influenced by the researchers’ desires to help their industries “most of the time.” In contrast, 22% of those with little concern about the issue of GM foods say the same.

Three-in-ten Americans say research on GM foods is often influenced by the best available evidence; a similar share says other motivations influence researchers

The public offers a mixed assessment of what influences research from scientists on GM foods. Many Americans are skeptical that the best available evidence commonly influences research findings on GM foods. Three-in-ten Americans say research findings are influenced by the best available evidence most of the time, about half (51%) say this occurs some of the time and 17% say the best available evidence rarely or never influences research findings about GM foods.

At the same time, three-in-ten Americans (30%) say desires of scientists to help their industries influence the research findings on GM foods most of the time. Half (50%) say this occurs some of the time.

Perceptions that researchers’ career interests influence the research findings are similar; 30% say such motivations influence the research most of the time and 48% say this occurs some of the time.

People more engaged in the issue of GM foods are particularly skeptical about the possibility of industry influence on scientific research findings. Half (50%) of those who care a great deal about the GM foods issue say researchers’ desires to help their industries influence research on GM foods most of the time. Those less engaged in the issue of GM foods are much less inclined to say that industry interests often influence science research.

People with a deeper personal concern about the issue of GM foods are similarly more inclined than other Americans to say that scientists’ desires for career advancements or their own political leanings often influence their research findings about GM foods.

But level of concern about the issue of GM foods is unrelated to views that the best available evidence influences scientists’ research findings. A minority of 29% of those who care a great deal about this issue says the best evidence influences research findings about GM foods most of the time, as do similar shares of those with less concern about the GM foods issue.

People with higher science knowledge tend to hold more positive views of scientists and their research findings on GM foods

Although there only modest differences in perceptions of risk from eating GM foods among people with high, medium or low levels of science knowledge, those with higher science knowledge tend to assess scientists and their research on GM foods more favorably than those with less knowledge.

Those high in science knowledge, based on a nine-item index, are more likely to see scientists as being in agreement that GM foods are safe; 64% of those with high science knowledge say that almost all/more than half of scientists agree about this, compared with 28% of those with low science knowledge.

Americans with high science knowledge are especially trusting of information from scientists on the effects of eating GM foods. Roughly half of those with high science knowledge (51%) trust information from scientists a lot, while only about one-in five (18%) of those with low science knowledge say the same.

People with high science knowledge are also more inclined to think that research on GM foods reflects the best available evidence most of the time (50% of those with high science knowledge say this, compared with 14% of those with low science knowledge).

Like other Americans, those with high science knowledge have low trust in information from food industry leaders to give full and accurate information about the effects of GM foods. And, those with high (32%) and medium (37%) science knowledge say that researchers’ desires to help industries they work with or work for influence research findings most of the time. This compares with 16% among adults with low science knowledge.

Most Americans say scientists should have a role in policymaking on GM foods

Despite some skepticism among the public about scientists working on GM foods, most of the public wants scientists to have a seat at the policymaking table. Six-in-ten U.S. adults (60%) say scientists should have a major role in GM policy decisions and 28% say scientists should have a minor role. Just 11% think scientists should have no role in policy decisions.

Majorities also support major roles for small farmers and the general public in policy decisions related to GM foods. Six-in-ten (60%) Americans say small farmers should have a major role in policy decisions about GM foods and a similar share, 57%, says the general public should have a major role. Fewer Americans say that food industry leaders should have a major role in policy decisions related to GM foods (42%). Americans are least inclined to say elected officials should have a major role in GM food policy (24%); 45% say elected officials should have a minor role and 30% say they should have no role in policy decisions about GM foods.

People who are deeply concerned about the issue of GM foods give higher priority to the general public in policy decisions. Fully 78% among this group say the general public should have a major role in policy decisions. A smaller majority says scientists should have a major role in GM food policy (66%). By comparison, people who are not at all concerned or not too concerned about the issue of GM foods give higher priority to scientists in influencing policy decisions.

Assessments of media coverage on GM foods vary with degree of concern about the issue

Few Americans follow news about GM foods closely; just 6% of Americans say they follow news about GM foods very closely. Some 65% do not follow news about GM foods at all or not too closely, and another 28% say they follow such news somewhat closely.

Overall, more Americans give negative than positive assessments of how the media cover GM foods. Some 56% of Americans say the news media are doing a very or somewhat bad job, while 41% say the news media are doing a very or somewhat good job.

People who follow news about GM foods very or somewhat closely are more divided in their assessments of news coverage on GM foods (52% say the news media do a good job and 47% say the news media do a bad job).

Ratings of media coverage of GM foods is roughly similar among those with higher and lower concern about the issue of GM foods.

Americans with more science knowledge are especially critical of media coverage on GM foods. Some 73% of those with high science knowledge say the news media do a bad job, while only about one-quarter (26%) say the news media do a good job covering GM food issues. By comparison, those with low science knowledge are closely split in their views of media coverage on these issues; 49% say the media do a good job, 45% say they do a bad job covering these issues.

The Pew Research Center survey also included two additional questions exploring people’s views about the balance of news coverage on GM foods.

Overall, four-in-ten Americans (40%) say the news media do not take the health risks of GM foods seriously enough. A slightly smaller share (30%) thinks the news media exaggerate the health risks of GM foods. Roughly one-quarter (26%) say the news media are about right in their reporting.

Further, 43% of U.S. adults say the news media give skeptics of the safety of GMOs too little attention. A smaller share (22%) says the news media give too much attention to skeptics. About one-third (32%) say the news media give skeptics of the safety of GMOs about the right amount of attention.

People’s level of concern with the issue of GM foods is closely related to their views about media coverage. Fully 73% of those who care a great deal about the issue of GM foods say the news media do not take the health threat from GMOs seriously enough. Those with little personal concern about this issue are roughly equally divided between whether the news media exaggerate the health threat, do not take the health threat seriously enough or are about right in their reporting.

Views about media attention given to skeptics of the safety of GMOs follow a similar pattern. Some 73% of those who care a great deal about the issue of GM foods say the news media give too little attention to the skeptics of the safety of GMOs. In contrast, among those with no or not too much personal concern about the GM food issue, 27% say the news media give skeptics of the safety of GMOs too little attention.

