GMOs have been largely contested by the public. While some companies advocate for the benefits of GMOs, others claim that these bioengineered products can be harmful to consumers. The debate surrounding GMOs is held in all spheres of public domain, from political, to academic, to social, to economic.
A. M. Salariya, et al. and Behrokh Mohajer Maghari, both outline social and health concerns regarding GMOs. Maghari provides a balanced outline of GMOs, taking into account both the positive and negative aspects of their use. Elimination of world hunger and environmental benefits are both mentioned as positive proponents to the GMO debate. Salariya on the other hand, takes a more aggressive stance against GMOs, arguing against it’s use, providing arguments from economic, health, and ethical standpoints. These sources attempt to shed light on the multitude of risks surrounding GMOs, bringing to light some aspects that may not be considered by the greater public. It is these aspects that create hesitancy in the public in regard to GMOs.
Authors Buah and Morrison, on the other hand, claim that through exposure and education of GMOs to the public, there seems to be a positive correlation regarding public awareness and acceptance of GMOs. What should be noted is that both studies done by Buah and Morrison were held in developing countries (Ghana and Guyana), which could impact the way in which the public views GMOs. These studies essentially propose that public hesitancy is a result of a lack of public awareness — which can be cured through both personal and institutional attempts. It is through education that the risks of GMOs are broken down, and the true benefits of GMOs are brought to light.
But, what we can witness from Alan Miller’s law review is a complete opposite of this claim. While developing countries may present a greater acceptance to GMOs post-education, European countries such as Germany show an unwavering prohibition of genetically modified foods. Despite having an understanding of the benefits of GMOs, European countries prohibit the importation of genetically modified organisms or products due to ethical, and well as social issues.
It can be seen then, through these studies, that the acceptance of GMOs within a country are not merely determined by facts and studies, but instead on the overall ethical and social aspects surrounding them. What can be done in regard to the GMO controversy is provide a clear and concise education regarding genetically modified organisms, so that individuals are able to make their own choices. Education can be provided in a top-down method, such as the studies in Ghana and Guyana, or it can be done by individuals themselves. The risk of GMOs are and will always be surrounded by mystery — and it should be up to the individual whether or not they want to participate. The government should be responsible for providing enough free and easy-to-access information regarding GMOs, and also must regulate GMOs appropriately, so as to make the public aware of their consumption, and provide them with the prompts to participate or opt out of being GMO consumers.