The problem I run into when discussing GMOs is that the category is far too broad. There are many, many products and ingredients which fall under this label; some are controversial ingredients, and others are not. I don't think it's helpful to lump everything together and call it "good" or "bad," and I think the side effects will depend on the specific GMO you encounter.
While a knee-jerk reaction to something that has been "genetically-modified" is understandable, consider this: in 1970, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize was a man named Norman Borlaug. He is credited with saving over a billion lives thanks to GMOs. More specifically, he developed a type of wheat that could produce very high yields without falling over: "In India, yields increased from 12.3 million tons in 1965 to 20.1 million tons in 1970. By 1974, India was self-sufficient in the production of all cereals" (
wikipedia). People were starving, and his scientific innovation saved their lives. "Genetically-modified" isn't a label that, in itself, describes danger or health hazards.
The FDA, and many other countries, have found no discernible difference in the nutritional value of GMOs and non-GMOs. That said, our nation's culinary history is filled with regulatory failures on the part of the FDA to accurately asses food risks. I do think the most important thing is continued research, and more transparent labeling. If a company was forced to declare whether their food contains GMOs, then the consumer can make informed, personal decisions. I think we also need more scientific study on the environmental effects of continued GMOs. Most importantly, I think consumers need to educate themselves about the different types of GMOs and about the products they purchase, which is why foodfacts.com is such a valuable tool!
