Genetically altered foods have become present everywhere over the past few years. It is a breakthrough that allows humans to change and add manipulated genes to crops or alter or replace a gene to get a wanted trait, but it has turned into a heavily debated issue, especially for developing countries. Some people believe that these foods not only provide significant amounts of benefits to feed those in poverty in those countries, but they can also be a source of proper nutrition. In third world countries, malnutrition is a major cause of death, among the poor. For example of a solution, scientists have created a strain of yellow rice containing high amounts of vitamin A and many other nutrients. Also, genetically modified crops are seeped in herbicides and pesticides, and other treatments to help growth and survival of the crop, but then again so are regular crops. So if that is the call of complaints, maybe people should find out how the crops they consider natural are planted.
Though there are many, including the large manufactures who claim GMOs are going to save the poor from starving such as in Africa. Africa has a different story to tell. Similarly, delegates from 18 African countries at a meeting of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization responded these claims with a clear statement: We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us. We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed On the contrary it will undermine our capacity to feed ourselves. (Earth Island Journal)
According to Harvard University, the process is more straightforward than you will see on the internet and this process actually is producing results. In the past 10 years production of the staples such as beans and corn have increased nearly 30 percent. (Feeding the World One Genetically Modified Tomato at a Time: A Scientific Perspective) Staples are becoming hybrids of themselves, containing genes from Bacillus thuringiensis that work to control a number of serious problems such as insect pesticide and are now being utilized commercially in the United States. Using these will slowly decrease the need to use those damaging insecticides. Improvements and great progress also has been made in the development of bettering staple foods such as corn and beans. The development of these plants could lead to a reduction in overall herbicide use. This should have both economic and environmental advantages, in theory. (Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry)
The first thing to do if we truly want to end world hunger is accept this claim introduced by large corporations. However, this claim has no scientific backing, whatsoever. So, therer’s that. After that is said and done then there is another obstacle: the money. Or in other words, the lack of research funds for agriculture and biodiversity (the variety of crops). Another one would be public concern about threatening the process of natural selection or survival of the fittest. Favoring biodiversity does not deny access to any future utilization of technology in the biological field but favoring biotechnology threatens future advances in biodiversity. (Feeding the world: genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity) In other words, if we keep favoring the GMOs, we are stumping evolution and the natural order of things, therefore plant life will become severely limited. We will technically put the natural selection process in our hands. Whether or not this will be a good thing is yet to be seen.
According to the Huffington Post, millions of children die due to inefficiencies in certain vitamins. (Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?) If we can stop these children from dying, I think it is worth the risks. Nothing values over human life. Sorry, plants.
In another article, the reasons why scientists started looking for other options is introduced. I think it is an interesting part of the story. In my interpretation, it begun out of patriotism. Small farmers are literally the face of America, so when the food supply began to run short, no one actually wanted to get rid of our image, so scientists began to apply their research to food. The farmers were losing money on damaged goods due to pesticides and other treatments so when the first GMO was FDA approved, it was like Eureka! (Genetic Engineering, the Farm Crisis, and World Hunger)
Back on track here, I went through several articles of opposing ideas on whether or not GMOs were actually going to combat world hunger. If so, that would be a strong point in their favor. And according to one of the largest GMO companies, Biotechnology is one of tomorrowr’s tools in our hands today. Slowing its acceptance is a luxury our hungry world cannot afford. (Monsanto advertisement)
According to a renowned website called Rachelr’s Environment and Health Weekly, Neither Monsanto nor any of the other genetic engineering companies appears to be developing genetically engineered crops that might solve global food shortages.If genetically engineered crops were aimed at feeding the hungry, Rachelr’s noted, ?Monsanto would be developing seeds with certain predictable characteristics including: ability to grow on substandard or marginal soils, ability to produce more high-quality protein with increased per-acre yield, without the need for expensive machinery, chemicals, fertilizers or water; engineered to favor small farms over larger farms, would be cheap and freely available without restrictive licensing, and would be designed for crops that feed people, not meat animals. (Earth Island Journal)
Advertising is hardly accurate and either way, I am inclined to believe Rachelr’s simply because visiting the website gave loads of statistics and facts, whereas Monsantor’s website shows lots of scenic photographs of idealistic farms and laboratories. (Rachelr’s Environment and Health Weekly and Monsanto.com)
Conclusively with all the research done on genetically altered foods, I think that it is a good thing. It might be considered taboo and/or the scapegoat for American obesity in some cases, but overall it is a technology with crazy potential to be phenomenal, but big corporations are using it to further their own agendas and to make money, living proof that the problem isnt the science or technology behind genetically altered food, but the CEOr’s pocketbook. With more targeted genetic alteration and mass production to make it affordable for the desperately poor, it could be the solution for World Hunger. It is disappointing that American businesses are so selfish and greedy that they would produce a product that could save billions, including children, but instead they use otherr’s misfortune as a false advertising scheme.
America need to get in the habit of using its plentiful resources for good instead of greed. This research made me utterly disappointed and I cannot stress enough how much of a game changer this could be in developing or unstable countries, where the poor are desperately so. It would be easier for them to feed their families and take charge of their lives. Alas, America has to go through a change in maturity of leadership before this is even remotely possible.
Studydriver writers will make clear, mistake-free work for you!Get help with your assigment
Please check your inbox