The Case for Genetically Modified Crops
The advent of plant biotechnology was hailed as the engine of a Second Green Revolution, capable of providing farmers with the hardier, higher-yielding, disease-resistant and more nutritious crops needed to sustain a burgeoning world population. Plant scientists argue that modification is really nothing new; using tools such as selective breeding and hybridization, humans have been influencing the genetics of food crops for millennia. Indeed, present varieties of corn, they say, bear little resemblance to their historical progenitors. The contribution of biotechnology is that the process can be sped up enormously and new traits incorporated from virtually any species. These proponents insist that their new varieties have been more extensively tested than any in history and that their safety as foodstuffs and in the environment is well proven.
The Case Against Genetically Modified Crops
Opposition to genetically modified plants comes from many fronts. It ranges from those like biotechnology gadfly Jeremy Rifkin, who oppose gene splicing on religious and moral grounds; to environmental and consumer rights groups, including Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists, that fear unexpected consequences to the environment; to health and pure food advocates, who see the new products as adulterated; and to small farmers and organic growers, who see the products as a sign of big chemical makers, seed merchants and commercial farmers trying to force them into buying these goods or going out of business. These groups charge that there has been insufficient testing, that the benefits have not been adequately demonstrated and that there is a clear potential for ecological disaster. Moreover, they argue that the same forces that stymied earlier crops, such as acquired resistance to pesticides by insects, will also triumph over the laboratory feats of the gene splicers.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentEither you need a better typist or a better proofreader.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgeez. BOORING. snooze. ZZZZZZZ......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi disliketh having to readeth this.
eth.
Im reading this from my 4th period. In Jenivineee.This classs is very boaring. But this stuff is deffinetly interestinggg. anyy onn here sees my stuff and knowss me comment backk
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou dumb
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislol you dumb
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishey
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is important is that genetic modification is not one thing. Just like steel, you can make a gun from it, or you can make an I-beam from it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn biotech, the worst thing you can make is a new, deadly disease. The best thing you can make? We have no idea yet. In theory, it should be possible to engineer trees to grow rooms in them that have toilet facilities that the trees take away to fertilize their growth. Would that be good? I think so.
Pesticide resistance genes in plants are mixed. They won't harm anyone, but depending on the species they can hybridize and pass on their genes. If the pesticide is used on that plant, it won't work if it's a weed. Bound to happen.
Things like Bt toxin? That's quite different. Can it harm people? Who knows what long term consumption would cause? A better implementation would turn the Bt toxin gene off shortly before harvest so that there won't be any to speak of in the corn.
Genetic engineering though, is here to stay. We are like people alive when man discovered fire, or discovered metal, or explosives. Explosives were banned in China, where they were invented for a long time. Because of that, China was eventually conquered by Europeans who did not ban explosives. Today, we use them in construction all the time. We also use them in warfare.
Genetic engineering is like that.
The bigg issue I worry about is monocultures and infertile hybrid seedstocks. Monocultures of designer resisence supercrops remain vulnerable because they lack diversity. Farmers using infertile hybreds have no diverse seedstocks of thier own. Some day there will be a double-whammy failure of Monsanto's gambit, and lots of prople will be hungry for about 3 months, then tey will die.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this