In the ethical debate of science vs. humanity, humanity usually wins. With exponential increases in scientific discoveries each year, you may find yourself asking why as humans, we have not found a permanent solution to the existential problem of world hunger. In just 2016, research has been done to create modes of male birth control by injection of hormones, innovation towards self-driving cars has become a forefront and scientists are desperately looking for solutions to combat Zika. While these are just merely ranted examples of research in process, it’s relevant to question, is finding a solution to an issue such as world hunger any less valuable than finding solutions to these studies? As the rebuttal to this argument some could question is all innovation, good innovation?

Looking back at the issue of world hunger- yes, research has been done to find permanent solutions in developing countries to fight starvation and hunger. Likewise, some research methods have proven successful and unfortunately others have not. But what if I told you one of the most important and successful discoveries towards ending world hunger in developing countries is viewed as a dietary inequity in the western world? And by dietary inequity I am referring to the use of GMO’s in industrial agricultural practice.

*GASP…. You mean the product free food label you intentionally look for while strolling through Trader Joes? Isn’t it not common knowledge GMO free produce are much healthier to eat? Aside from the conspiracy theories, GMO’s are still used by the majority of industrial agricultural farms even within the United States.

Moving forward, if genetically modified organisms are still being used by the United States and they have the potential to stop mass hunger, then why do we not grow these super crops indefinitely in developing countries? Truthfully, we do harvest genetically modified crops in the masses and factually this is a debate which has been argued from all sides for a great length of time. However, before you go declaring GMO’s as the solution to world hunger, please understand there are both positive and negative variables to introducing manmade solutions to an environmental problem.

What you should know about GMO's as a consumer:

By definition GMO is intentional modification of the genetic makeup of any living organism inclusive of plants animals and microorganisms. Scientists often use recombinant DNA, however, a variety of methods are used to create species of organisms with more desirable traits. At the root of the debate, genetic modification is simply a method of artificial selection in which humans selectively alter organisms to serve a more functional or desirable purpose.

The Good

Industrial production of genetically modified agricultural crops has its benefits. Firstly, through the artificial selection process, farmers are able to plant and produce crops with a higher resistance to pests, diseases and weeds. Justifiably, this allows farmers to have a higher crop yield to distribute for market. Secondly, with genetic modification, the received taste of a crop can be manipulated to produce foods which effectively taste better. This is an economic advantage which drives a consumer response. Lastly, by genetically modifying crops, foods can be increased in nutritional value by enriching or fortifying nutrients. Through this, scientists are able to develop crops for agricultural advancement in developing nations with a higher nutrient intake to help fight against world starvation and hunger.

The Bad

As mentioned previously, genetic modification creates more resistant agricultural crops. While in theory super crops sound efficient, they also pose a huge detriment to the environment. When we create high resistance crops, often through genetic crossbreeding, we also increase our necessity and use for pesticides. Pesticides are extremely toxic and are of large concern in regards to public health. Significant research has been done to investigate potential health detriments from the use of GMO's in our food, however, potential health consequences remain largely unknown. Secondly, using genetically modified organisms decreases the biodiversity of a species. It is unconditionally imperative to protect the diversity of all living organisms on the planet for ecosystem productivity. When agriculture strictly grows genetically modified crops in monoculture, it decreases genetic diversity and once a mutant gene is gone, it's gone for good.

Conclusively, the debate for and against the use of genetically modified agricultural crops is highly controversial. With little scientific support to suggest potential health consequences, an upheaval in this agricultural practice is unlikely to happen. However, as consumers, your purchase is your vote and what you buy directly affects individuals all around the world. In regards to GMO's as the answer to global food security, it's truly an ethical debate to decide if the positives outweigh the negatives in the greater scheme of providing to developing nations in the fight against world hunger. Ultimately, genetically modified crops provide short term fulfillment of a need, but the long term affects of this agricultural movement hold a degree of uncertainty for absolute prosperity.

If you could save humanity from world hunger, would you unwittingly try any proposed method for reconciliation, regardless of clear scientific evidence?