Since the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops in 1996, modern agriculture has undergone a profound transformation. At that time, global GM crop cultivation covered only about 1.7 million hectares. Over the following decades, adoption accelerated steadily across continents. By 2023, the global planting area of genetically modified crops had reached approximately 206.3 million hectares, representing an increase of about 121 times compared to 1996 and accounting for around 13.38% of the world’s total arable land. The cumulative planting area of GM crops since their introduction has now exceeded 3.4 billion hectares, reflecting their sustained and large-scale integration into global agricultural systems. Today, 67 countries and regions across six continents have approved genetically modified crops for cultivation and/or import.

Despite this rapid expansion, public concern surrounding the safety, nutritional value, and environmental impact of genetically modified crops has never fully subsided. Questions such as “Are GM foods safe to eat?”, “Do they harm human health?”, and “Do they violate nature?” continue to fuel debate. To address these concerns responsibly, it is essential to examine the issue through the lens of scientific evidence rather than emotion or speculation.

1. Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe? The Global Scientific Consensus

Over the past two decades, the safety of genetically modified foods has been one of the most intensively studied topics in food science. International scientific and regulatory bodies have reached a strong and consistent consensus: genetically modified foods that have passed rigorous safety assessments are at least as safe as their conventional counterparts.

The World Health Organization (WHO) states that GM foods currently available on the international market have undergone thorough safety evaluations and are unlikely to pose risks to human health. In countries where these foods have been approved, population-level monitoring has not shown adverse health effects associated with their consumption.

Similarly, the European Commission reviewed more than 130 research projects conducted over 25 years by over 500 independent scientific groups. The conclusion was clear: biotechnology—particularly genetic modification—does not introduce greater risks than conventional breeding methods.

In the United States, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine conducted a comprehensive two-year review of approximately 900 studies published over the previous 30 years. Their findings indicated no substantiated evidence that currently commercialized genetically modified crops pose higher health risks than traditionally bred crops. No diseases were found to be causally linked to the consumption of GM foods, nor was there conclusive evidence that GM crops cause environmental harm.

These conclusions are not based on isolated studies but on a vast body of multidisciplinary, long-term research.

2. Reducing Real-World Food Safety Risks Through Genetic Modification

In some cases, genetically modified crops do more than match the safety of conventional crops—they actually reduce existing food safety risks.

Take maize (corn) as an example. Conventional maize is highly susceptible to damage from pests such as the corn borer. Insects create entry points for fungal infections, especially under humid conditions, leading to the production of mycotoxins such as aflatoxins and fumonisins. Aflatoxin is a potent carcinogen, with toxicity several times greater than that of potassium cyanide, and is strongly associated with liver cancer and other severe health outcomes.

Genetically modified insect-resistant maize produces Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) protein, which protects the plant from pest damage. As a result, the crop is far less likely to develop fungal contamination, significantly reducing the risk of mycotoxin exposure. This benefit is particularly important in regions with limited storage infrastructure or challenging climate conditions.

3. Allergies and Genetic Modification: One of the Strictest Safety Controls

One of the most persistent public fears about GM foods is the potential to trigger new allergic reactions. In reality, allergenicity is one of the most strictly regulated aspects of genetic modification.

During the development process, scientists deliberately avoid using genes derived from common allergenic sources such as peanuts, milk, eggs, or tree nuts. Any newly expressed protein undergoes extensive screening, including bioinformatic comparisons with known allergens, laboratory testing, and animal studies. If a protein shows any potential allergenic risk, the crop is rejected and never reaches the market.

For example, genetically modified soybeans undergo repeated allergenicity assessments to ensure that no new allergens are introduced. Data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) show that the overall prevalence of food allergies has not increased following the widespread adoption of GM foods. In fact, genetic modification has enabled the development of low-allergen soybean varieties, demonstrating the technology’s potential to enhance food safety rather than compromise it.

4. Nutritional Value: More Than “No Difference”

From a nutritional standpoint, genetic modification does not inherently cause nutritional deficiencies. Most commercially grown GM crops—such as herbicide-tolerant soybeans and insect-resistant maize—have macronutrient profiles (protein, fat, carbohydrates) that are nutritionally equivalent to those of conventional varieties.

