When consumers hear the term “GMO,” (which is short for Genetically Modified Organism) they automatically shift into a mode of rejection and turn their noses up. GMOs are bad, right? Maybe they are, but here’s a new view: maybe they aren’t.

A recent debate tournament I competed in had me thinking. A primary topic of discussion was the idea of regulating Genetically Modified Organisms by labeling all GMOs. I held the generic view that GMOs were bad without even knowing what they really were. While doing research for this topic, I came across a plethora of websites that claimed the danger of modified foods was that consequences were unknown. Then, I came across a few websites that described the benefits of GMOs. They generally held the idea that since GMOs have no known consequences, they weren’t dangerous, and that modified organisms are the reason we are able to feed our world.

While I was building up cases for each side of the argument, I surprised myself by siding in support of the latter. Come to think of it, it was actually quite straightforward factor that led me to my conclusion. I realized that we need GMOs to survive. Let’s face it, an estimated 70 percent of the food they sell at grocery stores are GMOs. The Chips Ahoy cookies you munch on, the Arizona teas you drink, and even the cereals you eat before school are all products of genetic engineering.

To make a long story short, GMOs are the reason we are able to feed our exponentially-growing population. They are made to be resistant against dangerous conditions that would normally destroy a whole harvest. For those of you who still shudder at the term “GMO,” hear me out: we would very likely starve to death in the future without them. In order to feed everybody on earth, we need a more reliable source of food, and this seems to be a very viable option for us as of today.

Many opponents of GMO products claim that they pose threats to our health. Recent research done by numerous independent studies say otherwise. They all reached the conclusion that GMOs cannot be directly related to harms, and some also stated that they are just as safe as conventional foods. The scientists could in no way shape or form could connect the dots between the health detriments that opponents were claiming (allergies, decreased nutrition, antibiotic resistance) to the foods.

All in all, I truly believe society is stirring up a huge fuss over a trivial matter.

Do you support the cause to prevent the spread world hunger? Yes? Then why are you against GMOs?

I believe GMO can work perfectly as an acronym for a different title: generally misunderstood organism.