Dissecting the Debate Surrounding GMOs

GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are not new. Neither is the controversy that surrounds them.

For years, activists have decried their prevalence, causing many companies to cultivate branding around selling non-GMO products. Research suggests that the organic food and beverage market will experience annual growth of more than 13% between 2022 and 2030 due to these shifting cultural tides.

But what exactly are GMOs? Is criticism of their prevalence warranted? Is the pivot to organic alternatives a fad or a durable trend?

How Genetically Modified Crops Took Over

GMOs include plants, animals, and other organisms whose genetic makeup has been altered in a laboratory.

Genetically engineered organisms are a type of GMO involving targeted changes. In the context of public debate, proponents on both sides often use the terms interchangeably.

The first GMO crop was introduced in 1982 as a virus-resistant tobacco plant. It was not until 1994 that GMOs started showing up in food crops with the FDA approval of the Flavr Savr tomato plant.

Since then, much of the attention for GMOs has focused on three common crops in the US: corn, soybeans, and cotton. According to the USDA, 90% of these crops now come from genetically engineered seeds.

This significant shift to GMOs took place for the same reason those in the industry wanted them in the first place: efficiency. The idea was that tweaking the genetic makeup of a seed could make crops less vulnerable to insects, viruses, and the herbicides used to control weeds. Some research suggests that genetically modified corn generates a 25% higher yield while decreasing food contaminants.

As the world grapples with climate change and looks for healthier, more sustainable food alternatives, debates over GMOs have reached a fever pitch. Heated claims delivered through documentaries, speeches, op-eds, and more have shaped public opinion and policy. The validity and significance of those claims, however, can vary dramatically. Let’s break them down.

Claim #1: Foods Made With GMOs Are Inherently Dangerous to Human Health

One of the most common arguments in the GMO debate is that they introduce health risks. You’ll hear it a lot in discussions about food and GMOs. Activists claim GMOs can cause cancer, autism, and other chronic health conditions.

According to the FDA, these claims are incorrect. Their approval process is incredibly thorough and takes a laborious amount of time to navigate. They have stood by their decisions since 1994. Scientists agree. Study after study has shown no connection between GMOs and ailing health.

In fairness, other health concerns have come up in conversations about GMOs. Though they may not directly impact our health, their resistance to chemicals enables farmers to use more and more increasingly potent formulations. These, in turn, may seep into the water table.

In the US specifically, the glacial pace of EPA action on pesticides has lagged behind the rest of the world.

Though such figures may sound scary, they do not make GMOs dangerous themselves. They instead indicate the state of US regulatory and legislative priorities.

The data on the human impact of these chemicals varies, too. For example, research indicates that glyphosate – the chemical prompting the most concern – degrades so rapidly that any increase in human exposure as a result of farming GMOs has been small and unlikely to have a meaningful impact on human health.

So why do so many people believe GMOs pose such a significant public health threat? Part of the problem may be that the argument’s framing hits all the right notes. Academic researcher Stefaan Blanke put it this way:

“R]epresentations of GMOs are widespread and compelling because they are intuitively appealing. By tapping into intuitions and emotions that mostly work under the radar of conscious awareness, but are constituent of any normally functioning human mind, such representations become easy to think. They capture our attention, they are easily processed and remembered and thus stand a greater chance of being transmitted and becoming popular, even if they are untrue. Thus, many people oppose GMOs, in part, because it just makes sense that they would pose a threat.”

Is that reaction understandable? Sure. But regardless of the psychological drivers behind the public perception of the safety of GMOs, available data suggests otherwise.

Claim rating: False

Claim #2: GMOs Benefit Farmers Financially

Proponents of widespread GMO adoption insist it will help farmers’ bottom line. In addition to limiting crop loss on several fronts, data suggests that farmers see a return of more than $5 for each dollar spent on genetically modified seeds. Developing nations with low average household income may benefit significantly. India is frequently held up as an example of this.

While those numbers are encouraging, they only matter if the farmers can afford the seeds in the first place. In the past, the government and the public considered seed to be a natural resource. No one company could claim domain over a crop’s seed. Today, large corporations hold patents on genetically engineered seed. Not only is this seed expensive, but its use is ferociously controlled by the corporations that make it.

Monsanto was notoriously litigious on this front. Their business model afforded them significant control over farmer operations. In the US alone, this led to them successfully filing suit against more than 147 individual farmers for patent infringement. The Center for Food Safety explains:

“Monsanto begins the process of seizing control of farmers’ practices by getting them to sign the company’s technology agreement upon purchasing patented seeds. This agreement allows Monsanto to conduct property investigations, exposes the farmer to huge financial liability, binds the farmer to Monsanto’s oversight for multiple years, and includes a variety of other conditions that have effectively defined what rights a farmer does and does not have in planting, harvesting, and selling genetically engineered seed.

