John Robbins says, “to grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilisers and pesticides (depending on the climate)—expensive inputs unaffordable to the very people that the variety is supposed to help” meaning the cost of production could go up (Robbins, 2016). This defeats the purpose of the idea of genetically modified foods because instead of being a possible solution to world hunger, it becomes an expensive nuisance that the third world countries cannot afford. Thus the whole idea and production of GMOs is not an equal opportunity for everyone. It would become a luxury crop where countries that cannot afford it would still not have access to what they need, because of financial problems. However, if the injection of the Bt-toxin would not solve world hunger, it can be a solution to reducing the amount of food wasted every …show more content…
Some people may have the right idea about GMOs being a possible solution—or at least a start to—reducing world hunger, but it can become an expensive product to grow in those impoverished areas. Additionally, the biochemists who design this product should be careful about using horizontal inheritance to insert genes into a sequence because it could have disastrous effects if improperly placed into the strand. Therefore, the dangers of the “super-crop” that are GMOs should not be sold commercially due to a lack of long-term experimentation of any sorts, the impossibility of reaching the impoverished countries without ruining the environment, and unclear reason as to why these products are needed in addition to organic