The Case For:

The main arguments put forward by the key players in the market is that the use of GM technology would increase crop yields and that there would be additional benefits in terms of the reduction in pesticides that need to be used. GM crops could be engineered to be more resistant to disease and pests and thus be more 'reliable'. Less spraying is not only good for the environment but also helps to reduce the cost of production meaning that consumers could get quality crops at a cheaper price.

The Case Against:

Those against GM crops argue that it could damage the status of the growing number of organic farmers because there would be no way to prevent cross-contamination. The moment contamination occurred, organic farmers by definition would no longer be organic. In addition, opponents of GM foods argue that the experience in the United States and Canada shows that far from reducing the amount of chemicals needed to grow a successful crop, even more powerful chemicals need to be developed to kill off the 'super weeds' that grow as a result of the collateral breeding between GM crops and their plant neighbours and they suggest that the evidence to support the reduction in costs and increase in yields and profitability does not seem to have come!

Stepping aside from the emotional aspects of the argument, it can be seen that we have been tampering with nature for many. Look at any garden and you will see plants that are a uniform height and colour, plants that would not normally survive in our climate and many that have been produced by some form of intended or unintended gene manipulation. The way that we produce our food - even the organic food - has changed beyond recognition thanks to the use of science to create crops that are more resistant to disease and pests, and which are more uniform in habit, yield and behaviour. To avoid eating any food that has not been manipulated in some way would be almost impossible.