Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Written by: Sissel Beate Rønning Published: 1/16/2025

Modern gene editing makes it possible to alter genes quickly and affordably. While this technology could help tackle major societal challenges, it raises some serious ethical questions in research: Do we fully understand the implications of modifying organisms using genetic engineering? Have we adequately addressed all safety concerns? How can we ensure fair access globally? Is it morally wrong to avoid using modern genetic engineering techniques? What should researchers keep in mind? (Published in Norwegian 28 June 2024. Translation published January 2025).

About the author: Sissel Beate Rønning is a Senior Scientist at the Norwegian Food Research Institute, Nofima AS.

Introduction

For thousands of years, people have used various breeding methods to develop plants and animals with more desirable qualities. Most of the foods we eat today, like grains, potatoes, carrots, and other vegetables, are the result of this process, as are livestock and microorganisms used in making bread, cheese, and beer. However, traditional genetic breeding methods can be time-consuming and imprecise, making it difficult to achieve the desired changes. Genetic engineering emerged in the 1970s, and by 1973, the first genetically modified organism had been created. This breakthrough made it possible to alter generations of organisms more specifically, accurately, and rapidly. Modern gene-editing tools, like CRISPR, have further enhanced the efficiency and affordability of genetic modifications. Some believe modern genetic engineering could be crucial in addressing society's major societal challenges. In contrast, others think these issues can be solved by other means. Do we fully understand the implications of modifying organisms using genetic engineering? Have we adequately addressed all safety concerns? How can we ensure fair global access? Is it morally wrong to avoid using modern genetic engineering techniques? How should researchers navigate these questions?

Genetically modified organisms have changed genetic material

Definition: A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a living organism whose DNA has been altered through genetic engineering.

Genetic modification can transfer a single gene from any organism (like a virus, bacterium, or fungus) into another, such as a plant. The technique can also alter an individual gene’s function by either deactivating it (switching it off) or amplifying its effects. The most common genetically modified qualities in plants include herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, or a combination. Improving nutritional value and appearance or extending shelf life are further qualities often targeted in genetic modification. In an uncertain future characterized by population growth and climate change, genetic engineering could also play a key role in developing resilient crops capable of withstanding more extreme climate conditions. Genetically modified microorganisms are widely used in medicine; notably, the first human-use medication produced this way was insulin, which was synthesized in bacteria and approved in the 1970s. These microorganisms can also be used to produce food and feedstock ingredients or fuels and even to break down plastics. While genetically modified animals are most frequently used in research, several countries have recently approved GM animals for farming and aquaculture. GM animals can, for example, be used to produce medicines or potentially serve as organ donors for humans. Future developments may include sterile farmed salmon, malaria-eradicating mosquitoes, and livestock with reduced feed needs or enhanced disease resistance.

Genetic engineering can solve societal problems if used wisely

The perceived benefits of GMOs for society and sustainable development significantly shape consumer attitudes. For example, consumers might value a disease-resistant chicken more highly than one genetically modified for faster growth. These considerations are also reflected in Norwegian GMO regulations. In 2019, the Danish Council on Ethics [1] declared that “it is unethical not to use genetically modified plants if they can solve major societal problems”. The EU highlights that new genomic technologies can help address some of the most pressing societal challenges. Similarly, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledges that genetic engineering can combat diseases and support sustainable food production [2]. Food security and food production are among the world’s most critical challenges, especially in the context of climate change and rapid population growth. Power dynamics and resource distribution are also central to the GMO debate. However, some argue that developing GMOs could threaten food security by damaging soil health, depleting natural resources, and exacerbating climate change.

The EU [3] and Norway [4] have the world’s strictest regulations for GMO cultivation and use. In contrast, most other countries have more relaxed regulations, which is why the majority of the world’s soy, corn, and cotton are now genetically modified. Norway’s Gene Technology Act governs the release of GMOs into the environment and their confined use in controlled settings. Through the EEA Agreement, Norway participates in the EU’s GMO approval system, meaning that GMOs approved by the EU are automatically approved in Norway unless Norway decides on a specific ban. These stringent regulations play an important role in ensuring that GMOs undergo rigorous risk assessments, identifying potential impacts on health and the environment, protecting ecosystems and biodiversity, and evaluating sustainability, ethics, and societal benefits.

Some ethical dilemmas

What sets genetic engineering apart from traditional cultivation methods? Both approaches alter genetic material, but today’s gene-editing techniques, especially CRISPR, enable rapid and highly precise genetic modifications without inserting DNA from other species. Many predict that genetic engineering will become the dominant tool of the future. In practice, it can be nearly impossible to distinguish a gene-edited plant from one developed through conventional breeding methods. Another key difference is that genetic engineering can transfer quality traits across species barriers, which traditional breeding cannot achieve. This capability allows for the rapid creation and propagation of new organisms, making it more challenging to detect and prevent unintended adverse impacts before genetically modified organisms are widely adopted.

A frequent criticism of conventional GMOs is that they are developed and patented by large multinational companies, often at the expense of small farmers in low-income countries, and consumers. These companies typically own the patents on the created GMOs, allowing them to control who can use these crops and under what conditions. This control can limit fair access to seeds and food worldwide. The use of GMOs can also impact farmers’ livelihoods, as dependence on patented seeds can reduce their autonomy. In addition, access to GMO technology is unevenly distributed globally, with some regions lacking the resources to develop or adopt GM crops. The core dilemma is whether GMOs will deepen existing inequalities or can be used to benefit everyone globally. However, with CRISPR becoming more “affordable”, the development of future GMOs may become more accessible to all.

