As the world population grows and the climate changes, feeding global citizens has become a major challenge for humanity. Researchers and stakeholders in the food industry have been forced to propose innovative yet effective ways to tackle this problem with varying degrees of success. Gene editing and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been proposed to solve the current challenge. Gene editing allows scientists to alter the genetic makeup of organisms and introduce desired traits such as disease resistance, drought-withstanding capabilities, and nutritional output. These technologies face multiple hurdles because they are still relatively young, and the long-term effects of genetically modified foods are still unclear. This raises ethical concerns as some stakeholders are concerned that the proposed solutions might have far-reaching unforeseen consequences for humanity. This essay evaluates the arguments for and against gene editing and GMOs to educate the public on the gains and potential drawbacks of the technologies.

The major point in support of genetic editing is its capability to introduce desirable traits into organisms while suppressing negative features. Extant research suggests that humanity could utilize gene editing to enhance the quality of food available for consumption and allow people to eliminate disease-causing mutations in human bodies. In an article investigating this phenomenon, Gyngell et al. argue that heritable genome editing (HGE) can improve the disease-fighting capabilities of future generations and enhance their quality of life (521). Similar benefits can be replicated in food items with a high degree of success, enabling global populations to overcome existing shortages. The study shows that many biological components of human and crop diseases can be eliminated through gene editing. The benefits here are two-fold: global food production increases, and people have a better quality of life due to an ability to withstand specific medical conditions.

Another argument supporting gene editing and GMOs is increased yield and higher nutritional capacity. Studies over the past ten years indicate that gene editing has enhanced agricultural production by 22% (Norero). As a result, farmers can harvest more than they did in the past, directly addressing the growing demand for food worldwide. Increased output from the same piece of land translates to higher profits for farmers and allows them to lower the price of produce. This is a major step toward overcoming current challenges, and stakeholders should consider these facts before opposing these technologies (Norero). At the same time, GMOs have better nutrient capacity because scientists can manipulate their genes. As a result, consumers access better-balanced meals that are more readily available than in the past, solving current food shortages.

The proponents of gene editing also link the practice to environmental conservation and sustainability. As highlighted above, genetically modified organisms are more resistant to disease. They are also better positioned to overcome drought and harsh weather conditions. Farmers require minimal pesticides and drugs when rearing genetically altered plants and animals. This translates to a balanced ecosystem since there is minimal interference with weeds and other organisms that reside in the soil. The American Food and Drug Administration postulates that contrary to popular belief that eating GMOs converts the consumer to a genetically altered organism, animals across the world have been consuming GMOs with no changes to their genetic makeup. This dispels fears that GMOs’ ability to withstand harsh conditions affects humanity. Consequently, people can use these products without the fear that their safety and genetic makeup are at risk.

Despite the benefits of gene editing and GMOs, these technologies have various concerns. One of the primary issues of editing is the lack of long-term studies on their impact on human health and the environment. Unlike traditional plant and animal breeding methods, genetically modified organisms are a relatively new and untested technology. Short-term studies, such as the one by the American Food and Drug Administration, show that consuming GMOs has no adverse effects on humans. Indeed, animals have been consuming genetically edited foods with no changes to their genetic makeup. However, (Henry et al.) posit that limited literature on the long-term effects of people consuming GMOs should concern stakeholders (1). Caution should be applied to ensure humanity does not invite unforeseen challenges as scientists address food shortages. Until extensive studies address these concerns, there is a legitimate cause for caution in the widespread adoption of GMOs and gene editing technologies.

The use of GMOs and gene editing technologies also raises ethical concerns. Opponents fear that alterin