• Animals can also be genetically modified but most discussion about the role of GM foods in the U.S. has centered on crops. For background see the summary on food safety by the Word Health Organization or “ Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects ” from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2016. ↩
• Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, Wechsler, Seth, Livingston, Mike and Mitchell, Lorraine. Feb. 2014. Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States , Economic Research Report 162, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. ↩
• The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects , page 157. Also see the review of research from the European Commission, A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) . ↩
• In a 2013 review of the scientific literature on the safety of GM crops , Alessandro Nicolia, Alberto Manzo, Fabio Veronesi and Daniele Rossellini found no “significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops” even though the public discourse continues. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Most Popular

Report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 17

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• GM Crops Food
• v.13(1); 2022

The state of the ‘GMO’ debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?

Sarah evanega.

a The Alliance for Science, the Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, New York, USA

Joan Conrow

Jordan adams.

b Cision Global Insights, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Although nearly three decades have passed since genetically modified crops (so-called ‘GMOs’) were widely commercialized, vociferous debate remains about the use of biotechnology in agriculture, despite a worldwide scientific consensus on their safety and utility. This study analyzes the volume and tenor of the GMO conversation as it played out on social and traditional media between 2018 and 2020, looking at 103,084 online and print articles published in English-language media around the world as well as 1,716,071 social media posts. To our knowledge, our analysis is the first comprehensive survey of the shifting traditional and online media discourse on this issue during this time period. While the volume of traditional media coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media posts of over 80%. Traditional media tended to be somewhat more positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, but that gap disappeared in 2020. Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing favorability, with the positive trend especially robust in social media. The large decline in volume of social media posts, combined with a strong trend toward greater favorability, may indicate a drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population even while the volume of coverage in traditional media increased. Overall, our results suggest that both social and traditional media may be moving toward a more favorable and less polarized conversation on ag-biotech overall.

Introduction

Major international and national expert institutions and academies accept the scientific consensus that food produced from genetically modified (GM) crops is as safe as any other, and that no specific safety risks or health concerns can be attributed to consumption of so-called GMOs. 1 , 2 However, public opinion across the world has been markedly skeptical of GMOs since they were first introduced into the food supply in 1994. Some of the most frequently cited concerns are fears about food safety, corporate control of seeds and the food supply, potential pesticide use associated with the crops, and the welfare of smallholder farmers.

In China, for example, a survey carried out in 2016 found that 47% of people held a negative view of GMOs, with nearly 14% believing that “GM technology was a form of bioterrorism targeted at China.” 3 In Kenya, where the government initiated a ban on GM imports in 2013 but has recently permitted farmers to begin growing GM cotton, about a third of those polled held a negative opinion of GMOs as long ago as 2003. 4 In some European countries, opposition to GMOs can be particularly high: in Poland, a 2016 survey found that over 60% of respondents opposed the production and distribution of GM foods in the country. 5

This public suspicion is not shared by most scientists. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in the United States in 2015 detected a wider gap between scientists and the public on attitudes toward GMOs than any other area of science-related controversy, including vaccines, nuclear power, and pesticides. Specifically, only 37% of the general public thought that GM foods were safe to eat, compared to 88% of AAAS scientists. 6 Pew also found in 2016 that the US public was almost entirely unaware of the high level of consensus on GMO safety that exists in the scientific community, with only 14% of people concurring that “almost all of scientists agree that GM foods are safe to eat.” 7

Newer studies indicate more favorable public sentiment toward GM products. These include a study by the European Food Safety Authority that saw the percentage of Europeans choosing GMOs as a food safety concern drop from 66% in 2010 to just 27% in 2019 8 and an October 2019 Pew poll that found a majority of Americans surveyed believe it is likely that GM crops will increase the global food supply and result in more affordable food prices. 9

This study seeks to evaluate the volume, reach, and sentiment of the social and traditional media conversation around GMOs over a three-year period between January 2018 and December 2020. It aims to shed light on such questions as how media coverage may influence public perceptions, whether media share scientific perceptions around GMOs, how traditional and social media cover the issue, the influence of certain companies in affecting the tone of the conversation, the role of bots and cyborgs in the conversation, how the volume of coverage has shifted, and attitudes toward emerging tools in agricultural biotechnology.

Source data was gathered by Cision Media Insights, which combined 200 pre-defined top tier English-language media and 75,000 online media with social media to analyze trends in the GMO debate globally. Based on media availability, content is sourced via an in-house clipping service, automated feeds based on keywords (third-party API), manual searches for online content behind paywalls and database-sourced print media. Social media coverage includes English-language Twitter feeds and public Facebook pages. Content was captured using relevant keywords (See Supplementary Information for a list of top-tier media and keywords).

This content was subjected to automated computer analysis in real time, using Cision’s natural language processing and custom dictionaries, including a black/white list to help eliminate irrelevant content. Human analysis was included for relevance and sentiment validation of 10,800 top-tier English language articles and 54,000 social media posts, with analysis of the remainder being automated. In total 103,084 traditional media articles covering GMOs were analyzed, alongside 1,716,071 pieces of social media content.

For sentiment analysis, content was assigned a ‘positive’ tag if the statement generally would likely leave the reader feeling more positive about the corporations, individuals, or issues mentioned or if the journalist took a positive stance. A ‘negative’ tag was assigned if a statement would leave the reader likely feeling more critical or if the journalist took a negative stance. Factual explanations of the benefits of biotechnology would count as ‘positive,’ for example, while critiques would count as ‘negative.’ A neutral statement would express no position and the reader would likely not be swayed in any direction. The overall favorability value combines ‘positive’ and ‘neutral’ sentiment into a single value. We also use the ‘mixed’ or ‘ambivalent’ sentiment designation for lines of text that contain a positive and negative element. For an example, a statement such as “while studies have shown that GMO foods are safe to eat, or even safer than organic foods, their relationship to pesticides is a dangerous concern.” Full details of the Cision sentiment analysis method are given in Supplementary Information.

