LAWLzoR

I'm willing to bet everyone here has at least heard of the term "GMO" or knows a little bit about it. Just to recap, the definition of GMO (as http://www.merriam-webster.com has it) a "genetically modified organism". Wikipedia defines it as "A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques."

I'm also willing to bet that some of you have heard the notion that GMOs are bad in general, that we don't know the long term affects of GMOs, that they're an unethical practice, that this is an example of mere mortals playing God. This post is to show you why GMOs can be good, and why they're harmless.

1. Sure, we have the definition, but what ARE GMOs?
GMOs are usually vegetation, with some cases being animals. Animals aren't usually the target of the so called "evil" GM food companies, because in order to do that you must change the DNA of the zygote of an animal to change its DNA, and right now that's really expensive and hard to do. This is why hormones are usually used instead of changing the animals DNA. Then what about hormones? Hormones are not changing anyone's DNA but are merely a product of it, or can be added to the body. Our bodies make hormones every day (every teenager knows this all too well). Adding hormones to our bodies does not change our GMO. This is why most animals could be labeled as non-GMO.

2. We're playing God! This is unethical!
If making GMOs is unethical because we're playing God, then here's a list of everything else that would be unethical for the same reason:
-Changing the environment
-Preserving or diminishing the population of any other species but our own
-Changing the weather (people can actually make the weather rain)
-Medicine
Whether or not GMOs is playing God, humans have done a pretty good job at mimicking Him. We do it every day, doctors do it every day, engineers do it every day. Why can't farmers and scientists?

3. The long term affects!
According to the entry on Wikipedia, it states "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food," and that statement is backed up by sources I will list after my argument. I know Wikipedia alone is not credible, but it leads me to my point that:

4. A Brief History of Mankind.
The making of a GMO is fairly simple. So simple that humans have been doing it for over 5,000 years (maybe even 10,000 years if you believe that farming started at round 8,000 BCE). Consider the following: You grow 100 heads of lettuce, but you notice that 48 of them are around an inch longer/bigger in diameter than the other 52. So you plant the seeds of the 48 bigger heads of lettuce while only planing 26 of the smaller ones. Now you have around 64 bigger heads of lettuce and 36 smaller heads of lettuce. You keep doing this until only the larger ones are grown. Congrats, you just made a GMO over several years of farming. I believe that Neil deGrasse Tyson summed it up quite well in the following video:



If someone has a problem with RoundUp, or other pesticides, that's something else. That's understandable. It is literally poison, you could argue that it is bad for humans. But those who argue against GMOs, I'd argue that they do not know fully what a GMO is. And I'm sure I don't know fully what GMOs are. But I believe I know enough to say that GMOs are completely harmless. Thank you for reading.
--
The Wikipedia sources:
1. "Vermont v science", The Economist (Montpelier) 411 (8886), 10 May 2014: 25–26
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). "Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"
3. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union. 2010. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." (p. 16)
4. Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics 188 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547.