“The introduction of genetically modified foods tampers with the essence of life in an experiment with an unknown outcome.” There are many who see genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as immoral and are skeptical about any positive side effects that might come from the cultivation of GMOs. This leads to the question of how we will feed our ever expanding population. By 2050 the world population will have grown well beyond nine billion, a giant increase from the 7 billion that are living now. The upcoming upsurge in population will not be accompanied by an increase in arable land – instead it is the opposite. Between 2002 and 2012, more than 70 million acres of farm land was lost, and future harsh conditions will only exacerbate this problem.
…show more content…
Monsanto is seen as an overbearing monolithic enterprise whose interests include making as much money as possible without any thought to potential consequences. The opponents of genetically modified organisms argue against the use of GMOs using three main assertions: GMOs pose an environmental hazard, there are potential human health risks, and that GMO promoting corporations tend to be the largest recipients of American agricultural subsidies – thus harming society both physically and economically. While many anti-GMO organizations tend to be relatively small and fragmented, at times there are countries that participate in similar anti-GMO sentiment. In 2011, Hungary mandated that all seeds had to be checked for genetic modification before being placed onto the market. From 2011 to 2015, Hungary destroyed thousands of fields of genetically modified corn in order to demonstrate their hostile feelings towards GMOs and Monsanto in particular. They stated that the genetically modified corn’s pollen could have spread to affect other plants – a valid anxiety of many GMO skeptics. Some of these advocacy groups demand that the FDA at least require genetically modified products to be labelled – a move that many other countries have taken. They believe that the consumer should be able to choose whether or not they want to consume genetically modified …show more content…
It is always interesting to view controversial topics from both sides of the argument in order to better develop one’s own perspective. It would be a lie if I said that I am coming into the field of genetically modified organisms with a clean slate and no preconceived notions of what is right or wrong. I am striving to look at this topic from an unbiased angle so that I may examine all available evidence, and not evidence that only supports my initial point of view. The questions concerning genetically modified organisms are soundly researchable as there are articles and research on both sides of the debate. Just because this topic mainly concerns scientific fields does not mean it is without ethical complications. There are people on both sides of the debate whose views have nothing to do with scientific evidence at all and only loosely examine the issue from a moral standpoint. I will try to base my argument upon facts, but I believe that it would be misleading if I were to completely leave out their moral arguments. I want to examine the difference in perceptions that people from more developed countries and less developed countries have and whether these perceptions might have an effect upon the future of these less developed
Monsanto is seen as an overbearing monolithic enterprise whose interests include making as much money as possible without any thought to potential consequences. The opponents of genetically modified organisms argue against the use of GMOs using three main assertions: GMOs pose an environmental hazard, there are potential human health risks, and that GMO promoting corporations tend to be the largest recipients of American agricultural subsidies – thus harming society both physically and economically. While many anti-GMO organizations tend to be relatively small and fragmented, at times there are countries that participate in similar anti-GMO sentiment. In 2011, Hungary mandated that all seeds had to be checked for genetic modification before being placed onto the market. From 2011 to 2015, Hungary destroyed thousands of fields of genetically modified corn in order to demonstrate their hostile feelings towards GMOs and Monsanto in particular. They stated that the genetically modified corn’s pollen could have spread to affect other plants – a valid anxiety of many GMO skeptics. Some of these advocacy groups demand that the FDA at least require genetically modified products to be labelled – a move that many other countries have taken. They believe that the consumer should be able to choose whether or not they want to consume genetically modified …show more content…
It is always interesting to view controversial topics from both sides of the argument in order to better develop one’s own perspective. It would be a lie if I said that I am coming into the field of genetically modified organisms with a clean slate and no preconceived notions of what is right or wrong. I am striving to look at this topic from an unbiased angle so that I may examine all available evidence, and not evidence that only supports my initial point of view. The questions concerning genetically modified organisms are soundly researchable as there are articles and research on both sides of the debate. Just because this topic mainly concerns scientific fields does not mean it is without ethical complications. There are people on both sides of the debate whose views have nothing to do with scientific evidence at all and only loosely examine the issue from a moral standpoint. I will try to base my argument upon facts, but I believe that it would be misleading if I were to completely leave out their moral arguments. I want to examine the difference in perceptions that people from more developed countries and less developed countries have and whether these perceptions might have an effect upon the future of these less developed