We use the term ‘gross reach’ to indicate the total potential audience of a media item, meaning the number of people who might have had the opportunity to see an original article or social media post, including reposts, replies, and retweets/shares of a social post. For print this includes the number of printed copies of a publication multiplied by the average number of readers per copy. For online this includes monthly page impressions of the URL of the given outlet (including sub-page impressions separately where possible) divided by the average number of published articles for that outlet. These readership and page impression counts for print and online are provided by third parties such as Nielsen. For social media, reach is based on the number of followers of the social media account.

As Fig. 1 shows, the volume of coverage of the GMO issue more than tripled in the time period we studied, from January 2018 (1320 articles) to December 2020 (4502 articles).

Volume of agricultural biotechnology GMO conversation in traditional media 2018–2020, showing the number of stories published.

The volume of social media interactions in the GMO conversation moved in the opposite direction however, showing a large decline between 2018 and 2020, falling from nearly 1.2 million to just under 200,000 in that time period, a decline of 82% ( Fig. 2 ).

Volume of agricultural biotechnology social media interactions media 2018–2020.

The overall tone of the traditional and social media GMO conversation during the 2018 to 2020 period is generally favorable ( Fig. 3 ). Favorability is defined as ‘positive’ and ‘neutral’ coverage as a percentage of the overall coverage, including ‘negative’ and ‘ambivalent’ coverage (see Methods). It is notable that the data are relatively noisy with high variance between the months in our sequence, ranging from a low of 47% in April 2019 to a high of 90% in April 2020. Overall favorability has increased somewhat over the three-year period, although the noisy data and relatively low R-squared value indicate low confidence in the robustness of this trend.

Sentiment analysis showing the favorability of the GMO conversation across all media (social and traditional combined) over a three-year period from Jan 2018 to Dec 2020.

The sentiment breakdown of the conversation on traditional and social media (combined) for the period of the study is depicted in Fig. 4 . The data for Fig. 4 are the same as Fig. 3 , with sentiment broken out into ‘negative,’ ‘positive,’ ‘ambivalent’ and ‘neutral’ categories rather than combined into a single overall favorability number for each month.

A monthly breakdown of sentiment across all media for the period Jan 2018 to Dec 2020.

While Figs. 3 and 4 look at the favorability of all media with traditional and social combined, Figs. 5 and 6 deal with the sentiment of traditional and social media separately. The sentiment of the traditional media conversation around GMOs was slightly more positive than that of social media during the study period, averaging 75% favorable if neutral and overtly positive reporting are combined ( Fig. 5 ) as compared with 67% favorability in social media ( Fig. 6 ). Average monthly values as high as 96% favorable are found in traditional media, while throughout the whole period favorability never dropped below 50% ( Fig. 5 ). However, as with the overall GMO conversation depicted in Figs. 3 and 5 shows noisy data with little confidence in the overall trend, with an R-squared value of 0.0479.

Traditional media sentiment analysis for the GMO conversation.

Social media sentiment analysis for the GMO conversation.

While sentiment toward GMOs in social media was substantially more variable than in traditional media, monthly values averaged in the 36-month time frame of the study show a strong long-term trend toward more positive social media coverage. While there were months in 2018 and 2019 when the favorability rating dropped to lows of 26% and 33%, it never dropped below 57% in 2020 ( Fig. 5 ). Figure 5 appears to show a more robust linear trend toward greater favorability in social media than traditional media, with an R-squared value of 0.2125 accounting for 21% of the variance by time.

Figure 7 shows annual averages of sentiment, broken into ‘positive,’ ‘negative,’ ‘neutral’ and ‘mixed’ categories for each year. As indicated above, one feature for 2018 and 2019 seems to be a substantially more negative sentiment seen in social media, although the two were almost equal in 2020.

Average sentiment per year across traditional media and social media for 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Figure 8 shows the key metrics for the GMO conversation. In terms of volume of content, there was an increase from 2018 to 2020, with 20,300 traditional media stories covering GMOs in 2018 ( Fig. 8a ) rising to 34,000 in 2019 ( Fig. 8b ) and 48,600 stories in 2020 ( Fig. 8c ). When assessed in terms of gross reach, the increase was from 1.8 billion to 3.7 billion over the same time period. There was a sharp downward trend in the visibility of the GMO issue on social media, however, from 1.2 million social posts in 2018 to 197,000 in 2020. This may suggest that despite an increase in ongoing traditional media coverage there is less salience in the GMO debate in the wider population as indicated in the sharp decline in the volume of social media posts, particularly when combined with the strong trend toward increased social media favorability seen in Fig. 6 .

Key metrics for the GMO conversation in 2018 (a), 2019 (b) and 2020 (c), showing volume, gross reach and sentiment breakdown.

The Monsanto/Bayer Effect

Monsanto (now part of Bayer) and its association with pesticides, notably glyphosate, appears to strongly drive negative perceptions toward GMOs. Coverage of Monsanto/Bayer in both traditional and social media was consistently and considerably more negative than coverage of GMOs overall. In some months almost the entirety of the social media conversation took a negative tone, such as April 2019 and November 2020, with only 1% favorability. ( Fig. 9 ).

The favorability of the coverage of Monsanto/Bayer over the three-year period in traditional (blue) and social (green) media.

As with the general GMO issue, traditional media coverage of Monsanto/Bayer was substantially more favorable than social, reaching highs of 100% on occasion. About a quarter of the overall GMO debate involved mentions of glyphosate as an issue, whereas a third to nearly half of traditional media coverage of GMOs involved Monsanto/Bayer. References to glyphosate in social media declined by 3% over that period, while the figure is 4% for traditional media (Figure not shown).

Influence of Twitter Bots and Cyborgs

Bot accounts represented 10% of Twitter users engaged in GMO discussions between 2018 and 2020 and contributed 10% of overall tweet volume. Bot accounts had much lower salience than human-operated accounts, contributing only 1% of gross reach. However, three out of the top ten Twitter accounts for volume of GMO content in 2019 were at least partially automated (listed as “undetermined” in Botometer scores) and so may appear to have influence due to the sheer volume of coverage (not shown). These cyborg accounts (human accounts that use automated posting for a large proportion of their content) were about 20% of overall accounts and were substantially more influential than bots. Combined, this suggests that about a third of users engaged in the GMO debate were cyborgs and bots. In addition, bots and cyborgs were substantially more negative in sentiment toward GMOs than human accounts. ( Fig. 10 )

Role of Bots in GMO coverage 2018–2020.

