Are GMOs good or bad?

GMOs can lower expenses for farmers and lower the price of food

Question: Are GMOs good or bad?
Position‹2 of 3›: GMOs are good
Argument‹3 of 4›: GMOs can lower expenses for farmers and lower the price of food

Modified crops require fewer resources. GMOs are also more durable which leads to bigger yields. This lowers the cost of production for farmers and therefore lower the price of food for consumers.

The argument

GMO crops lower expenses for farmers and therefore lower the price of food for consumers. Expenses are lowered for several reasons, and they operate on both sides of a farm's accounts — what has to be bought, and what is lost before it can be sold. The first saving is on inputs. GMOs require fewer resources: they can be resistant to pests, which reduces the need for expensive pesticides, and they also require less land and water. Each of these is a recurring cost paid every season rather than a one-off, so a reduction compounds across years and across acreage. The use of fewer pesticides, land, and water keeps production costs down without any reduction in what the farm produces. The second saving is on losses. GMOs are also more durable: they can be resistant to diseases and can survive more extreme weather. This matters because a crop lost late in the season has already consumed the full cost of growing it, so avoided losses are worth more than the same quantity of additional planting. Farmers lose fewer crops when they are using GMOs, which helps them produce increased yields. These bigger yields lower the total cost of farming per unit produced and increase profit for farmers. The benefit then passes down the chain, because these are competitive commodity markets in which a lower cost of production is reflected in what buyers pay. Lower costs for farmers lead to lower food prices for consumers, and the effect is measurable rather than theoretical: GMO crops have lowered the price for crops such as corn, soybeans, and sugar beets by 15-30%. Those are staple inputs to a great many other foods, so the saving reaches consumers who never buy them directly. GMOs are helping save farmers and consumers money.

Premises

[P1]GMO crops reduce farmers' input costs by requiring fewer pesticides, less land, and less water while being more durable against disease and weather. [P2] These lower production costs and higher yields translate into lower food prices for consumers, as seen in 15-30% price reductions for crops like corn and soybeans. [C] Therefore, GMOs are good because they save money for both farmers and consumers.

Counter-arguments

GMO crops are not less expensive. GMO seeds are much more expensive than non-GMO seeds. GMO corn can cost $150 more per bag than non-GMO corn. Also, while GMOs can potentially save farmers money on pesticides, they increase the amount spent on herbicides. A report from 2001-2010 found that herbicide use increased 26% as weed resistance increased because of GMOs. Farmers have to spend more on seeds and herbicides when they have GMO crops, proving there is not a financial benefit to farming GMOs.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P4] GMOs can require fewer pesticides, but they require more herbicides.