[…]

Monsanto itself admits to aggressively investigating farmers it suspects of transgressions, and evidence suggests the numbers reach into the thousands.”

While Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018 and has tried to address the issues surrounding Monsanto, ethical questions of the business model persist. Courts affirmed Monsanto’s standing in both the Bowman case and the DuPont case. As the Center for Food Safety report pointed out, this is particularly troubling since the purported patent infringement is often unintentional. By no fault of the farmer, cross-pollination by nearby GMOs taint non-GMO crops. Some argue that Monsanto intentionally facilitated this to dominate the market.

In other words, though GMOs may provide some farmers with economic benefits, they also present significant risks. Research has also found that disenfranchised populations and financially strained farmers are disproportionately vulnerable to those risks.

Claim rating: Questionable

Claim #3 – GMOs Can Solve World Hunger

Food insecurity remains a significant problem worldwide. According to a 2024 report by the UN State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World,  between 720-750 million people worldwide struggle with hunger each year. Research in 2022 estimated that one person dies from starvation every four seconds.

Advocates of GMOs argue that their widespread adoption in agriculture could help address the global hunger problem. Through increased crop resiliency and yield, the overall food supply grows.

Research does not support this assertion. Why? Because we’re not eating the crops we already have. Estimates vary, but none of the numbers are particularly encouraging.

According to the World Resources Insitute, only 37% of crops are used for direct food consumption. They add, “while croplands are expanding and crop yields are increasing overall, the proportion of direct food crops lags. This is especially problematic for the 50 countries poised to be food insecure by 2030 if current trends continue.”

The reality is that our ability to fight global hunger is more effectively addressed by shifts to plant-based diets than it is by using specific kinds of seed. Livestock agriculture is an incredibly inefficient system. It takes 18x as much land to feed a human for a year with cow meat than a plant-based diet. Whether it’s by eating food made with GMO or non-GMO crops, a pivot away from animal food products is likely to make a more meaningful difference.

Claim rating: False

Claim #4: Widespread Use of Herbicide-Resistant GMOs Would Eradicate Weeds

A primary benefit associated with GMOs is that they are designed to be resistant to herbicides. This has allowed farmers to more effectively control the spread of weeds that can limit or disrupt crop production.

This argument, originally advanced by the industry when seeking approval, has been proved entirely false. Herbicide-resistant crops have allowed farmers to dramatically increase their use of glyphosate to kill unwanted weeds, resulting in the rise of glyphosate-resistant ‘superweeds.’

According to a report from Michigan State University:

“Since the introduction of glyphosate-resistant crops, about 38 weed species worldwide have been identified that have developed resistance to glyphosate. As a result, these so-called superweeds can continue to infest fields and siphon nutrients from the valuable crops planted there, leading farmers to use other costlier – and potentially harsher – herbicides to control them.”

This phenomenon is not new. Even before GMOs, the efficacy of herbicides and pesticides would decrease over time as their targets adapted, requiring farmers to apply more of the chemicals more frequently for them to work.

In other words, while GMOs do not uniquely cause the problem, it certainly isn’t solved by them, either.

Claim rating: False

Weighing the Arguments

At the end of the day, there are valid arguments for and against growing and consuming GMOs. Their current market dominance and political support make it unlikely that a dramatic decrease in use will manifest soon.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t contemplate available data and research concerning your personal choices. I, like many others, avoid GMO foods for myself and my family because of ongoing health concerns. Such consumer trends might take longer than we would like to move the needle, but the momentum isn’t slowing down.

So whether you’re an investor contemplating agricultural biotechnology investments from a technical or ESG perspective, a consumer planning meals and making healthier selections at the grocery store, or just a citizen concerned about the world we’re leaving to our kids, we encourage you to read and then read some more. Seeking out more information improves decision-making.

We think you’ll also like:

1. ESG Investors and the Food Revolution: Embracing a Plant-Based Diet
2. Three Reasons the Consumer Goods Industry Should Be on Every Investor’s Radar
3. Approaches to Green Investing

[Editors’ Note: To learn more about this and related topics, you may want to attend the following on-demand webinars (which you can view at your leisure, and each includes a comprehensive customer PowerPoint about the topic):

1. Connecting Investors to Firms’ Food Waste Solutions
2. Challenges in the Food Chain
3. Why Green Investing?

This article was published in August 2017 and updated on February 21, 2023. This article was most recently updated by the Financial Poise Editors.]

©2025. DailyDAC^TM, LLC d/b/a/ Financial Poise^TM. This article is subject to the disclaimers found here.