GMOs in Africa and South Asia

The GMO conversation was different in Africa and South Asia than in the United States, which dominated in terms of overall volume and gross reach. The gross reach for the 2018 GMO conversation in the US was 3.6 billion, compared to 116 million in Kenya and 113 million in the Philippines, the two next largest geographies. It was just 2.6 million in Bangladesh (data not shown).

In terms of sentiment analysis, though the conversation was generally favorable in all countries, it was more favorable in the US, with the Philippines registering the highest percentage of negative coverage ( Fig. 11 ).

Sentiment analysis of GMO coverage (traditional and social media) in six geographies from 2018–2020.

In 2019, the average favorability increased over 2018, though there was a decline in some geographies in 2020. In the US and Kenya, the favorability remained relatively stable across the three years, whereas it dropped in Uganda and Bangladesh over time. In Nigeria and the Philippines, the favorability was greatest in 2019 ( Fig. 12 ).

Favorability trends in six geographies.

Although there has been substantial academic attention given to the course of the biotechnology debate in the media, previous assessments have typically been based on small data samples analyzed by hand, including at most a few hundred articles. We believe this analysis to be the first that attempts to portray a rough aggregate picture of the whole debate in the English language over a broad time period, using machine-learning tools to assess many thousands of articles with a potential reach of billions of combined views. To our knowledge it is also the first to include social media in this analysis and compare it w ith trends in traditional media over several years.

Previous studies have analyzed news reporting on GMOs, though often only for a small snapshot of time and without a comprehensive evaluation of media coverage. A 2010 paper, for example, analyzed six UK newspapers for the first three months of 2004, finding that scientists at the time were presented simply as one competing interest group with no special claim to truth. 10 A study of Kenyan and international newspapers carrying biotechnology-related stories between 2010 and 2014 found that the publication of the 2012 Seralini study significantly increased the risk messaging in Kenyan reporting on the subject. 11 Stephen Morse conducted an analysis of global newspaper reporting on genetically modified crops between 1996 and 2013, finding – perhaps surprisingly – mildly positive coverage during the period. 12 Another long-term study, published more recently, looked at the Swedish GMO debate between 1994 and 2017. 13 In volume terms, the number of articles rose to a broad peak in 2003–05, falling gradually until 2017. The researchers also found a clear trend from negative to positive during the period. Leonie Marks and colleagues, in a 2007 analysis of UK and US traditional media, found that coverage of biotechnology was markedly more positive for medical than agricultural applications. 14

This type of analysis could be useful because high levels of skepticism about GM crops may be related to media coverage on the issue, which would thereby play an important role in shaping public opinion. In China, for instance, attitudes turned sharply negative following a 2012 scandal about a nutrition study involving genetically modified rice and Chinese children, which was brought to the fore by Greenpeace and widely reported with a narrative suggesting that genetically modified crops are instruments of Western control and imperialism. 15 Prior to that, Chinese newspaper attitudes had been either positive or neutral toward GMOs. 16 Media framing has also been strongly associated with a trend toward more negative public attitudes to GMOs in Russia in the years leading up to a ban imposed in 2016. 17 These are not all recent trends: one study found that in Hungary, media framing of the GM issue largely favored the ‘anti’ side between 2007 and 2009. 18

Media coverage of GMO issues does not arise in a vacuum. Instead, it reflects political, ideological, and economic contests in societies. In some cases, as in China, geopolitical anxieties can drive widespread public belief in conspiracy theories about Western aggression via genetic technologies. The Russian government, which is often accused of waging an information warfare campaign against the West, has also promoted fears and conspiracy theories about GMOs. A 2018 study found that the Russian state news networks RT and Sputnik produced many more articles on GMOs than Western media outlets, most of which were sharply negative. 19 Some of these Russian-promoted stories featured conspiracy theories that were unlikely to gain exposure in conventional news, such as one headline in 2016: “GMO mosquitoes could be cause of Zika outbreak, critics say.” 20

Negative coverage may also originate from groups ideologically opposed to genetic engineering, or NGOs that seek to raise campaign funds by spreading misinformation. This latter strategy has been termed the ‘monetization of disinformation’ and may raise millions of dollars per year for groups that employ this strategy as a fundraising tool. A recent study analyzing 95,000 online articles found that those receiving the most attention appeared not in conventional media but were published by “a small group of alternative health and pro-conspiracy sites.” 21

Much of the controversy now takes place in the social media sphere, where trolls and bots can increase polarization and spread misinformation exponentially. A 2018 study of the vaccine issue found that trolls and bots often supported both sides in order to amplify controversy and create “false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination.” 22

Our analysis suggests that traditional media coverage of GMOs is consistently and substantially more neutral or positive than public perceptions as reported from polling data. This finding is in keeping with the media’s traditional role of aiming for neutral or impartial coverage. Because monthly favorability ratings rise and fall as different stories break, there is only a weak long-term trend toward more favorable coverage in traditional media seen in our data.

The situation is somewhat different on social media. In social media, extreme or one-sided positions can pass unchallenged and strong statements, regardless of whether they are true or false, tend to be ‘liked’ or shared more often. Yet even in this ‘free for all’ environment, monthly values averaged in the 36-month time frame of the study show a robust long-term trend toward more positive social media coverage.

In volume terms, there was a significant increase from 2018 to 2020 in traditional media coverage of the GMO issue. There was a sharp downward trend in the volume of GMO-related posts on social media, however. This suggests that the GMO issue is perhaps becoming somewhat less salient over time in terms of public engagement. This decline could however also be due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have occupied the attention of social media users during 2020. It also suggests that while traditional media coverage of the issue is typically driven by events happening in the news cycle, social media commentators are less driven by mainstream news coverage of the issue. It is notable that traditional and social media visibility peaks do not tend to occur at the same time, suggesting that the debates operate somewhat independently of each other.

