Genetically modified food: Would you eat it?

Column on the different sides of genetically modified food


Genetically modified food

The question that I raised above is actually a trick question. It is not really for you to decide whether you would eat genetically modified food or not, because you already have. The fact that you probably thought negatively about GM (genetically modified) food there provides us with the basis of the continuing debate about whether they are safe or not.


GM foods are created to enhance the product with respect to the producer and consumer of the product. This is done by creating a product with a lower price and greater benefit. This benefit can be durability or nutritional value of a food. The way this is achieved is done by altering the genetic material of an organism.

 A major example of GM food is golden rice. Rice is the staple food source for over half of the worlds’ population. Golden rice is altered in such a way that it has the ability to give off more vitamin A then regular rice. The newest golden rice adds up to twenty-three more vitamin A then ordinary rice. The importance of the golden rice lies in developing countries. In a lot of developing countries rice is the staple food but there is also a very high child mortality rate because of a shortage of vitamin A. Golden rice has been created for the very purpose of minimising children dying because of the shortage of vitamin A.

It has however, not been implemented yet. Although over ten years of testing, including field testing, has shown no adverse side-affects, companies such as Greenpeace is a major factor in not letting this product see the light of day. A company as Greenpeace writing off such a simple product which could lead to so much is ridiculous. They state it is done because allowing one GM food would open the doors to much more. I find their stance on GM food stubborn to say the least. How can an international aid organisation refuse to even look at golden rice with clear eyes. I admit, golden rice is a product which should be studied even more, to get the utmost trust in it, and should be distributed without motives to make profit. But the stubbornness of Greenpeace on GM food really struck me as odd. Products which can change the lives of so many by changing almost nothing should not be looked over that easily.


Genetically modified food is a product that could save lifes when used correctly. The fact that there is so much controversy about it makes it clear to me there should be more research into possible side-effects. Wiping GM food completely of the map however, such as Greenpeace does, just shows ignorance.