The advent of technology in the scientific community can bring hope to the pressing challenges that the global community is facing. Unfortunately, progress can often be faced with opposition from those who may feel threatened from the technological advancement or may simply fail to understand the logic at hand. Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) exemplify this scenario perfectly: the adoption of genetically-modified crops has the potential to address global food security while reducing the environmental impact of intensive agriculture, improving the nutritional content of food, and decreasing the amount of fertilizer applied to crops, yet, the adoption of these crops has been met with strong opposition. Those who are raising red flags against GMOs and who have successfully influenced the debate are resorting to cultural and political factors, rather than science, to make their argument. Therefore, to have a fair and productive debate on genetically-modified organisms, those who endorse the “precautionary principle,” even if precaution is well-deserved, should put forth the effort to make an argument based on science to avoid misinforming the public. …show more content…
Although the report recognizes the limits of its findings due to restricted geographical coverage and the use of only two GE traits (insect-resistance and herbicide-resistance), the findings show that there are no adverse health effects associated with GE crops and that there appear to be social and economic benefits when using GE crops