A familiar factor in the GMO conversation is the antipathy directed specifically toward Monsanto, with the company becoming a bogeyman for anti-GMO activists and its flagship ‘RoundupReady’ crops coming to symbolize overall objections to the technology. Though Monsanto has since been purchased by Bayer and its name retired, the stigma seems to remain. We found that coverage of Monsanto/Bayer in both traditional and social media is consistently and considerably more negative than coverage of GMOs overall. This likely reflects ongoing negative portrayals of the company regarding pesticides and issues of corporate control of seeds, and thus food. In some months over the two-year period of January 2018 through December 2019, almost the entirety of the social media conversation took a negative tone, though favorable spikes were also recorded both years. The fact that the Monsanto/Bayer conversation was substantially more negative in terms of social media sentiment analysis than other areas helps validate our methods, as it confirms what might be expected given our broader understanding of the debate.

Geographically, the United States dominates the GMO conversation, both in terms of volume and reach. This may be because the technology is widely employed in US agriculture, which also has a robust presence in traditional and social media. The conversation is generally favorable in the US, Africa, and South Asia, though it remains divided in the Philippines, where GM corn has been adopted but international controversies remain over the recent adoption of GM Golden Rice. In Africa, the conversation is most negative in Uganda. These differences may be due to the fact that Nigeria and Kenya have recently adopted GM crops, with farmers and media seeing the positive results of field trials, while Uganda still lacks a biosafety law that would permit introduction of GM crops.

Our analysis shows that traditional media tended to be somewhat more positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, though that gap disappeared in 2020. While the volume of traditional media coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media posts. Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing favorability, with the positive trend especially robust in social media.

Notably, the same positive favorability was observed in Africa, where countries are just beginning to adopt the technology. The favorable conversation in Kenya and Nigeria may be due to the fact that farmers have been able to witness field trials as well as plant GM seeds on their own farms. It may also be that anti-GMO activists lessen their activities in countries where the technology has been adopted, either turning to other issues or devoting their attention to countries that are still undecided.

Our analysis also found that cyborgs and bots represent about a third of the users engaged in the GMO social media debate. Furthermore, their posts are substantially more negative in sentiment toward GMOs than human accounts. This suggests that cyborgs and bots may be intentionally used by nefarious actors to sow dissent and make the GMO conversation appear more negative and polarized than it is.

The decline in volume of social media posts combined with a strong trend toward greater favorability may indicate a drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population, even while the volume of coverage in traditional media increased. Overall, our results suggest that both social and traditional media may be moving toward a more favorable and less polarized conversation on ag biotech overall.

Despite these encouraging results, it is clear that the scientific community still faces major communications challenges in addressing gaps between traditional and social media debates and the actual scientific consensus around the safety and desirability of agricultural biotechnology. Although the situation appears to be improving, there is no guarantee that this will continue as the influence of negative sentiments and actors continues to weigh on the debate and skew public perceptions away from perspectives that are based on genuine scientific evidence.

Funding Statement

The Cornell Alliance for Science is funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A list of other donors can be found at https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/about/funders/. Cision, Inc. is a company that performs media analysis and provides other communication services for paying clients across a variety of sectors, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This study contains the authors’ objective analysis and may not reflect the views or attitudes of Cision or Cision’s clients. No other competing interests are declared by the authors.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Are Genetically Modified Crops the Answer to World Hunger?

Hunger is a major world crisis for which a solution has not yet been found. Since their advent, genetically modified crops have been hailed as the key to solving world hunger.

Biology, Health, Conservation, Social Studies, Economics

Tearless GM Onion

GM crops may be modified to improve yield, enhance nutrition, or better adapt to environmental conditions. They can even be altered to resist pests or eliminate unwanted effects, like this type of onion that doesn't cause people to tear up when chopped.

Photograph by Redux Pictures LLC

Hunger is one of the greatest global challenges of the 21st century. Despite some improvements within the last two decades, global hunger is again on the rise, with 2016 data indicating that more than 800 million people around the world suffer from malnutrition . Children under five years of age represent 150 million of those affected, and for roughly three million of these children every year, the struggle ends in death. When faced with such staggering statistics, it is natural to wish for one simple solution to prevent these deaths and rid the world of hunger . Use of genetically modified (GM) crops is among the proposed solutions—but is it truly a viable solution? GM crops are plants that have been modified, using genetic engineering, to alter their DNA sequences to provide some beneficial trait. For example, genetic engineering can improve crop yield , resulting in greater production of the target crop. Scientists can also engineer pest-resistant crops, helping local farmers better withstand environmental challenges that might otherwise wipe out a whole season of produce . Crops can even be engineered to be more nutritious, providing critical vitamins to populations that struggle to get specific nutrients needed for healthy living. However, GM seeds are produced primarily by only a few large companies who own the intellectual property for the genetic variations. A transition to GM crops would closely align global food production with the activities of a few key companies. From an economic standpoint, that poses a risk to long-term food security by creating the potential for a single-point failure. If that company failed, then the crop it provides would not be available to the people who depend on that crop. Moreover, a large proportion of those affected by malnutrition are small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, where use of GM crops is less common. Since attitudes toward GM crops tend to correlate with education levels and access to information about the technology, there is a concern that sub-Saharan African farmers may be hesitant to adopt GM crops. More generally, public perception of GM foods is plagued by concerns of safety, from the potential for allergic response to the possible transfer of foreign DNA to non-GM plants in the area. None of these concerns are backed by evidence, but they persist nonetheless. Whether based on legitimate concerns or lack of scientific information and understanding, local rejection of GM crops has the potential to derail efforts to use these crops as a tool against malnutrition . However, there are case stories for success: Adoption of GM cotton in India has improved family income and, as a result, reduced hunger . While there are these controversies and complexities that pose challenges for the use of GM foods, these are secondary to a larger issue. We already live in a world that produces enough food to feed everyone. Thus, hunger results from inequity, not food shortage. Unequal distribution of quality food among communities suffering from poverty is the primary culprit in today’s world hunger , not abundance or quantity of food stocks. For those suffering from malnutrition , access to quality food depends on a variety of political, environmental, and socioeconomic factors—most notably, armed conflict and natural disasters . When viewed through this lens, GM crops may have a role to play in combatting global hunger , but merely increasing crop production or nutritional value (via any method) will not solve the larger problem of inequity in access to food. For example, farmers whose livelihoods depend on production of commercial crops rather than food staples may be able to increase their income by growing GM crops, affording them the financial resources to purchase more or higher-quality food. Moreover, GM crops might better withstand certain natural disasters , such as drought. However, since data shows that political unrest is the primary driver of hunger , it is unclear whether these farmers would be able to sell their products or use their income on nutritional food sources within a country plagued by conflict. Unfortunately, GM foods are not the cure-all to hunger the world needs. The path to eradicating global hunger is more complex than any one solution and is in fact far more complex than only addressing food quantity or quality. The United Nations Global Goals for Sustainable Development address world hunger in Goal 2: Zero Hunger , which aims to “end hunger , achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” This goal lays the foundation to combatting world hunger via a multipronged approach, including political action and reduction of violence, agricultural and technical innovations, efforts to end poverty , and educational initiatives. Luckily, with allies such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme, this grand challenge may be achievable—and maybe GM foods will play a role, but they cannot be relied upon as a magical solution.

