In looking at the pros and cons of genetic engineering, we have to consider the technology in the fields of agriculture, food production, and medicine. Many crops such as rice, maize, and potatoes are being genetically engineered in several ways.

1. In looking at the pros and cons of genetic engineering, we have to consider the
technology in the fields of agriculture, food production, and medicine. Many crops such as rice,
maize, and potatoes are being genetically engineered in several ways. Proponents argue that the
benefits are many; 1) higher crop yields 2) more nutritious food 3) crops can be grown in harsh
environments 4) they are more resistant to pests thus eliminating the use of potentially hazardous
pesticides 5) undesirable characteristics can be removed 6) food can have a better flavor and a
longer shelf life and 7) they can also be used as a cheap source of medicine.
Treating many life-threatening illnesses, genetic engineering aims to replace faulty genes
with perfect working copies and the potential is incredible. It's fair to say that so far the
technology hasn't quite lived up to its expectations or potential for that matter. It's an
extraordinarily difficult job to get a gene to exactly where you want it in the body as well as for it
to function in the way that you wish. Add in the immense pressure from our expectations that
were probably too high right out of the gate.
In terms of gene therapy this can be a very dangerous procedure. A virus is being used as
a vector to get the genes inside, and some fear that even though the virulence factors have been
silenced, vulnerability is still at hand. There's also a risk that a gene could land in a spot other
than where you want it and cause harm by being expressed in unusual ways.
Opposition to the use of genetic engineering in food and agriculture centers on several
fears. A genetic modification that is passed on say through pollination, might pose a hazard to
the ecosystem. There's also a concern that unusual gene expression may lead to crops causing
more allergic reactions in consumers.

2. There are many more pros and cons of genetic engineering than that are listed here. We
enter debates fervently in favor of promoters on both sides, many clutch onto reams of data to
back up their influences. When we are uneducated about the foods we consume, it makes it very
problematic for someone to appreciate the scope of what is going on, especially when
participants seem equally eminent and well competent.
What is certain is that even though many are concerned with its speed of introduction,
fearing that it is going too fast for society to understand any and all possible implications.
Regardless of how long we debate and throw a million questions around, genetic engineering is
here to stay. Of course there are many people who view this kind of genetic manipulation as
going against the will of nature. Supporters of genetic engineering counter this by arguing that
man has been employing genomes for centuries with the selective breeding of crops and cattle.
Susan Bly views it as going against nature as a “terminated argument, unless they want to go
back and live in a cave.” Every single technological advance from the pills that keep some
people alive to the clothes we wear and the vehicles we travel in is against the course of nature.
On June 23, 2016, Senators Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
introduced a compromise bill that would create a mandatory, national labeling standard for GMO
foods. This bill was passed by the Senate on July 7th, the House of Representatives on July 14th,
and signed by the President on July 29th. Although this bill is the first mandatory legislation
introduced in Congress it falls short of what consumers expect, a simple glance disclosure on the
package. As written, this compromise may not even apply to ingredients derived from GMO
soybeans and GMO sugar beets. In response to these state efforts, Representatives Mike Pompeo
(R-Kan.) and G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) introduced federal legislation developed by food
companies that we in the consumer rights community have dubbed the “Deny Americans the

3. Right-to-Know” Act or The DARK Act. This is not the end of the fight though, we need to
continue pressing for mandatory GMO labeling on the package. Senate Republicans will
continue to push their agenda of a voluntary standard and we need to keep the pressure on our
elected officials that more than 90% of Americans support mandatory GMO labeling, not
voluntary.