Who is correct in the debate over genetic modification? Of course, there will be a countless number of opinions on this, and so far, nobody’s has been proven to be correct. Like most other debates, true evidence exists on all sides and one could argue either way. On the positive side of the GMO debate, people argue that GMO’s yield higher amounts of food than organic crops and have a higher survival rate. However, the negative (and majority) side believes that GMO’s hurt the environment, our health, and cost farmers more money than regular crops. Both are true, but which one is more true? To determine this would be difficult, but could be necessary in the near future. GMO production shouldn’t be completely ceased, but they should be highly regulated and labeled, and there should be a watch to see if the environment will be seriously affected by their further production. If this solution happens, it is likely that both sides will be happier, and the problems tied to GMO’s will at least be reduced. Genetic engineering involves highly complex methods of testing and cross breeding crops. The earliest known records of manipulating crops date back thousands of years. The GE process came with the Green Revolution in the 20th …show more content…
There is also not very much definite evidence towards their alleged health impacts. But, should we honor people’s concerns with GMO’s by letting them have the option to eat them if they want? Yes, and labeling GMO products would be the best way to do so. Most people want this, in fact, and labeling would probably quell any of their complaints. In an ABC News survey, “93 percent of people say that the federal government should require labels” (Langer). If 93 percent of people believe that GMO’s are bad, measures should definitely be take to fix this. Despite any lack of evidence, GMO’s are seen as bad things, and need to be