The question of whether agricultural biotechnology is justified (or safe) is difficult to answer, and I see arguments for both sides. I lean towards being pro agricultural biotechnology, simply because the benefit it could have for people in need of greater micronutrient intake has been concretely defined, whereas potential consequences are mostly theoretical. It doesn't feel right to potentially deprive a group of people of a benefit based off of theoretical risks.
For example, in the article titled "The Deadly Opposition to GM Food", it is stated that vitamin A deficiency kills over half a million children under 5 each year; another half million go blind. The same article claims that about 2 ounces of golden rice provide roughly 60% of the RDA of vitamin A. How can one possibly deny young children, born into a situation outside their control, adequate nutrition based off of a maybe?
I actually used to be "anti-GMO" prior to this case discussion. But, I didn't have the full picture. I didn't understand that GMOs could be used to fix micronutrient problems. I didn't know that half of what opponents said might not be totally based in fact. I just heard whatever the media was saying, like "it might cause cancer, Monsanto is evil, we will lose all biodiversity, etc". Now that I understand the why behind the invention of some GMOs (not just to make big companies money, but to correct micronutrient deficiencies) I see things in a very different light. Monsanto may still be an "evil company" (a discussion for another time), but before this class I didn't even really know what a GMO was. I just knew they were "bad".
Could GMOs potentially cause loss of biodiversity? Yes, I think so. What if we start relying on one crop and something causes that crop to die off? Could that not create food shortages and worse issue? I think it could, however, I think biodiversity could be created in the same way we have created GMOs, so it might be possible to stay on top of something like that. Another way to avoid loss of biodiversity is not using the same seeds all around the world, but tailoring the seed to the region and people. This not only would create biodiversity, but it would make the attempt to provide people with certain nutrients more effective as well. If the strong outcry against GMOs would stop, who knows what could be invented with more freedom and acceptance of the product.
GMO seeds are likely more cost effective and sustainable long term than supplements or fortification as well. Making such products likely creates waste and other harms to the environment, and it has been shown they aren't sustainable for certain populations. We might be able to create GMOs with genes that increase soil health, or maybe we could invent a tree that utilizes more CO2 to keep our air clean.
Opponents of GMOs, people who are usually strong environmental and civil/human rights activists as well, could actually be hurting the environment (by making it difficult to continue to create more GMOs) and violating human rights by withholding access to better nutrition.
Ok, so the more I write on, I feel like I definitely more than "lean towards" being a proponent of GMOs, haha. Are there risks with GMOs? Well, of course. Anything new and unprecedented invention has unforeseen risks. However, I don't think that is a reason to fight it. If we did this, literally ever medication invented should be treated the same way, yet for the most part we have no problem trying new medications if we think they might improve our health. In fact, a lot of medications are kind of like GMOs. For example, the antibiotic penicillin was originally discovered when it was produced by a fungus. Then scientists modified it, changed stuff around, gave it new names, so that it would work better in our bodies. Sounds pretty similar to agricultural biotechnology to me!