by GMOs, Genetically modified organisms have existed as a result of human biotechnology since 1973 when Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen inserted a anti-biotic resistant gene into a bacteria. Ever since the process of copying and pasting favorable genes into different organisms was created, there have been many different kinds of GMOs introduced into our food supply. Natural selection over many many generations picks the genes which suit the individual best to survive, but since the domestication of humans and plants, certain species have been artificially selected to survive. The process of naturally breeding plants and animals selects genes at a fraction of the time compared to natural selection. But since the creation of genetic modification, humans now have the ability to naturally select useful genes in a fraction of the time compared to natural breeding, demonstrating a massive potential for food.
This gave humanity the power to evolve plants or animals to specific environmental needs that would otherwise not happen or take too long. As good as this sounds for feeding the human population, there poses the unforeseen health consequences of adding GMOs to our diet. Many GMOs will pose no harm to people when there consumed, but certain ones, such as growth hormones have been shown to cause negative side effects. And the public is very uninformed on which ones do what. The moral dilemma lies in the fact that GMOs, as helpful as they are, are a huge source of profit and therefore will be advertised as healthier than may be. This means that companies will avoid researching adverse side effects to keep sales and profits higher. It is easy to measure the increase in crop yield, or cattle size, but hard to measure whether they cause tumors or an increase of gluten disorders because that will make people avoid buying food with GMOs. Some huge biotech companies are even paying millions of dollars to stop the initiative of making GMO labels mandatory on food.
Profit is a strong drive for invention, but it also hinders the drive for public health if the two conflict with each other. If the health effects of GMOs for each specific seed or hormone were properly researched, GMOs could earn a much better public image and be implemented to help feed impoverished areas. This also would take into account the patents held on genetic code, but that is a different matter. If specific GMOs are scientifically proven to be good for the public health then they can achieve their full potential for food. This would include growing crops that require less, water, heat, sun, or vice versa so that they can be grown in areas where naturally developed crops would die. This could create crops that contain more nutrients such as golden rice which has more vitamin A to feed impoverished regions. And finally plants that grow with a higher produce relative to work put in to grow it.
To unlock the full potential of GMOs, companies in charge of developing them need to fund research for public health. This will of course cost the companies a lot and most likely reduce their profits, but nevertheless would allow for genetically modifying food to reach its full potential for feeding humanity.