precautionary principle flawed

The topic of genetically modified foods is a very important and controversial discussion within the environmental realm. Genetically modified organisms can be defined as organisms in which the DNA has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. There are many benefits to GM foods such as the fact that animals can engineered for leaner meat, plants engineered for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance, and bacteria engineered to produce drugs for livestock. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price and a product with a potential for greater benefit.
However, there are some concerns with GM foods. There are some safety concerns of the following: the direct health effects, the drift to cause increased allergenicity, nutritional effects associated with genetic modification and any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion. Some of the environmental effects include the potentially detrimental effect on greater resistant insects, the new plant pathogens, decrease in plant biodiversity and wildlife and a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain local situations.
Jonathan Rauch calls upon the Precautionary Principal in terms of food ethics. However, I have some reservations with this argument .The Precautionary Principle has been proposed as a guiding principle that states that when an “activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." So therefore, in the face of scientific uncertainty, its better be safe than sorry or to look before you can leap.
However, the precautionary principle is flawed because it automatically leads to unwise decisions and unclear actions. I feel as though the precautionary principle can be used to support any position or its opposite, regardless of the strengths or weaknesses. The precautionary principle ignores the risks of not introducing the new technology of genetically modified foods, which could end up being even more severe than the risks of GM foods themselves. While I do feel that a risk assessment is necessary, I do not think that the precautionary principle gives enough thought to this assessment. The precautionary principle seems to be only half of an assessment or the risk half--and is therefore incapable of assessing the true strengths or weakness of GM foods.
I am not claiming that GM crops will end hunger. However, I do think that it could be a short term fix that needs to be taken to ensure that the hungry people now get food. So I would argue that using the precautionary principle here is not an appropriate step and cannot be used to support only one position. I think that using that argument limits Rauch’s essay in that we could use it in a way that says that not using GM foods could be detrimental in terms of not feeding hungry people. This could provide increased food security for growing populations. GM foods are easier to grow and bring higher yields that could feed the millions of people that are suffering from malnutrition. In different parts of the world, this could save millions of lives and needed economic benefits. Which side do we take? Take precaution in environmental and health impacts of altering genes? Or take precaution in not feeding people who we could potentially help? Therefore, the precautionary principle is flawed in that it could go either way and this argument hurts Rauch’s essay.