The use of GMOs remains a hotly debated and controversial topic, as illustrated by the story of Golden Rice. Developed in the 1990s, Golden Rice was designed to increase vitamin A intake among many of the world’s populations. This rice, created with the help of genetic engineering, contains beta-carotene, a plant pigment the body can convert into vitamin A as required [5]. According to WHO, vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of blindness and mortality in children in many parts of the world. Supporters argue that Golden Rice is a powerful tool to improve many people’s health, especially in Africa and Southeast Asia, with clinical studies showing that the beta-carotene in Golden Rice can indeed be converted into vitamin A in humans [6]. However, critics believe this problem could be more effectively tackled by encouraging diets richer in vegetables high in vitamin A and supporting farmers in low-income countries to grow crops naturally high in beta-carotene. While countries like the USA, Australia, and New Zealand consider Golden Rice safe to eat, the Philippines became the first to approve its commercial cultivation in 2019. However, opposition to Golden Rice has escalated from healthy scepticism to sabotage, harassment, and the destruction of crop fields. In 2016, 159 Nobel Laureates signed an open letter to Greenpeace, the UN, and global leaders condemning Greenpeace and other organizations for opposing the product. For its part, Greenpeace argues that vitamin A deficiency should be addressed through other methods, and consequently instigated legal proceedings to ban Golden Rice. In 2024, a court ruled that the Philippine constitution requires the government to adhere to the “precautionary principle”. This means they cannot approve new crops and activities until scientific consensus confirms that they are safe for people and the environment. The authorities are expected to appeal the ruling. No country grows Golden Rice on a large scale, and the polarised, deeply entrenched debate is preventing productive discussions about the way forward.

Transparency and user involvement build trust and ensure ethical research and development

Maintaining transparency in the development, distribution, and marketing of new GMOs is crucial. Transparency is a core ethical principle in research and can promote a broader understanding and acceptance of GMOs’ role in a sustainable future. It encourages collaboration and the exchange of ideas potentially accelerating research and the creation of new GMO varieties. Transparency also builds public trust and fosters an open society, allowing consumers to make informed choices. A transparent approach demystifies the science behind GMOs, ensuring that decisions and policies are based on scientific evidence rather than fear or misinformation. This can lead to a more informed and hopefully less polarised debate around GMO use. Transparency also ensures that GMO development remains within ethical and regulatory boundaries.

Should products containing GMOs be labeled? Sound systems for traceability, labeling, and open communication are all essential for maintaining transparency. However, modern gene-editing techniques can make it extremely difficult to monitor and detect new GMO products, which in turn makes oversight difficult. Additionally, some argue that mandatory labeling could unnecessarily stigmatize GMOs.

User involvement is crucial when working with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This ensures that research remains transparent, responsible, and aligned with society’s values and interests. People are experts in their own lives, providing researchers with detailed knowledge about their specific situations, needs, preferences, and requirements. This input can then improve the quality of the developed products. A prime example is the development of gene-edited mosquitoes [7] that could potentially eradicate malaria. Despite numerous efforts to combat malaria, it continues to claim many lives, especially in Africa. These GM-mosquitoes have not yet been examined in the wild, and ethical and environmental questions must be addressed before that can happen. For instance, who would be responsible for the technology once the mosquitoes have been released into nature? The solution is to develop these mosquitoes in partnership with local African researchers and ensure community engagement by involving local communities, healthcare providers, public authorities, and decision-makers. In Brazil, gene-edited mosquitoes were created to reduce populations of mosquitoes that spread dengue fever. In a controlled trial, the modified mosquitoes were released in densely populated, high-risk areas for dengue fever, where they successfully out-competed the natural mosquito populations [8].

The precautionary principle ensures that we do not take unnecessary risks

There is a strong scientific consensus that genetically modified plants (GMOs) used for food pose no more significant health risks than traditional foods. However, these plants must undergo thorough safety evaluations before they are approved for the market. Some people argue that producing GMOs is fundamentally wrong, believing we should not “meddle with Creation”. Transferring qualities across natural breeding barriers is often seen as another crucial ethical line in the debate. Gene flow between conventional plants and GMOs could potentially impact the evolution of wild plants and disrupt the ecological balance among plants, people, and insects. Others argue that this is not a concern, as humans have shaped the environment since the advent of agriculture. The precautionary principle, described in research ethics guidelines [9 ], emphasizes the importance of transparency, democratic involvement, and a thorough assessment of all available options in GMO research and development. This principle has several benefits: It protects health and the environment, supports ethical research, strengthens the scientific method, encourages sustainable practices, and promotes cautious innovation. However, there are some potential downsides: The principle could limit GMO use globally, create extra regulatory burdens, and result in only large multinational companies being able to seek approval. This, in turn, could impede future agricultural innovation.

Predicting how new species will behave in the wild is a complex undertaking. There is also a potential risk that modified species might eventually out-compete natural ones or have unexpected environmental consequences. Do we understand enough about what we do when introducing new DNA? Have we adequately addressed all safety concerns? Adopting a precautionary approach and avoiding unnecessary risks when releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment is crucial.