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

January 3, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Home — Essay Samples — Science — GMO — Genetically Modified Foods: For or Against

Genetically Modified Foods: for Or Against

• Categories: Genetic Modification GMO

About this sample

Words: 2026 |

11 min read

Published: Apr 11, 2019

Words: 2026 | Pages: 4 | 11 min read

Introduction

• Greater yield by altering the DNA to produce more crops - allowing for more food to be available to consumers.
• Longer life due to the fact that crops can be made resilient to diseases, pests and drought.
• Plants are also being made to produce more nutrients. According to livestrong.com, Asian countries are planting Genetically Modified rice with an increased number of iron and vitamins needed by the human body.
• GMC’s can also prove to be helpful in reducing the excessive use of the world’s natural resources. Due to the fact that plants can be made more efficient by, for example, needing less water, farmers can limit the need for water as well as limit land use and soil corrosion, hence save water as well as energy, making farming more eco-friendly.
• “The creation of “Super weeds” according to vittana.orgvittana.org vittana.org- Because GMC’s have been made more weed resistant, natural selection may occur due to weeds becoming stronger against the chemicals designed to destroy them.
• Increased allergic responses in humans due to protein/allergen present in the GM crops
• Production of toxins if the “desired trait” is damaged when being placed into the DNA molecule.
• Ingredients may be cancerous – Dr. Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, raised the concern that GMCs could increase the growth of malignant tumors upon contact with humans. Later, other studies suggested a link between engineered food and cancer.
• Cross pollination: Genes from GM crops spreading to other plants may be good with other food crops attaining harm resistant qualities, however, the genes could spread to weeds and cause them to be hard to kill.
• Pest-resistant crops may harm animals: The gene that deters pests from the crop could also be harmful to the animals that eat them; however, there is a study that shows that these genes do not have an effect on the human body nor animals according to Science YouTuber, Kurzgesagt.

Final Thoughts

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2409 words

3 pages / 1596 words

6 pages / 2721 words

7 pages / 3079 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on GMO

Genetically modified organisms are organisms with changed genetic structure. Nowadays GMO are one of the main debatable question in the modern world. Every day we buy vegetables and fruits in our shops or markets, but we do not [...]

Genetically engineered crops appear to be safe to eat and do not harm the environment, according to a new analysis by the advisory group the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. It is unclear whether the [...]

This article focuses on the fact that we have been attacking GMOs for the wrong reasons. Two decades of studies show no link to any ridiculous claims that contribute autism and cancer to GMO consumption. The author states that [...]

Understanding the structure of the human genome allowed scientists to study the actual function of specific genes, which is very important in understanding health and disease. DNA microarray is one technique that enhances the [...]

Studies in E. coli primarily led to the discovery of the detailed mechanism of prokaryotic transcription. Overall, it appears that prokaryotic transcription requires the DNA double helix to partially unwind in the region where [...]

In his article, the Truth about Genetically Modified Food, David Freedman attempts to unravel the truth behind the safety of consumption of genetically modified food. He first does this by analyzing the opinion from some of the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment? Research Paper

What are genetically modified foods, history of genetically modified foods, prevalence and involved plants, benefits of genetically modified foods, environmental safety, food safety, works cited.

Environmental societies, professional bodies, religious groups and public officials have all shown concerns regarding Genetically Modified (GM) foods, and condemned agribusiness for practicing profit without considering possible hazards, and regimes for failing to implement sufficient regulatory supervision.

Although genetically-modified foods are capable of resolving most starvation and malnutrition issues, and aiding safeguard and conserve the environment they also pose several human health and environmental risks, which forms the thesis of this study.

The expression GM foods are usually employed to refer to crop plants produced for human or animal utilization using the most recent molecular biology skills. These plants are usually tailored to develop desired qualities such as augmented resistance to herbicides or superior nutritional substance. The enrichment of desired qualities has customarily been performed through breeding, but conservative plant breeding techniques can be time consuming and are usually not particularly precise.

Conversely, genetic engineering can make plants with the desired feature rapidly and with much precision. For instance, plant geneticists can separate a gene liable for drought forbearance and introduce that gene into another plant. The new genetically-modified plant will also increase drought forbearance. Genes can be relocated from one plant to a different one, though genes from non-plant species can as well be utilized.

A good example of this is the utilization of Bacillus thuringiensis genes in maize and other crops (Makoni and Jennifer 303). Bacillus thuringiensis is a physically occurring bacterium which generates crystal proteins, which are toxic to caterpillars. The genes of Bacillus thuringiensis have been transmitted into maize, allowing the maize to generate its own pesticides.

Genetically modified crops were produced for the first time in 1980s. The earliest bio-modified food to arrive at the supermarket was the Flavr Savr tomato, which was standardized in 1994. With a particularly solid hide, the Flavr Savr guaranteed a longer shelf existence than nearly all tomatoes (Zinnen 31).

However, its insufficient traits and high price marked it for collapse. Scientists go on to work on tomatoes that mature gradually and feel superior. Scientists have customarily sorted plants for wanted traits, but conventional reproductions are less precise and slow than genetic modification in creating the preferred traits.

