I am modestly accepting of GMO food.
But a legitimate objection to GMO food, IMO, is *not* that they are modified, but that their cultivation permits the use of much more toxic pesticides....which remain as residues on the consumed food and also find their way into waterways. And, I believe that many who are indifferent to GMO are not aware of this additional aspect.
I bring this up not to advocate one thing or another, but as an “unintended consequence” type of deal that I think people should consider. I doubt we can or necessarily should go back to non-GMO strains of various grains, and without question, the use of GMO crops can dramatically raise productivity = important in a world facing widespread food shortages.
“without question, the use of GMO crops can dramatically raise productivity = important in a world facing widespread food shortages”
This is a myth. The “shortage” is:
(1) not exactly in food/grain-crop production, as much as it is in distribution (getting, and paying to get, enough of the food [grains mostly] that is produced in surplus, to the places some of the excess of that surplus is needed, most;
(2) and not entirely a lack of aeriable land and sufficient water/and/or/precipitation for growing crops as much as it is the world’s food surpluses are cheaper than the prices that wpuld support local farmers in some places, because the abundance of cheap international, subsidized, surpluses depresses many local markets (in Ethiopia, trucks delivering U.S., European and South American highly subsidized food “aid” drive from their pick-up points to “aid centers”, passing on the highways warehouses of unsold local farm produce that cannot get contracts for that “aid” because they cannot compete with the “developed” world’s tax-payer subsidized farm surpluses, which discourages, not encourages, local farming - a fact that happens all over Africa).
GM foods have nothing to do with the world “growing enough” food; the earlier “green revolution” that used selective cross-breading and also brought many local and “wild” versions of crops (hardier crops) into that process, pretty much ended the idea that “enough” food could not be grown in the world, if issues involving other factors - economics, land, water - could end the hurdles that those issues alone provide.
GM food is not about the world growing enough food, it is ALL about making crops that create financial incentives for the use of other agricultural products - pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers, by producing genes that make crops that work better with those things or that incorporate elements of those things into the genes themselves.
One result may be more production per acre, but that result alone stimulates demand for more fertilzer, as you can’t keep getting more out of the same plot of land if you don’t give it more fertilizers.
As the world now produces tons of surpluses it must subsidize in order to sell, producing “more” is simply, by itself, NOT the issue, and therefore NOT something GM-crops are in need of, or being put to, solving.
Actually, most genetic modifications are made with the purpose of making the plant more resistant to drought, mold and/or pests, which leads to LESS use of pesticides, not more. This is especially important in Europe, where they restrict the use of pesticides and even fertilizers much more than we do in the U.S.