The reason those tomatoes in your grocery cart are so plump and those apples are so golden is due in part to biotechnology. But while science has improved certain qualities of the foods we eat, some experts are concerned about the possible health risks in these ‘new and improved’ foods. Should you be worried?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Biotech Crops Have Delivered Substantial Benefits
- From CEI
By Competitive Enterprise Institute - From Economy to Ecology
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
GMO crops do not ultimately reduce pestisides
In this argument CEI claims that GMO crops reduce pesticides and will help end world hunger.
These are the standard arguments given by biotech companies.
But a I found a new book by Craig Holdrege and Steve Talbott, "Beyond Biotechnology" (University Press of Kentucky, 2008) to have lots of good solid evidence as to why these simplistic alleged solutions are not so simple and don't really solve the problems.
In terms of reducing pesticides, long-term pesticide use in concentrated areas, including GMO crops engineered with pesticides, can lead to the targeted pest building resistance. Already, many weeds have become resistant to some strains of herbicide-fortified GMOs. Increased resistance means that biotech companies will need to come up with new GMOs to combat the problem, leaving farmers ever more dependent on them for seed.
And using genetic engineering to increase agricultural production to address world food shortages lacks foresight.
Holdredge and Talbott address this in their book:
"Feeding the world is not just a question of increasing yields. When we believe it is, we divert our attention from the much broader social, political, economic, and ecological issues influencing food production and hunger. If we continue to live under the illusion that we will find a technological solution to world hunger, and if we set our hopes on such solutions to channel our money and energy into their development, we can be pretty sure that world hunger will only grow."
- Santa Cruz Mom
September 24, 2008 1:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Maybe, but....
You list all these benefits, however, I did not see one mention of any improvement in food taste or nutritional benefit to the consumer. I believe that the USA is on the slippery slope, and it's very steep, heading towards continual food crises. The horror of factory farming, crop farmers being held to ransom by the large agricultural companies and the number of food safety issues that you are subjected to should be very worrying indeed.
My understanding is that there is recent evidence that the nutritional content of fruit and vegetables has significantly decreased in the last 60 years (eg the amount of iron in an apple the 50's was a lot greater than currently) and this is largely due to reduced soil quality. Perhaps this is food for thought with regard to the obesity epidemic -perhaps everyone keeps eating in order to get the "nutrition" that they need but at a caloric overload cost.
- cath7472
October 2, 2008 4:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.