Have GMOs Fed the World?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), organisms that have been changed, combined, broken, or even built genes using biotechnology in ways that will not occur naturally or through cross-breeding, have been a breakthrough. This innovation has been considered a solution to global hunger, nutritional deficiencies and diseases. But how much of this promise has been understood? What are the real benefits and drawbacks?

Image: FAO/Rachel Nandalenga

Modified to improve crop yield and reduce cost while saving the environment because of their resistance against pests, herbicides, and drought, depending on the specific traits needed. For example, Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops carry an inbuilt pesticide that reduces the requirements of chemicals. Researchers say GMOs can bring control to food production, improve farmers' incomes, and reduce their impact on the environment. Some crops, like Golden Rice, were biologically modified into staple foods to cure nutritional deficiencies. These have brought new hope to fight hunger and malnutrition in developing countries.

While GMOs have made farming more profitable and convenient for some, the undeniable beneficiaries are the large agricultural corporations and biotech firms. Most GMO crops, such as corn and soy, are cultivated for livestock feed and ethanol production in fuel, not to feed hungry populations directly. Furthermore, these crops often come tagged with patented seeds and chemical inputs, making farmers dependent upon large businesses or investors. This dependency erodes farmers' sovereignty and has raised concerns over food security in regions relying heavily on GMO imports. The benefits of GMOs in improving yields are questionable. Studies indicated that the highest yield advantage is a drastic decrease in losses to pests', rather than a productivity boost. Moreover, traditional breeding has often surpassed GMOs in developing crops that better use water and Nitrogen properly, more cheaply and quickly.

The widespread adoption of GMOs has brought environmental concerns. Over-reliance on herbicide-tolerant crops has resulted in the evolution of "super weeds" and "superbugs", which require harsh chemicals, similar to the antibiotic crisis. It enhances soil degradation, water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Lastly, long-term studies on the safety of GMOs are still few and between. Critics further claim that not enough is yet to discover the possible health effects of consuming GMOs and associated chemicals like glyphosate, a herbicide that causes drying and death.

Consider a more sustainable approach by looking towards biodiversity, soil health, and natural synergies among plants and ecosystems. Small-scale farmers already produce 70 percent of the global food on only 25 percent of the global agricultural land and show that diversified farming practices can meet global food needs without the environmental toll from industrial agriculture.

Feeding the world is less about finding more food and more about addressing poverty, inequality, and food waste. We currently produce enough food to feed 10 billion people, yet almost 800 million stomachs remain hungry because of systemic inequities and different mindsets. At the same time, wealthy nations waste nearly 40 percent of their food. A lot can be achieved by shifting resources and increasing access than by simply growing more GMO crops.

While GMOs have certainly contributed to some advances in agriculture, they are not the panacea for global hunger. Their role is better explained within a bigger discussion on sustainable agriculture, equity, and systemic reform. If we are genuinely interested in "feeding the world," then we must move beyond relying on genetic engineering toward holistic solutions that balance production with environmental sustainability and social justice.