Due to their recombinant nature and the potential health and environmental risks they carry with them, GMOs pose an ethical dilemma that asks whether the potential benefits of increased food supply, economic gain, and sustainability that could come with GMOs are worth the potential health and environmental risks they pose. In the United States and the rest of the world, both proponents and opponents of GMO implementation exist. Proponents of GMO implementation argue that the potential risks of GMOs are outweighed by their potential benefits, reasoning that GMOs can provide healthy food to people in developing countries, introduce less pesticides into the environment by creating plants that create their own pesticides or are heartier than …show more content…
Farmers benefit from the decreased cost of producing food or buying pesticides; the poor benefit from increased food supply as foods are engineered to have a longer shelf, plants are engineered to grow in harsher environments, and foods are engineered to contain more necessary nutrients; and GMO companies benefit as they make a profit by selling their products. However, many people could be harmed if GMOs are allowed. People could fall sick or suffer other negative health consequences as a result of unhealthy GMOs. Additionally, the environment could be harmed if delicate ecosystems were harmed by the introduction of GMOs. In contrast, opponents of GMO implementation argue that the potential benefits of GMOs are not worth the risks they pose. Opponents of GMOs contend that GMO foods are unsafe, as there has been little research conducted on GMOs’ effects on humans and the environment; they argue that GMOs have the potential to disrupt delicate ecosystems by wiping out natural, unmodified plant species. In addition, challengers of GMOs fear the health effects of GMOs, citing an incident in which genetically modified tryptophan killed 37 people. In general, GMO opponents want more government regulation, more testing, and more health standards before GMOs