History tells us that as the globe has become more connected and as goods and people can move more freely, farther, and more quickly than ever before, that disease is sure to follow. This week's reading cited the Mongols who brought the plague from Burma and devastated Europe as well as the Europeans who decimated native populations in the Americas. Today we hear about HIV/AIDS, dengue fever, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and other diseases that spread thanks to globalization. Likewise, introducing new technology (like canals) or new crops to an area can give disease-bearing vectors everything they need to afflict human beings over a wider area.
Despite these negative impacts on public health, any steps to reduce the flow of people, food, and goods would ultimately make many more people worse off than those affected by illness. Food and goods prices would rise, making more people susceptible to disease due to poor diet or lack of access to medicine. Otherwise healthy people seeking a better life by emigrating would be …show more content…
You also need companies to be pro-active by inspecting their food processing equipment and testing their workers regularly. Monitoring is key; doing so enables you to quickly identify contaminants and eliminate them quickly and cheaply.
I am personally fine with GMOs, and I believe the benefits largely outweigh the risks. An article wrttien by William Saletan for Slate.com explains a lot about why I feel GMOs are not a threat to health (2012). On the contrary, GMOs produce higher yields, can be more nutritious, and can feed more people at less cost. This may seem a heartless calculation, but to me it is a better alternative to malnutrition, starvation, and suffering. I respect those who oppose GMOs on the grounds that growing them in open areas can contaminate non-GMO crops through cross pollination, but overall I believe GMOs are
Despite these negative impacts on public health, any steps to reduce the flow of people, food, and goods would ultimately make many more people worse off than those affected by illness. Food and goods prices would rise, making more people susceptible to disease due to poor diet or lack of access to medicine. Otherwise healthy people seeking a better life by emigrating would be …show more content…
You also need companies to be pro-active by inspecting their food processing equipment and testing their workers regularly. Monitoring is key; doing so enables you to quickly identify contaminants and eliminate them quickly and cheaply.
I am personally fine with GMOs, and I believe the benefits largely outweigh the risks. An article wrttien by William Saletan for Slate.com explains a lot about why I feel GMOs are not a threat to health (2012). On the contrary, GMOs produce higher yields, can be more nutritious, and can feed more people at less cost. This may seem a heartless calculation, but to me it is a better alternative to malnutrition, starvation, and suffering. I respect those who oppose GMOs on the grounds that growing them in open areas can contaminate non-GMO crops through cross pollination, but overall I believe GMOs are