Are GMOs Saving the World or a Stepping Stone to Destruction Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is a controversial topic with both sides presenting strong points for their stance. The arguments being discussed are benefits and consequences to farmers, the land, GMO grown food and the effects on humans who consume it, and food security for the world.(9) People have been breeding and creating new variations of plants for years. This process of propagation takes time, up to fifteen years to achieve a new variety. The most desired traits are crossbred over many generations. GMOs on the other hand quickly bring about a new variety in a dramatically accelerated fashion. Not only is the processed sped up but there is no worry of sexual
…show more content…
(8) According to the Non-GMO Project “Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced.” (9) An increase of 15 times is a stark difference form the above of how less herbicides have to be used due to the advantage GMO crops give. Now that GMOs have been put out into the environment they cannot be recalled potentially creating unchangeable consequences. Lastly, because GMOs are created using biotechnology companies have been able to file patents that restricts the use of their seed. This in turn can have detrimental effects on local farmers whose non-GMO crop show traits of GMOs by contaminating their crops and potentially being sued for infringement of a patent. …show more content…
Those in opposition to GMOs point to the fact that over 60 countries worldwide have significant restrictions or outright bans on either the production or sale or both of GMOs. That the ban or restriction indicates how unsafe the rest of the world thinks GMOs are. (9) Those who are for GMOs see this differently. They see it a legislature issue and how those countries use a precautionary approach. For example, the European approach can refuse to approve due to uncertainty alone. There does not have to be evidence of risk of for there to be rejection. Even a hypothetical risk is plenty of reason to refuse approval. (4) This in turn does not mean that Europe or other countries believe they are at risk it is just currently the European areas would not benefit from GMO crops as their current farmers are highly successful already with conventional crops.(4) Opposers of GMOs also point that the problem here in the United States with the FDA regulation is the belief the FDA has a conflict of interest. For example Monsanto, one of the major players in GMO seeds has about fifteen people who hold high positions at Monsanto creating what opposers say is a conflict of interest. Opposers would say that this allows Monsanto and others who are pro-GMO to gain fast traction in federal making decisions.(10) Monsanto itself has stated on its webpage “GM crops have been reviewed and
(8) According to the Non-GMO Project “Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced.” (9) An increase of 15 times is a stark difference form the above of how less herbicides have to be used due to the advantage GMO crops give. Now that GMOs have been put out into the environment they cannot be recalled potentially creating unchangeable consequences. Lastly, because GMOs are created using biotechnology companies have been able to file patents that restricts the use of their seed. This in turn can have detrimental effects on local farmers whose non-GMO crop show traits of GMOs by contaminating their crops and potentially being sued for infringement of a patent. …show more content…
Those in opposition to GMOs point to the fact that over 60 countries worldwide have significant restrictions or outright bans on either the production or sale or both of GMOs. That the ban or restriction indicates how unsafe the rest of the world thinks GMOs are. (9) Those who are for GMOs see this differently. They see it a legislature issue and how those countries use a precautionary approach. For example, the European approach can refuse to approve due to uncertainty alone. There does not have to be evidence of risk of for there to be rejection. Even a hypothetical risk is plenty of reason to refuse approval. (4) This in turn does not mean that Europe or other countries believe they are at risk it is just currently the European areas would not benefit from GMO crops as their current farmers are highly successful already with conventional crops.(4) Opposers of GMOs also point that the problem here in the United States with the FDA regulation is the belief the FDA has a conflict of interest. For example Monsanto, one of the major players in GMO seeds has about fifteen people who hold high positions at Monsanto creating what opposers say is a conflict of interest. Opposers would say that this allows Monsanto and others who are pro-GMO to gain fast traction in federal making decisions.(10) Monsanto itself has stated on its webpage “GM crops have been reviewed and