Tools for genetically modifying foods present pretentious guarantee for meeting a number of greatest problems in prospect. Similar to all new skills, they pretense some menace, both recognized and mysterious. Arguments surrounding GM foods usually focus on environmental and human safety.

As said by the United States Department of Agriculture and FDA, there exist above forty plant types that have fulfilled all of the national necessities for commercialization.

Various examples of these plants consist of cantaloupes and tomatoes that have customized ripening traits, sugar beets and soya beans which are anti-herbicides, and cotton plants and corn with improved resistance to vermin. The products of all these are not accessible in grocery stores so far. Nevertheless, the pervasiveness of genetically modified foodstuffs in the United States supermarkets is more prevalent than it is deemed.

Though there are extremely few wholly genetically-modified vegetables and fruits obtainable on produce plunks, vastly processed foods like cereals and vegetable oils, most probably have some minute fractions of genetically-modified constituents since the unprocessed ingredients have been united into one processing flow from several sources. In addition, the utilization of soybean products as food additives ascertains that most U.S. consumers use genetically modified food derivatives.

GM foods have many benefits. These advantages are directly connected to the environment and human health. The following is a discussion of the benefits of using genetically modified foods.

The first benefit is pest resistance. Loss of crops due to insect vermin can be overwhelming, ensuing in devastating economic loss for farmers and undernourishment in emerging nations. Agriculturalists usually use several tons of chemical insect killers per annum. Eating food that is treated with pesticides can cause potential health hazards to customers.

Also, overspill of agricultural desecrates from extreme use of fertilizers and insect killers can make water supply toxic and result to environmental destruction. Planting genetically modified foods like Bacillus thuringiensis can aid eradicate the use of chemical pesticides and decrease the charge of taking a crop to marketplace. Hence, potential health hazards to consumers will be reduced.

The second benefit is herbicide tolerance (Friends of the Earth 1). For most crops, it is not rewarding to eliminate weeds by physical methods such as digging, hence; farmers will frequently spray vast quantities of dissimilar weed-killers to annihilate weeds, which is a lasting and costly process that calls for care so that the weed-killer does not damage the crop plant or the surroundings.

Genetically-modified crop plants, which resist potent herbicides, can aid avoid environmental harm by lessening the quantity of herbicides required. For instance, Monsanto has produced a strain of soybeans genetically tailored to be not changed by their herbicide creation. A farmer cultivates these soybeans which afterwards only need a single application of herbicides instead of several applications, decreasing production expenditure and restraining the risks of agricultural waste overspill.

The third benefit is disease resistance. There exist lots of fungi, viruses and bacteria which source plant infections. Biologists of plants are endeavoring to produce plants with genetically-modified resistance to these infections. This will in turn lead to a safeguard of the environment as less toxic substances will be introduced into the environment for disease resistance purposes.

The fourth benefit is cold tolerance (Liang and Daniel 145). Unpredicted frost can annihilate susceptible plantlets. Plants are capable of dealing with the cold temperatures, which typically would kill the unmodified plantlet, by using the antifreeze gene. This increases food production, which in turn improves human health.

The fifth benefit is salinity tolerance. Since the earth population has raised and more land is used for building shelter rather than food creation, farmers will have to cultivate crops in places formerly inappropriate for plant farming. Hence, the need for making plants that can endure long phases of drought or high salt substance in the groundwater.

The sixth benefit is nutrition. Undernourishment is widespread in developing countries, where poor peoples depend on a single crop like rice as the core staple of their food. Nevertheless, rice lacks sufficient levels of all essential food constituents to shun malnutrition. Through genetic engineering, rice can be made to have extra minerals and vitamins, hence improving human health by lessening nutrient shortages.

For instance, visual impairment due to vitamin A lack is a widespread matter in developing nations. Professionals at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have formed peculiar rice having an extraordinarily high substance of beta-carotene. As this rice was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, the organization expects to present the rice seed at no cost to any developing nation that needs it, with the aim of improving human health.

The seventh benefit is pharmaceuticals. Vaccines and drugs often are expensive to manufacture and at times need storage surroundings that are not readily obtainable in developing nations. Scientists are endeavoring to build up harmless vaccines and drugs in potatoes and tomatoes. It will be easier to store these drugs and vaccines than to transport and direct customary vaccines, hence improving human health.

The last benefit is phytoremediation. A number of GM crops are not built as crops. As a result, ground water and soil contamination persists to be a dilemma in all regions of the globe.

A key area of concern adjoining GM foods is environmental safety. Particularly, critics are concerned about destruction to other species and the involuntary effects trans- genes intended to fight pests might have on useful insects or how they can distress a range of balances in the environment. Studies reveal that pollen from B.t. corn results to elevated death rates in the monarch butterfly caterpillars (Hellmich 1).

Monarch caterpillars use milkweed plants instead of corn. However, the dismay is that if pollen from B.t. corn is delivered by the airstream onto milkweed vegetation in near regions, the caterpillars might consume the pollen and die. Sadly, B.t. contaminants kill several classes of insect larvae haphazardly; it is not feasible to plan a B.t. venom that would only destroy crop destructive pests and spare all other pests.

Excellent weeds and excellent pests are also forming an area of concern. Crop plants modified for herbicide forbearance and weeds might cross-breed through vertical transfers, ensuing in the transmission of the herbicide opposition genes from the crop plants into the unwanted weeds (Tambornino 5). These enhanced weeds are likely to tolerate herbicides.

Another particular environmental dismay is the possibility for wild crosspollination (GM Foods 1). Other launched genes may intersect into non-tailored crops placed beside GM crops.

The likelihood of interbreeding is revealed by the resistance of farmers against claims organized by Monsanto. The corporation has filed patent violation claims against farmers who might have produced GM crops. Monsanto asserts that the farmers acquired Monsanto-certified GM seeds from an unidentified source and did not reimburse payments to Monsanto (Vegsource.com 1).

Conversely, the farmers argue that their original crops were cross-pollinated from another person’s GM crops planted a few miles. Analogous concerns encircle the involuntary formation of new super pests that would be opposing to several insect killers. Similar to how the excess use of antibiotics has made some bacteria build up resistance to nearly all antibiotics, prevalent GMO farming could result to pesticide-resistant excellent pests.

