That depends on who you ask and when. There are many proponents and opponents to genetic engineering in agriculture, and these attitudes tend to change over time. As humans discover new ideas and innovations, it often takes time for these ideas to become accepted or popular. Some never become popular. Others have changed the world for the better.

As the human population of earth has increased, the demand for food has also increased. Historically, food producers readily used chemical fertilizers and dangerous pesticides to increase production. After time and research, it was discovered that many of these chemicals are dangerous to the environment and the humans consuming the food products. Many were subsequently banned for production and use.

Obviously, the avoidance of food shortages as well as the survival of food producers is very important. This is where genetic engineering comes in. The phrase genetic engineering strikes fear in the minds of many people, even today. However, genetic engineering has given us new, life-saving medicines and extended the lives of many persons. What about genetically engineered crops and foods?

Consider rice. Many parts of the world use rice as the major, if not only food source. Yet, rice does not contain much vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency leads to blindness, among other illnesses. The idea of genetically engineering rice to contain higher amounts of vitamin A could help eliminate the health issues of low vitamin A intake and help preserve the main agricultural industry of these areas.

How about pesticides? If food crops were genetically engineered to resist insects, the use of pesticides could be all but eliminated. Genetic engineering could also provide larger crop yield, thereby placing more food on the market and helping food producers become profitable.

In fact, any deficiency or vulnerability of food crops and food animals could be genetically eliminated over time, without the use of chemicals that can cause permanent harm to the earth and its inhabitants. Does all of this possibility come with out risk? No.

Any modification of nature requires the utmost care and research. Researchers must determine, as best possible, what long-term effects may be noted in a genetically engineered product. Most risk seems minimal, given the fact that the world needs larger amounts of food each day as the population increases. However, not all risk is acceptable.

The risk of producing larger amounts of food products without thorough research, thereby placing a dangerous product on the market is unacceptable. Consider the poultry industry. For many years it was an accepted practice to mix small amounts of Arsenic in the drinking water of commercially produced chickens. When young chickens are given Arsenic, their growth rate is dramatically increased. The industry has long argued that Arsenic does not show up in the meat or the eggs of the food produced. More recent production methods dictate the non-use of Arsenic and the introduction of free-range poultry farming.

Often, religious arguments are brought to bear on the issue of genetically engineered food products. Such opponents argue that humans should not alter what God has made. If that is so, many of the medical advancements of our time would be unacceptable.

Is it possible that God gave humans the ability to figure these things out and improve the human condition? Is it possible that God is pleased when humans find cures for disease and ways to produce enough food to feed the entire population? Is God ever pleased when real people starve to death as is happening in many parts of the world?

Is genetic engineering an opportunity or threat to agriculture? It is an opportunity to advance ourselves as the human stewards of the earth and each other. It is a threat only if we fail to seek the value of this valuable and timely area of research and development.