By: Ryan Healy
Most of the processed foods that we eat every day contain GMO’s. Crops are genetically modified to produce better yields, grow in many environments, and better withstand weeds and pests. It is obviously beneficial in many ways for producers to use genetically modified crops over natural crops. However there are potentially serious risks being taken. GMO’s have the possibility to spread to the natural environment and take over native habitat. These plants would quickly take over since they have essentially been given an advantage over natural plants to resist pests or acidic soils for example. Another important concern is the health affects GMO’s might have after prolonged consumption. As of right now, it is just too early to tell what negative affects (if any) Genetically modified foods could have on our bodies.
With the exponentially increasing population, GMO crop production could end up being very useful in feeding the billions of people on the planet. Every year there are more people living on less land, and larger crop yields are valuable. Is it our place to be genetically modifying living organisms?
19 comments:
GMOs are controversial for environmental and health reasons. When you look at the situation though people need to eat, and genetically modified crops create crops that produce higher yields per acre or hectare. As you said, as the population increases there is less land available for the increasing amount of food that needs to be grown. I think that GMOs are one efficient way to feed more people. Norman Borlaug, the creator of a genetically modified rice died recently. He is said to have saved over a billion people from starvation. Without that GMO a billion more people would have died.
This is a very controversial subject. While GMO's may feed a huge population, where does it say that the earth should support that many people. Not only are we going to run into space issues, but also resource ones. Will these GMO's cause more land degradation? Will they put constraints on already restricted resources? Only more research will tell.
I think this idea is good but is one we should maybe put aside right now. I don't really think it will help solve world currently. Several reasons for this is what about the companies patent on there products. Can these corporations make biotechnology affordable for farmers in the developing world when dealing with rational, self-interested human beings? The US as well as some other countries produce far more food than needed. Are GMOs the best solution? I think eventually when there is not enough food to support the growing population, then yes. Until then let's work on the redistribution of foods to the developing world. If they can't even afford to buy the products already out there at all tie lows then how will genetic engineering address the problem of income disparity?
I'm not at all opposed by the idea I think that addressing the current problems is a good start and eventually if it comes down to it with further testing we should administer GMOs on a global scale to make it affordable to developing world.
Pre-note: this is personally biased and heavily opinionated, although based on personal knowledge.
If you look at the people who are living to about 100 years old, you are looking at people who were raised on good old fashioned foods (no GMO's, pesticides were not in major use until after WWII).
The baby boomer generation (those raised with DDT, and post WWII agricultural processes), these people are the 'preservative, corn syrup, and artificial flavor' fed people. Baby boomers have a high incidence of cancer, diabetes, MS, and the list goes on. Why are so many baby boomers dying in their 50's and 60's??? Because they were raised on garbage food.
The "coca-cola generation" I.e. those subsisting on energy drinks, bags of chips, and instant meals... will be ingesting large quantities of GMO's without ever knowing about it.
Learn to read labels, buy foods with real FOOD ingredients in them. Corn Syrup, MSG, and preservatives are now being blended with GMO's to produce basically 'fake' foods out of chemicals our bodies don't process.
Just take a look at the obesity epidemic in the US!
The old saying "you are what you eat" is the truth. If you eat GMO's, preservatives, and adjunct 'filler'; it's basically like trying to run your car on a blend on kerosene, diesel, gas, and paint thinner--> the body just wants real food like your car just runs on real gas!
p.s. I eat meat... but supposedly the grain used to feed meat production in the U.S. alone is plenty enough to feed all of the starving people of the world, but our "rational" decision processes mean we prioritize feeding animals that will become food instead of giving said food to starving people!
I suppose the question is, then, do we place a higher value on reducing starvation
and providing billions of people with food that would otherwise have none, or on
maintaing natural habitats and avoiding possible health risks. In either situation,
negative consequences will accompany the benefits. As mentioned before, perhaps
the world is not designed to sustain as many people as it holds, thus it is not our
place to genetically modify organisms to help sustain an already overpopulated
place. Taking this approach, we would also be preserving natural habitats and
reducing potential health risks associated with GMO consumption.
Yes, i agree that having GMOs would create more food, however thats not really the problem with world hunger. the problem is a matter of distribution.