Another concern adjoining GM foods is the bringing in of new allergies (Tambornino 5). With almost a quarter of Americans recording an adverse effect to no less than one food, opponents of GMOs says they stand to think that integrating genes from diverse food springs only can augment the threat of extra food allergies.

Several children in Europe and US have experience acute allergies to peanuts and other foodstuffs. Again, a suggestion to integrate a genetic material from Brazil nuts into soybeans was discarded as of the dread of causing unanticipated allergic responses.

Furthermore, several people are concerned that if the genetic material from a nut were transmitted to a new food crop, folks with an allergy to nuts innocently could eat the allergen with potentially cruel effects. Therefore, the transmission of genes from known allergenic foods is dejected unless it can be verified that the protein creation of the transmitted genetic material is not allergenic.

Whereas conventionally developed foods usually are not examined for allergenicity, procedures for assessments for GM foods have been assessed by WHO and the United Nations. At present, genetically modified foods in the market have had no allergic consequences.

Gene shift is another security concern linked to GM foods. Gene shift from GM foods to body units or to bacteria would raise concern if the shifted genetic material harmfully affected human wellbeing. This chiefly would be pertinent if antibiotic fight genes, used in generating GMOs, were to be shifted. While the likelihood of transfer is small, the utilization of technology devoid of antibiotic fight genes has been motivated.

The security evaluation of GM foods usually investigates instant health impact; likelihood to stimulate allergic response; precise components considered having nutritional or poisonous traits; the steadiness of the introduced gene; dietetic effects connected with genetic modification; and any involuntary effects that could outcome from the introduction of the gene.

Broad assessment of GM foods may be necessary to evade the likelihood of harm to customers with food allergies. Classification of GM foods and foodstuffs will obtain new significance.

There is a rising fear that bringing in alien genes into crop plants may have an unanticipated and harmful effect on human health. Latest studies assert that there are substantial disparities in the guts of rodents that consume genetically modified food and rats that consume original food (Tambornino 5). However, most scientists say that, GM foods do not lead to human health risk.

In conclusion, genetic engineering can make plants with the desired feature quickly and with much precision. However, genetically-modified foods have many impacts on human beings and the environment. A key area of concern adjoining GM foods is environmental safety.

Particularly, critics are concerned about destruction to other species and the involuntary effects trans- genes intended to fight pests might have on useful insects or how they can distress a range of balances in the environment. Excellent weeds and excellent pests are also forming an area of concern. Crop plants modified for herbicide forbearance and weeds might cross-breed, ensuing in the transmission of the herbicide opposition genes from the crop plants into the unwanted weeds. These enhanced weeds are likely to tolerate herbicides.

Another particular environmental fear is the possibility for wild crosspollination. Conversely, the farmers argue that their original crops were cross-pollinated from another person’s GM crops planted a few miles. Equivalent concerns encircle the involuntary formation of new super pests that would be opposing to several insect killers.

Similar to how the excess use of antibiotics has made some bacteria build up resistance to nearly all antibiotics, prevalent GMO farming could result to pesticide-resistant excellent pests. A different concern adjoining GM foods is the bringing in of new allergies. Several children in Europe and US have experience acute allergies to peanuts and other foodstuffs.

A suggestion to integrate a genetic material from Brazil nuts into soybeans was discarded as of the dismay of causing unanticipated allergic responses. Furthermore, several people are concerned that if the genetic material from a nut were transmitted to a new food crop, persons with an allergy to nuts innocently could eat the allergen with potentially cruel effects.

Therefore, the transmission of genes from known allergenic foods is dejected unless it can be verified that the protein creation of the transmitted genetic material is not allergenic. Whereas conventionally developed foods usually are not examined for allergenicity, procedures for assessments for GM foods have been assessed by WHO and the United Nations. Gene shift is another security concern linked to GM foods.

Gene shift from GM foods to body units or to bacteria would raise concern if the shifted genetic material harmfully affected human wellbeing. This chiefly would be pertinent if antibiotic fight genes, used in generating genetically modified organisms, were to be shifted. While the likelihood of transfer is small, the utilization of technology devoid of antibiotic fight genes has been motivated.

Broad assessment of GM foods may be necessary to evade the likelihood of harm to customers with food allergies. Classification of genetically modified foods and foodstuffs will obtain new significance.

Friends of the Earth. Briefing Note: Herbicide Use and GM Crops. Web.

GM Foods. Genetically Modified (GM) Foods Renewed Threat to Europe . Web.

Hellmich, Richard. Monarch Butterflies and Bt Corn . Web.

Liang, George H. and Daniel Z. Skinner. Genetically Modified Crops: their Development, Uses, and Risks . New York: Food Products Press, 2004.

Makoni, Nathaniel and Jennifer Mohamed-Katerere. Genetically Modified Crops . Web.

Tambornino, Lisa. Genetically Modified Foods . Web.

Vegsource.com. Percy Schmeiser Stands up to — and Takes down – Monsanto . Web.

Zinnen, Tom. Biotechnology and Food: Leader and Participant Guide. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 17). Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment? https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-genetically-modified-food-safe-for-human-bodies-and-the-environment/

"Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment?" IvyPanda , 17 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/is-genetically-modified-food-safe-for-human-bodies-and-the-environment/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment'. 17 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment?" October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-genetically-modified-food-safe-for-human-bodies-and-the-environment/.

1. IvyPanda . "Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment?" October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-genetically-modified-food-safe-for-human-bodies-and-the-environment/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Is Genetically Modified Food Safe for Human Bodies and the Environment?" October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-genetically-modified-food-safe-for-human-bodies-and-the-environment/.

• Atrazine Herbicide Investigation
• Super Weeds's Advantages and Disadvantages
• Adverse Impacts of Food on Human Health: Toxicity, Nutritional Deficiency, and Allergenicity
• Epigenetic Inheritance: Concepts and Mechanisms
• Genetic Alteration of Food Sources: A New Strategy to Improve Food Production
• Elucidating Tradeoffs: Bioengineered Foods
• Is a virus alive?
• The New Advancements in Cloning and the Ethical Debate Surrounding It