Genetically Modified Food as a Way of Feeding the Rich
Genetic modification is a huge step in human evolution, but, unfortunately, it is not clear to what direction the step is made. The whole idea of genetic modification is to invent organisms that can adapt to any natural disasters, and, most likely, it is the only way to deal with hunger. However, if we were capable and knowledgeable enough to distinguish genetically modified foods from natural ones, what would we choose? Obviously, we would choose what makes us healthier, gives energy, and, of course, tastes better. Even though GMOs were meant to help humankind in fight against hunger, they bring too many risks into our lives such as health problems and environment deterioration and might …show more content…
Secondly, they pollute water resources and reduce bio-diversity. For example, genetically modified crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. Genetically modified canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds. One main selling point for crops containing GMOs has been that they reduce the use of pesticides. The use of insecticides has declined since these crops were introduced in the mid-1990s, but the use of herbicides, which kill weeds, has soared (“Faqs About Gmos” 13). All of these only proves that genetic modification as it is right now cannot be a solution for any global …show more content…
Eduardo Blumwald, a professor of the University of California, Berkeley, thinks that part of the solution is to genetically engineer croups that can better withstand drought (Ostrander 24). However, this may not be the case when we should ask for help from genetic engineering. Rather, try to solve this problem through sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods which were used in developing countries and have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher. Whereas GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty. On the contrary, GMOs divert money that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
Nowadays, people grow so much genetically modified food everywhere all over the world. Surely, any step might be a step in a wrong direction. So was it a decision to start growing modified foods without adequate accuracy. In developed countries businesses are highly accurate in their steps because of the government’s restrictions and regulations, but what about developing countries? Do they have these restrictions? Apart of answering the rhetorical question, we must find a way how to make the system of genetic modifications work on us, not
Genetic modification is a huge step in human evolution, but, unfortunately, it is not clear to what direction the step is made. The whole idea of genetic modification is to invent organisms that can adapt to any natural disasters, and, most likely, it is the only way to deal with hunger. However, if we were capable and knowledgeable enough to distinguish genetically modified foods from natural ones, what would we choose? Obviously, we would choose what makes us healthier, gives energy, and, of course, tastes better. Even though GMOs were meant to help humankind in fight against hunger, they bring too many risks into our lives such as health problems and environment deterioration and might …show more content…
Secondly, they pollute water resources and reduce bio-diversity. For example, genetically modified crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. Genetically modified canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds. One main selling point for crops containing GMOs has been that they reduce the use of pesticides. The use of insecticides has declined since these crops were introduced in the mid-1990s, but the use of herbicides, which kill weeds, has soared (“Faqs About Gmos” 13). All of these only proves that genetic modification as it is right now cannot be a solution for any global …show more content…
Eduardo Blumwald, a professor of the University of California, Berkeley, thinks that part of the solution is to genetically engineer croups that can better withstand drought (Ostrander 24). However, this may not be the case when we should ask for help from genetic engineering. Rather, try to solve this problem through sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods which were used in developing countries and have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher. Whereas GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty. On the contrary, GMOs divert money that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
Nowadays, people grow so much genetically modified food everywhere all over the world. Surely, any step might be a step in a wrong direction. So was it a decision to start growing modified foods without adequate accuracy. In developed countries businesses are highly accurate in their steps because of the government’s restrictions and regulations, but what about developing countries? Do they have these restrictions? Apart of answering the rhetorical question, we must find a way how to make the system of genetic modifications work on us, not