All GMOs can’t be evaluated as one category
GMOs are a huge category. It encompasses different organisms, modifications, and techniques. GMOs can be plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi. It is difficult to discuss whether all these organisms and resulting products are good and bad. Crops can be seen as unsafe or harmful to the environment and modifying animals can be seen as risky or unethical, but there are medicines and vaccines that have been created by genetically modifying bacteria (such as insulin) that everyone would agree saves lives. This makes a general discussion about GMOs difficult. Even if we only focus on genetically modified crops, there is still a range of modifications. Some crops are modified to be nutrient enhanced, pesticide-producing, or herbicide-resistant crops. These are all very different and have different benefits and concerns. There are also many different techniques that are used to create GMOs. One technique is transgenesis (moving genetic material from one species to another). Another technique is gene-editing (altering the organism’s DNA instead of inserting new genetic material). There is also mutagenesis (using radiation or chemicals to mutate genes). Each technique comes with its own consequences. Trying to evaluate all GMOs together does not make sense. It also will make any substantial legislation for “GMOs” incredibly difficult.
The topic of GMOs is already very complex and dividing them up into separate groups will only unnecessarily complicate the issue further. Additionally, anti-GMO proponents argue against the process of genetic modification for safety, environmental, or ethical reasons. Yet, it is much rarer to see criticism of GM insulin than GM corn. This is hypocritical. Separating the topic will aid this hypocrisy by saying one form of GMOs are good and another is Frankenfood.
[P1] There are many different kinds of GMOs. [P2] There are many different kinds of modifications. [P3] There are many different kinds of techniques used to modify organisms.