GMOs (Genetically Modified Organism) are one of the most controversial areas of all sciences, in my opinion. Genetic Engineering is used in many various fields, but even though medical applications, like GM insulin, are widely accepted, the debate gets tenser when it comes to food and agriculture. One question that puzzled me was: Why? Why is it like that? It's the same thing, so why is it treated differently?

Believe it or not, but humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years. Our ancestors bred plants that were extremely beneficial to them. This concept applies to animals too. We bred the animals that were loyal to us and benefited us greatly. These living things have traits that are beneficial to us. By traits, I mean genes that are beneficial to us living beings. So as we breed more and more plants that are beneficial to us, those traits' got more pronounced. After thousands of years later, almost every single plant and animal around us is a bit different from its pre-domestic state.

So, if humans have been doing this for a long time, what makes GMOs (Genetically Modified Organism) different?

Selective breeding is hoping for lucky hits. But Genetic Engineering eliminates this factor. We can choose whatever traits we want. We can make plants grow bigger, immune to pests, make animals immune to diseases, etc. If this benefits us, then why are people concerned about them?

So, are GMOs good or bad?

One of the most common objections to GMOs is gene flow, meaning that GM crops could mix with traditional crops and could introduce unwanted new characteristics into them. Though there is a method that guarantees complete prevention of this, it is a big anti-GMO argument by itself. They are known as Terminator Seeds. The idea is that they could produce sterile plants, which requires farmers to buy new seeds almost every year.

But this concept, however, caused a public outcry, which stopped the technology from being in use. Thus, this brings us back to the spreading of DNA that is unintentional.

There have been cases of GMOs growing where they weren’t planted at the start. Many of these crops pollinated themselves, and all crops must be related to a mingle. There are cultural methods, such as buffer zones, to keep unintentional crossing to a minimum.

But, if it's possible that a GMO could unintentionally cross with a non-GMO, there may be another question: Is food that comes from GM crops different from food from non-GM crops?

This question has been a rather major concern in the beginning. GM plants that are to be eaten are checked for possible dangers, then the results are evaluated by multiple agencies. After more than 30 years of research, we got the answer.

Eating GMO plants is no riskier than eating non-GMO plants. But what about plants engineered to become toxic? Like BT crops? A gene borrowed from a certain bacterium lets engineered plants produce that destroys the digestive system of some specific pests. These plants can make their pesticide, so the insects that eat the plant will die. That may sound very alarming, but one must understand that pesticide spray can be washed off. While the poison is still inside the BT plant, it isn’t a huge deal.

Poison is a bit like a question from different viewpoints. Like what's harmless for us, is harmful to them. We can take chocolates. It's harmful to dogs, but a pleasure to eat for us humans. We know that the poison in BT crops kills insects, but it is completely harmless for us.

But there is another approach: Plants engineered to become resistant to certain weed killers. In this way, farmers can use them widely, killing the other plants competing for resources without harming the crop.

For the pesticide industry, this is a big business. Much of the criticism of this technology is a criticism of modern agriculture of huge corporations that control our food supply. This criticism is not just valid, but it is also very important. We must change agriculture to a more sustainable model. GMO is an ally to this fight, trying to protect nature.

The conclusion is that GMOs are good for us. Currently, our scientists are working on a plant that can better adapt to high and low temperatures, floods and droughts, and so much more. GMOs can not only reduce agriculture’s impact on the environment but can protect it. We could even modify plants and trees to become effective carbon collectors, like the American Chestnut tree, to reverse climate change.

The world eats about 11million pounds of food every day. A UN estimate suggests that we'll need 70% more food by 2050. We could grow that food by clearing more forests to create fields and pastures using pesticides. This isn’t a favored method by many. So, to keep it simple, GMOs have the potential to dampen our effects on the natural world. GMOs could be our powerful weapon to save our biosphere.