Iowa State has been a leader in the research and advancement of genetically modified organisms, which are infiltrating the farm industry and supermarket shelves.

In a panel discussion held Tuesday in the Pioneer Room of the Memorial Union, five ISU faculty members discussed the benefits and the downfalls of genetically engineered crops.

Richard Ross, dean of Veterinary Medicine Administration; Charlotte Bronson, professor of plant pathology; John Obrycki, professor of entomology; Clare Hinrichs, assistant professor of sociology; and Dermot Hayes, professor of agricultural-economics, presented research and opinions on the growing debate.

Ross called the topic “one of the most important socioeconomic issues confronting the world.”

He said some of the uses for the new biotechnology products are improving vaccines and creating new plant varieties for food and feeds.

“There are a lot of advancements being made, and I think a lot of it could be helpful for the medical world,” he said.

Bronson addressed some of the benefits as well as some of the concerns seen with genetically modified crops. The benefits mentioned were increased yields, reduced soil erosions and reduced reliance on chemical pesticides.

Some of the concerns included the faster evolution of pests becoming more resistant, the effects of plant pesticides on non-target species and the introduction of unknown allergens.

The recent introduction of genetically modified crops into the mainstream market has sparked a large debate in Europe that, Hayes said, resulted in the approval of certain varieties of genetically altered crops.

Now the European debates are presenting a threat to the market for genetically modified crops, and many European countries are considering removing previous approvals of the crops. “Twenty to 30 percent of our sales end up in a market that may end up being non-GMO,” Hayes said.

The debate in Europe is spurred largely by two groups, Hayes said. Ordinary consumers are putting up a fight against products containing altered genes and say they would pay more for non-GMO. The other debate is being lead by Greenpeace, an environmental organization.

Bronson said even though presenting the negative information may prevent consumers from buying products containing genetically modified organisms, it is a choice that ultimately needs to be left in the hands of the public.

“You should give [consumers] both pieces of information so people can make their own decisions,” Bronson said. “We aren’t gods.”