I recently read an article about why GMO's are bad for you, Genetically Modified Organisms Shouldn't Be A Thing In 2017, and it got me thinking.

The United Nations has 17 stated goals that the organization hopes to accomplish by 2030. Arguably the most optimistic of them is to end world hunger. The U.N. seeks total food security, providing “nutritious food for all.” The U.N. estimates that 795 million people in the world are unable to get the nutrients they need and that 45 percent of childhood deaths under five are as a result of hunger.

The best solution to food security is one that is becoming politically difficult to implement: to loosen restrictions on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Organizations like Greenpeace and Just Label It have pushed 20 states in the U.S. to consider requiring food producers to label foods that contain GMOs, with Vermont already passing such laws. The Department of Agriculture is working on a federal regulation. Proponents of GMO labeling insist that consumers have a right to know what is in their food. There is some sense to this; after all, what’s the harm in asking companies to slap a label on a can of soup?

It turns out that the cost of labeling is quite high. First of all, there are opportunity costs. According to a study by Mahaffey et al., a ban on GMOs, which many assume is the next step after labeling, would require a 3.1 million hectare increase in farmland, about the size of Maryland, leading to the release of 900 million tons of carbon dioxide from forests being razed and replaced by farms. GMOs are engineered to be tastier, more nutritious, and cheaper, so pressure groups’ fear campaign against altered crops costs under-informed shoppers who spend more money on lower-quality food products. The loss of productivity from GMO crops would slump GDP growth, which impacts all areas of the economy.

Then there are the actual costs of requiring companies to label GMO foods. Farmers will want to cash in on the “real” food hype without losing their high-yield, low-cost GMOs, so many will plant both types on their land. Research shows that a whole new set of processing facilities is required for a farm to ensure that all its GMO produce does not cross-contaminate its non-GMO produce. Then come the costly tests. Most states consider up to one percent GM content to be “GM-free,” so to ensure that their product is labeled correctly and does not contain any runaway strawberry seeds or stray wheat dust from a GMO plant, farmers, storers, transporters, and processors will have to test multiple samples of the same batch to ensure it reaches the threshold. This reduces yield, which increases cost. To say nothing of the legal costs if the one percent threshold isn’t reached after all this. It’s no wonder companies have spent millions fighting GMO labeling laws; it would cost them millions more if they were implemented.

What does the plight of U.S. food producers have to do with global food insecurity? The U.S. is the largest exporter of agricultural product, sending out $118.3 billion in food. American corn and soybeans account for half of world consumption. It is not just your local grocer who is concerned that legislators stop meddling in food production capabilities. U.S. trade output thrives on our wealth of natural resources that are better used producing more crop. In addition, American producers are able to grow new biotechnologies that can solve global problems. For example, golden rice, a GMO, is able to produce and store vitamin A, a nutrient many children in the developing world lack.

Many have doubts about GMOs because they are not natural. Some may picture money-grubbing executives baking up toxic plants and two-headed cows. But farmers use GMOs because they save money, so they can sell their crops for cheaper and still profit more. In addition, GMOs can be used to reach the U.N.’s goal to end world hunger. It is time to end the paranoia that has plagued the U.S. and Europe.