Scientists have learned how to insert genes into plants and animals that were never put there by nature, creating unnatural new breeds. Who knows what horrifying consequences could result from such meddling? What unintended soybean apocalypse is this going to bring about?

As it turns out, the answers are known to both of these questions. The answer to the first is “the scientists who design the plants” and the answer to the second is “almost certainly none.” GMOs have been demonized by some parties who fear this unwholesome meddling in the good fruits of nature. Enormous movements have sprung up across the world, prompting dramatic overreactions, such as popular fast-food chain Chipotle’s decision to pull all GMOs out of their food (Chipotle). Decisions such as this add fuel to the fire; if restaurants are pulling GMOs out of their food, clearly they have good reason to do so, or so the logic goes. Marchers have even taken to the streets in places such as Wellington and West Palm Beach to protest the use of GMOs and demand labelling for products that contain GMOs (Clark).

The only problem with all of this protest and opposition is that there is nothing inherently dangerous about GMOs. Genetically Modified Organisms is the term used to describe plants and animals who have had their genes artificially modified by scientists for some specific purpose, such as being pest resistant. This sounds like a messy process with many possibilities for unintended consequences; however, scientists have impressive knowledge of the functions of specific genes and are capable of splicing those individual genes directly into the DNA of organisms. These are not haphazardly half-bred creatures or food mutated by radiation, these are carefully produced products.

GMOs are surrounded with controversy over safety, but this controversy lacks foundation in science. One popular claim about the ‘dangers’ of GMOs is that they contain ‘modified DNA’ that could work its way into human cells. The problem with this argument is that all DNA, including that of humans as well as their food, is made of the chemicals guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine, simply arranged in different orders. Through food processing, cooking, and digestion, these chemicals are broken down into their components, regardless of whether they ended up in food because of evolution or genetic modification; the DNA is still comprised of the same chemicals, as it is in every living creature on Earth and always has been. Furthermore, GMOs are sometimes criticized for introducing new allergens into food; however, new GMO products are tested against known allergens to confirm that they are indeed safe, meaning that while it is possible for new allergens to be introduced into a specific crop through genetic modification, such an occurrence would be detected before the crop would be used on a commercial scale and the crop would be discarded or redesigned to remove the allergen. (Wendel).

It is nearly impossible to generalize about the reward-to-risk ratio of GMOs, simply because each possible genetic modification has different rewards and different risks. This stated, the dangerous or low reward modifications are not used; no reasonable scientist would ever add the proteins for the deadly toxins from a poison dart frog to soybeans, and, even if they did, the new GMO would never be approved for use. It is obviously possible to make dangerous GMOs, but it is not reasonable to do so, nor is it possible to do so accidentally. This is not well understood by the public, though, in large part thanks to political and commercial maneuvering that uses GMOs as a target, such as Chipotle. 

Fear of GMOs has not only lead fast-food chains to discard them, however; in 2000, Italy passed legislation banning field trials of new genetically modified organisms, leading to public outcry from scientists. While laboratory trials were still allowed, needed field testing could not be completed (Frank).  This attitude toward GMOs is not only an issue concerning food supplies in America and Europe where food is, for the most part, plentiful, but is spilling over into starvation stricken areas in the developing world, such as Zambia and Zimbabwe. These nations have rejected donations of U.S. corn for being genetically modified, leading U.S. officials to call out European countries (such as Italy) for their anti-GMO stances that have been adopted by other parts of the world (Koffler). It is worth mentioning that, while there is anti-GMO resistance in the United States, it is far more profound in Europe, particularly because European governments are often anti-GMO, while in America the government has been far more accepting. This does not mean it will necessarily stay this way in the U.S.; in 2013, a bill was introduced in Congress that would require labels on foods to display whether there are any GMO ingredients in the product, and this bill has gradually been making its way into reality at the slow pace of United States legislation (Gustin). It is of course not unreasonable to believe that people should be able to easily determine what is in the food they purchase; however, this bill shows widespread belief that GMOs are somehow fundamentally different from non-GMO crops and, presumably, dangerous.

Although there is no proven reason to believe that GMOs are a health risk, there are non-health-related concerns about them that are much more deserving of attention. For example, some GMOs make plants resistant to herbicides, meaning that farmers can use herbicides to kill weeds in extremely large amounts, and concerns have been raised about these herbicides making their way into water or food supplies. This is an entirely valid concern, as, unlike GMOs themselves, herbicides are intrinsically poisonous (there would not be much point to them if they were not;) however, the question here becomes not whether to use GMOs or not, but instead how to correctly use and contain herbicides so that they only appear where it is intentional. Concerns, similarly, have arisen about economic aspects of GMOs, particularly in the context of farmers in developing countries, such as Uganda. When Uganda passed a bill allowing for GMO crops, some farmers protested, citing that they would be tied into purchasing GMO seeds, as well as fertilizers and pesticides designed to work with those seeds, from outside sources in order to compete with farmers using GMOs (Uganda). This is, once again, a reasonable, important concern; the solution, though, is not banning GMOs in Uganda, but is instead finding ways to more cheaply produce and provide needed agricultural supplies to developing countries. Because, as it turns out, the developing world especially stands to gain from GMO technology. The population of the world, particularly in developing countries,  is exploding at an unprecedented rate, and, in order to feed all of those people, something beyond traditional agriculture is needed - that something being GMOs.

If one were to travel back in time to the 1800s and begin a campaign claiming that the McCormick reaper and steel plow were introducing modified DNA into the food source and needed to be stopped, they would be laughed at, most likely; how could a piece of steel helping to harvest wheat or plow the earth more quickly and effectively make the food more dangerous? The modern McCormick reaper is not made of steel, of course, it is made of adenine and cytosine, and that is where the fear comes from. Genetic modification sounds like some sort of plot-point from a science fiction B-movie in which genetic modification is used to create shambling monsters to do the villain's bidding. This, and the accompanying lack of clarity about the science behind GMOs, makes it easier for companies and politicians to use GMOs as a scapegoat, and it makes it difficult for people to find out the truth. But, while the majority of people could not splice in a gene themselves, they need not fear those that can.  GMOs are regulated and tested, and rightly so; because of this, however, we must recognize that while it is possible, if unlikely, to put allergens in foods or create unintended health risks, those will be caught in the vast, vast majority of cases. We must trust our scientists and realize that the organic apples at the store are no safer than the GMO ones - and the biggest difference is just the labelling and the price.