A genetically modified (GM) or transgenic crop is a plant whose DNA has been altered or modified by genetic engineering with the aim of introducing a desired trait into the plant that does not occur naturally in the plant species. The characteristics of a living organism are determined by its genetic makeup. Genetically modified crops have sections of DNA coding for a specific trait, for example resistance to certain diseases, inserted into their genome. This means that the seeds produced by these genetically modified plants will inherit this new trait. This proved extremely beneficial and many countries quickly adopted this new practice. However, some remain opposed to the idea of ​​introducing genetically modified foods. This subject has been the subject of vandalism, protests and numerous scientific controversies. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get the original essay Since 2015[1], genetically modified crops have been grown in 28 countries and on 179.7 million hectares, i.e. more than 10% of the world's arable land. land! This is a huge jump from the initial 1.7 million hectares planted in 1996[2] – when the first biotech crop was commercialized. The main producers[3] of these transgenic crops are the United States of America, Brazil and Argentina. Genetically modified crops have many advantages. Clive James[4], from Cornell University, writes a compelling article on the impact of adopting the genetically modified lifestyle and also its future. Although he presents a strong argument, filled with evidence and logical reasoning, he fails to mention the harmful effects these crops can have on their consumers and the environment around them. It is also important to keep in mind that his paper was published in 2010, almost 8 years ago, and many new discoveries have been made since then. In his article, James talks about the environmental, economic and social benefits that genetically modified crops continue to bring, even in countries like Africa "where the challenges are greatest." Although implementation here would be difficult, it is the continent that needs it most[5]: one in four people in sub-Saharan Africa are affected by malnutrition and famine, and nutrient-rich biotech crops can greatly help reduce poverty and hunger. famine. An example of this is how a drought-resistant maize called 'Bazooka' worked wonders for a Ugandan farmer Josephine Nansamba[6] who was gifted the plants as part of a pilot test. His yields tripled and his income increased to an additional $180 per hectare. “It’s corn that brings us money,” said her husband. “The coffee has dried out.” This heartwarming example of how transgenic crops saved a family of ten undoubtedly demonstrates how the adoption of these genetically modified crops is increasing and the quality of life of these families is also improving. James goes on to explain how biotech crops can reduce agriculture's environmental footprint. This in turn leads to mitigating climate change by significantly reducing the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The figures bear this out: in 2009[7], biotech crops saved 17.7 billion kg of carbon dioxide. To put that into perspective, that equates to 7.8 million fewer cars on the roads. This radical change has aconsiderable positive impact on our planet, ensuring a great place to live for many future generations. Environmental benefits are not the only promise of biotech crops. Many economic gains are associated with the production of these crops, especially for the farmers who grow them. American farmers[8] have benefited the most from these higher incomes, earning more than $53.2 billion in additional income between 1996 and 2012. This is easily explained by the fact that American farmers have been the first to widely use this genetically modified crop technology. What is surprising (but reassuring), however, is that these economic gains have been roughly equally distributed between farmers in developed and developing countries. This indicates that GM technology may be the key for developing countries to accelerate their pace of growth and development, allowing them to keep pace with countries in better economic situations, rather than being left behind in an unfair race . While all of these benefits seem compelling enough, as with most things in life, there is always another side to the story. More than 35 countries, including many European countries and Russia, have banned or placed severe restrictions on the production and consumption of these genetically modified foods. The two main reasons for these restrictions are health and environmental concerns, while some countries simply want to conduct further research until they are sure that these genetically modified crops can be safely consumed. security. In 1998, Steven M. Druker, public interest attorney and executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, launched a lawsuit that forced the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release all of its records on genetically modified foods. In 2015, he later published a book about the lawsuit and exposing the flaws that exist in FDA policies and the potential dangers of genetically modified foods called "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetical Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupt Government and Systematically Deceived the Public.” In his book, Druker claims that the FDA lied about the facts, concealed its scientists' warnings about the risks, and pushed these foods onto the market, in violation of federal law. Additionally, studies have been conducted by other countries that go against the findings of the FDA and WHO (World Health Organization). The results of a study[9] published in “Environmental Sciences Europe” have raised many questions about the negative effects of long-term consumption of genetically modified foods. The study revealed severe kidney and liver damage, hormonal disruptions as well as large cancerous tumors in rats fed genetically modified corn. Another study[10] linked genetically modified foods to severe stomach inflammation and uterine enlargement in pigs. If the results of these studies do not justify banning genetically modified foods until more research is done, they should at least urge countries to reevaluate their stance on the issue for the safety of their people and their own security. Irina Ermakova[11], vice-president of the Russian National Association for Genetic Safety, believes that “it is necessary to ban GMOs, to impose a moratorium on them for 10 years. Even though GMOs will be banned, we can plan experiments, tests or perhaps even develop new methods of.