However, newer generations of genetically modified and gene-edited crops are increasingly designed to improve nutritional quality directly. Examples include:

- Golden Rice, engineered to produce beta-carotene (a precursor of vitamin A), aimed at reducing vitamin A deficiency in developing regions;

- Vitamin C–enriched tomatoes, created through gene editing to boost antioxidant content;

- Astaxanthin-rich maize, providing a powerful antioxidant with potential health benefits;

- Zinc-enriched, low-cadmium rice, which simultaneously increases essential micronutrients while reducing heavy metal accumulation.

In the United States, certain GM maize varieties have demonstrated a roughly 20% increase in tryptophan content. Tryptophan is an essential amino acid that the human body cannot synthesize and that is often scarce in plant-based foods. For individuals following vegetarian or plant-forward diets, this improvement is nutritionally meaningful.

Other examples include genetically modified canola oil with significantly higher levels of unsaturated fatty acids, which may benefit cardiovascular health, and genetically engineered dairy products designed to increase lactoferrin and immune-supporting components while reducing fat content.

5. Benefits Beyond Nutrition: Environmental and Agricultural Efficiency

The impact of genetically modified crops extends beyond human nutrition into broader environmental and agricultural systems.

Maize engineered to express phytase improves phosphorus bioavailability in animal feed, reducing the need for supplemental phosphorus additives. This not only lowers feed costs but also decreases phosphorus excretion in animal waste, helping to mitigate water pollution and eutrophication. Producing phytase directly through crops is also more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly than industrial enzyme production.

Insect-resistant genetically modified rice effectively controls pests such as stem borers, increasing yield stability while reducing chemical pesticide use by up to 80%. Bt protein has been used safely in agriculture for over 70 years, with no documented cases of toxicity or allergic reactions in humans. It is a naturally derived biological insecticide and is even permitted in organic farming systems.

6. “Against Nature”? A Misunderstood Concept

The argument that genetic modification is “unnatural” is one of the most common yet conceptually flawed criticisms.

From a historical perspective, agriculture itself is an ongoing process of altering nature. Modern crops bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors. Corn, wheat, rice, and many other staples have been profoundly reshaped through selective breeding over thousands of years.

Even the sweet potato provides a striking example: research has shown that ancient sweet potato varieties contain DNA from Agrobacterium, suggesting a naturally occurring genetic modification event that contributed to tuber formation. In other words, humans have been consuming “naturally transgenic” foods long before modern biotechnology existed.

Techniques such as hybridization, mutagenesis, and hormone-based cultivation were all inspired by natural biological processes. Genetic modification differs primarily in its precision, predictability, and traceability, not in its fundamental relationship with nature.

7. Scientific Prudence: Ongoing Research, Not Blind Acceptance

The scientific community has never claimed that genetic modification is entirely risk-free. On the contrary, scientific rigor demands continuous monitoring, reassessment, and improvement.

All technologies carry risks; what matters is whether those risks are identified, quantified, and managed responsibly. Conventional agriculture relies heavily on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which pose well-documented environmental and health risks. Through regulation and scientific oversight, these risks are mitigated rather than ignored.

Genetic modification is subject to similarly strict—and often more stringent—regulatory frameworks. Based on the current body of evidence, genetically modified foods that pass safety assessments are safe to consume, nutritionally comparable to conventional foods, and, in some cases, nutritionally superior. Many widespread fears stem not from new scientific findings but from misunderstandings of how the technology works.

Conclusion

In an era marked by population growth, climate change, and increasing pressure on agricultural systems, genetic modification is not a universal solution—but it is an important tool. Approaching GM crops rationally does not mean uncritical acceptance, nor does it justify blanket rejection. It means evaluating the technology based on evidence, transparency, and scientific reasoning.

Ultimately, the greatest risk lies not in the technology itself, but in fear-driven narratives that obscure scientific facts. A balanced, informed perspective allows society to harness the benefits of genetic modification while responsibly managing its challenges.

References

- Vega Rodríguez, A., Rodríguez-Oramas, C., Sanjuán Velázquez, E., et al. (2022) Myths and Realities about Genetically Modified Food: A Risk-Benefit Analysis. Applied Sciences, 12(6):2861.

- Evaluation of adverse effects/events of genetically modified food consumption: a systematic review of animal and human studies (2022), Environmental Sciences Europe, 34:8.

- Calderón de la Barca, A. M. (2009) Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health. Nutrition Reviews, 67(1), 1–16.

- Genetically Modified Crops: The Truth Unveiled” (2015), Agriculture & Food Security.

- Genetically Modified Plants: Nutritious, Sustainable, yet Underrated” (2020), The Journal of Nutrition.