GMOs: Economically and Politically

In the 20th century, the agricultural industry has developed substantially. According to Melissa Petruzzello, assistant managing editor of Britannica, the development of the first Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) in 1973 improved the bioengineering field (Petruzzello). By 2024, their development process has grown exponentially, and the market is saturated with genetically modified crops and animal products. This new type of food can be developed quicker and cheaper, benefiting the farming and grocery industries. However, due to the unknown nature of GMOs, there is little regulation surrounding them, which posits the question — do the benefits of genetic modification in the U.S. agricultural industry outweigh their consequences? While GMOs are beneficial economically, further control is needed within the agricultural industry, through systems such as labeling, to prevent unforeseen negative impacts. 

The economic benefits of GMOs convey how vital the products are to the food industry. Roger N. Beachy, Professor of Biology at Washington University, states that knowledge and scientific developments of the present are the result of  “prior investments made 10-15 years earlier” (4). This decade-long delay proves how, for the positive impacts of GMO foods to be seen quickly in the U.S., action must be taken. Professors Ainsley Newson and Anthony Wrigley, Professor of Bioethics at Sydney Health and Director of Research at Keele University, respectively, build upon Beachy’s reasons to support GMOs, writing how “[t]he economic advantages of genome editing may readily lead to a rapid expansion of the application of the technique” (7). If economic industries are properly subsidized, GM could become a powerful tool. The methods of regulating them are exemplified through the regulation of GMOs in China, as explained by Zhang Tao and Zhou Shudong, IMF's Deputy Managing Director and Professor of Economics at Nanjing Agricultural University, respectively, who believe that for the GM industry to be profitable, it is best if “biotechnology research projects are privately financed” (51). With this system of regulation, scientists could have the freedom to turn the products they create into profits efficiently. Justus Wesseler and David Zilberman, Professors of Agricultural Economics at UC Berkeley and Wageningen University respectively, elaborate on Tao and Shudong’s claims, stating that Golden Rice, a type of GM rice in India, generated  “at least US$1.7 billion or about US$200 million per year” (672). The research of Tao, Shudong, Wesseler, and Zilberman exhibits how the avails of GMOs are already aiding the economies of countries such as China and India. If America employed their methods of supporting that industry, the profits could create jobs. This would create a symbiotic relationship between the increase in the industry and the decrease in unemployment, which would serve as an integral benefit of GMO incorporation in America. 

While integrating GMOs into America’s economy seems simple, problems arise when it comes to the consumer’s right to know what they are eating. This emphasizes a need for GMOs to be labeled within stores. However, Benjamin Senauer, Professor of Economics at the University of Minnesota, states that not only do GM labels “add to the cost of the food” (2), but “dairy farmers could not be involuntarily forced to label their products, since the FDA had ruled that there was no substantial difference” (3). Thus, not only is there an economic concern with labeling, but political ones as well, since the regulations would rest on opinion rather than fact. On the other hand, Jennifer Kuzma, co-founder of the Genetic Engineering Society, contradicts Senauer, stating that the reason most consumers avoid GM foods is because they are unknown, and people are drawn to products they find familiar. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law signed by President Obama in 2016 lent itself to this concern, requiring “food manufacturers to disclose the presence of GM foods and ingredients” (Kuzma 82). A customer knowing if they are consuming a GMO creates a greater feeling of safety between the company and consumer. Stephanie Beasley, science and global development reporter, expands upon Obama’s law. She writes how the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Biotechnology Industry Organization propose a compromise to the labeling of GM foods. She suggests that the products should go under examination before they are placed on the market, and should be labeled as genetically modified only if they are “shown to pose a health risk” (Beasley 2). This would allow for more equality in the perception of GM and non-GM foods, since they do not differ in their end result. This would lead to more customers purchasing GMOs, and companies maximizing their profits. While food safety groups have criticized this solution because it would “keep consumers in the dark,” it is important to understand that it is impossible to please everyone, so governments should go with the solution that pleases most (Beasley 2). The idea that GMOs are negatively impactful shows a lack of concern for the food, but instead how it was made. Thus, labels should focus on the safety of the actual product, not its manufacturing. If the current labeling system were altered, GMO developers would have more funding to perfect their products. 

Gene editing (GE) issues run deeper than just labeling. As GE animals begin to enter the market, problems with regulation have arisen.  The primary concern that arises is the well-being of animals. Margaret Grossman, Professor of Agricultural Law at the University of Illinois, discusses how The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) currently regulates the rights of typical animals, but that act did not initially include GE animals (191). Their protection is so new, just like many aspects of the GM practice, and thus their rights are still being formulated. However, Betsy Reed, editor-in-chief of Guardian US, elaborates on Grossman’s report, writing that there are a myriad of techniques that can improve their quality of life, including “making animals resistant to heat and disease, reducing methane emissions and increasing productivity.” While this would ultimately benefit the animals greatly, Reed understands that the true issue lies within farms' livestock regulation, because “Ideally, we would reform farming practices, rather than modifying animals to fit them. But if we can’t achieve the ideal, the best option may be to pursue genome editing while also taking steps to reform factory farming.” Farming should be reformed without sacrificing the well-being of animals in the process, and GM techniques could aid that, permitting the animals to live healthy lives. On the other hand, the economic implications of GE animals come into focus when considering their modification, Grossman noting one example: the AquAdvantage Salmon. She writes that the fish “is the FDA’s first approval of a New Animal Drug Application for a GE animal used as food” (Grossman 193). It grows faster and consumes less feed, affording many economic benefits. The process of approval for this salmon took twenty years, and its impacts on the market are just now being seen. This highlights the physical benefits of allowing GM technicians to alter livestock freely and demonstrates the importance of investing in them immediately, due to how long it takes to get their product past restrictions. If these restrictions were loosened, it would allow GM technicians to not only work more efficiently but allow the benefits to impact the current market. 

When it comes to the question of whether or not the benefits of GM products in the agricultural industry outweigh the detriments, it is clear that the positive impacts on the regulation of animal health and the economy are far greater than the negative effects of GM integration into the market. Only labeling GM products that differ from the actual makeup of natural ones allows scientists to freely work and create the best result possible. This is a pivotal moment in agricultural history and working to allow freedom in the development of GM products can hold positive impacts that will aid the economy and animal rights.