During the last decade Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have increasingly become a topic of mixed viewpoints. Do GMOs actually help or are they harming our ecosystem? Scientists and large corporations attempt to persuade consumers to support their conflicting perspectives. Regardless of the studies, the world continues to face a high probability of food scarcity. Companies like Monsanto, lead efforts to industrialize and streamline our food source, but many argue that it is at the expense of safe, healthy food choices for consumers. Additionally, many argue that Monsanto controls almost all seed patents and are pushing small farmers out of business leaving few alternatives to GMO foods. Ultimately, the world continues to populate at
…show more content…
He believes that each side has taken an all or nothing stance comparing “apples and oranges.” On the contrary, Joel Edwards, a writer for Natural News, disagrees and believes that studies currently provide information performed by Biotech companies and the industry itself. He doubts Biotech funded research provides reliable information and that independent studies show the conflicting argument and are studied longer than their counterparts. Johnson stresses that GMOS cannot be a monolithic entity, but rather should be evaluated on their specific purpose and use for consumers and animals. Edwards reasons that Biotech companies have enlisted big name celebrity scientists such as, Bill Nye the Science Guy and Neil deGrasse, to subdue society and promote the idea that critics cause “irrational fears” toward GMOs for consumers. Mark Lynas, an environmental activist and journalist, tries to explain that the controversy and “conspiracy theories” lead to large deaths in third world countries due to misinformation produced by anti-GMO supporters. Being an anti-GMO supporter himself in the early nineties, he has watched the US come into an age of “increasingly threatening ecological scarcity.” Lynas believes that “we cannot afford the luxury of romanticized but inefficient agricultural systems,” and would like to see conspiracy theories die and become “the dustbin of history” where they belong. Edwards cannot support an idea system that won’t allow for growth, he wants “to change the way we do agriculture,” and suggests that we need the “overwhelming majority of us demanding change in order for the change to
He believes that each side has taken an all or nothing stance comparing “apples and oranges.” On the contrary, Joel Edwards, a writer for Natural News, disagrees and believes that studies currently provide information performed by Biotech companies and the industry itself. He doubts Biotech funded research provides reliable information and that independent studies show the conflicting argument and are studied longer than their counterparts. Johnson stresses that GMOS cannot be a monolithic entity, but rather should be evaluated on their specific purpose and use for consumers and animals. Edwards reasons that Biotech companies have enlisted big name celebrity scientists such as, Bill Nye the Science Guy and Neil deGrasse, to subdue society and promote the idea that critics cause “irrational fears” toward GMOs for consumers. Mark Lynas, an environmental activist and journalist, tries to explain that the controversy and “conspiracy theories” lead to large deaths in third world countries due to misinformation produced by anti-GMO supporters. Being an anti-GMO supporter himself in the early nineties, he has watched the US come into an age of “increasingly threatening ecological scarcity.” Lynas believes that “we cannot afford the luxury of romanticized but inefficient agricultural systems,” and would like to see conspiracy theories die and become “the dustbin of history” where they belong. Edwards cannot support an idea system that won’t allow for growth, he wants “to change the way we do agriculture,” and suggests that we need the “overwhelming majority of us demanding change in order for the change to