I agree with Tevis. I thing that we are eating meals laden with pesticides, GMOs, antibiotics, and corn. For ease of production and efficiency, our nutritional intake has become increasingly poor. Yes, we can get foods fast and easy, but at what cost? Sometimes we can't even tell what we are eating based on labels. The FDA doesn't require certain things to be mentioned on labels. Do you know where your food came from? Labels have become misleading and consumer driven. We are starving our bodies of what we really need nutritionally, hunger aside.
I'm glad someone brought this up. It's something I'd like to know more about. As far as I can tell, GMOs seem to be a good way to grow real food more efficiently without so much pesticide and fertilizer use. From my limited understanding of the process, it seems to me that a GMO should be a safe, healthy, and "real" food. Once the modification is made at the level of the DNA of the plant, it grows and reproduces naturally. Why is this so scary? I've heard that they may contain free radicals- has anyone heard of any real evidence of this? GMOs have been around for a very long time already. Why is so little understood about potential risks? Could it be because they are perfectly safe? How can a genetic manipulation be somehow contagious? Have any of the other commonly modified plants like rice and corn become invasive (or shown evidence of becoming so) and taken over natural ecosystems? I'm asking because I know little about genetics but my understanding of basic biology makes me feel friendly toward GMOs. What's the real deal? It seems to me that they could improve the nutritional content of foods while reducing the need for harmful chemicals to grow them. Tevis- I wholeheartedly agree with most of your comment, but I think that lumping GMOs into the same group with pesticides, preservative, and other undesirable food additives is a mistake.
This is an interesting problem, but as you implied, I think its too early too tell. There are probably several assumptions about high GMO consumption in humans, but we aren't sure how they affect the environment. There's no sense in changing a policy if we aren't sure of the outcomes. I know that GMOs have been around for years, and I haven't heard anything about them replacing native species or obliterating ecosystems. I think what could be helpful would be to plan out all the different scenarios and outcomes, so that if a problem suddenly arises, we'll know how to tackle it. Because they can feed the whole world more efficient, why risk changing anything now?
My belief is that GMO's are here to stay. As long as governments don't outlaw their use, farmers will use GMO's because they are economically viable. This doesn't mean that all farmers will use them, because, like in any market, there are alternatives that may better satisfy the consumers. Natural and organic foods, though they are more expensive, are still purchased because of consumer preferences.
GMOs can almost be looked at as an invasive species, but because they increase growth rates, they are over looked. Are GMO's equally healthy as organic foods? I do not want to see a grape the size of my head, or a 40 lb. chicken. Also, shouldn't GMO's facilitate in lowering the amount of people who starve every year? It seems that GMO's are not being used to their full potential.
While we are waiting for further research and time to show if these GMO's are a good or a bad thing, one important point to realize is that your dollars are votes.
David McKinley
GMO has definitely increase food production, but at what cost? The affects of GMO are yet to come.
The problem with GMO's is that there is a large chance herbicide-resistant genes get into weeds and then it defeats the purpose of GMOs. I'm curious to see if there are any effects on those eating the crops, if there's anything toxic to humans.
It is hard to take a side with this debate. GMO's help the farming industry, and allow for Americans to have a reliable and cheap food source. It makes sense, but it is against some people's morals to alter genetics for human advantage. On the other side, GMO's may have many negative health effects. There are a couple of ways I can think of to solve the problem, but we must aim to solve it at the source. First, the USDA needs to step up and tell the truth about foods. They need to do more research on health effects from GMO's, have stricter regulations on food and start requiring better labeling. Once people know the truth about their food, the demand for organic foods will rise and poor people will still be able to buy modified food.
GMOs are actaully outlawed in Europe, yet they don't have to label any food that is a GMO in the US!
andrew sieving
GMOs should be used because there are starving people in the world and it can save lives.
I think genetically modified organisms would be a good alternative if the problem becomes not having enough food, versus uneven distribution of food. We have the ability with current populations to feed the world, but economic and political issues stand in the way. I think GMO's may be most detrimental in the fact that they have such an increased crop yield, leading to over-use and degrading of the soils.
This is a great topic and is really debatable. I find this topic rather interesting.
Post a Comment