Genetically modified crops are good for the rising population.
Debate Rounds (5)
Genetically modified crops (often abbreviated as GMOs) are simply crops, whose genetical material has been modified. There are two ways to do this:
Traditional selection and breeding (much like breeding animals),
Modern, scientific modification of the crops.
In this article, my strengths and weaknesses of genetically modified crops list will deal with the second, the scientific effects and applications.
As the scope of this article is not to describe the detailed process of how GMOs are modified, I will just very briefly describe it.
First and foremost the genetic material of the two or more crops whose genetic property or properties will be mixed has to be fully mapped. The phrase "genetic mapping" means to have a full and exhaustive recorded knowledge of the genes, and the sequence of genes of the genetically mapped organism(s).
When each of the genes (and their functions) of the particular crops have been identified, they are then separated in a science lab. These genes are then cloned and injected into the sequence of genes embryonic form (sometimes to stem cells) of the recipient crop. Finally the seed of the modified crop is planted and grown in greenhouses through traditional methods.
Now To The Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Crops:
1)Harm to other organisms. For example genes and their effect included in a crop may turn out to be poisonous to insects (monarch butterfly poisoned by GMO corns).
2) Cross-pollination with traditional, organic plants. Cross pollination can occur at quite large distances. New genes may also be included in the offspring of the traditional, organic crops miles away. This makes it difficult to distinguish which crop field is organic, and which is not, posing a problem to the proper labeling of non-GMO food products.
3)The safety of such products is not verified yet, in fact, we are the lab rats to test the safety of such technology.
The GMO's main disadvantages are, that we don't know if there is a side effect or something of that sort. But, if humanity didn't try anything just because they were afraid of the side effects, will the world be as it is now? For example, if humanity didn't use medicine because they weren't sure of the side effects, will we live as well as we do now? We can supply a larger population with these crops. The population will probably continue to rise for some time, according to studies, and if we don't want mass deaths to happen due to hunger, we should adopt GMOs and make use of the fruits of science.
http://www.gmo-compass.org..., It states that "According to laws that apply to all EU member states, a GM food can only be allowed onto the market if it can be documented using scientific data that it is just as safe and healthy as a comparable conventional product." There are many such tests to ensure the safety of these foods, such as feeding tests, chemical analysis, etc. Also, I want to refute your points about the poisonous effects of GMO products to insects. With GMO killing insects who eat them, we can reduce our use of pesticides, thus further protecting the environment. Also, with GMOs we can reduce the use of land that is used for agriculture, since the crops will produce larger amounts of food per acre. We can also use salty lands to grow crops, by using crops that can grow on salty land.
It's already been PROVEN that gmo-fed sheep, pigs, have had higher rates of miscarriages, intestinal problems, and death amongst those who have ingested these poisons. Are our gastrointestinal tracts all that different? Are we so invincible to poisons? It also has been proven that lab mice, fed these gmo "foods" have had mutations in their litters, even with second generation mice doing weird things like having hair growth IN THEIR MOUTHS. Would you like to wake up to THAT or other nightmares like these?
GMOs are POISONS and were only allowed to exist because supreme court judge clarence thomas (a former monsanto attorney, by the way) pushed to OK the patenting of dna. So, there goes the green light for monsanto to experiment on life to poison other life.
Are you still thinking gmos are a good idea? Humans have rarely ever IF EVER, come up with anything better than nature offers us. If anything, the hand of humans have messed up quite a lot. LET'S GET OFF THIS DOWNWARD SPIRAL, FOLKS. Grown your own (and hope the chemical trail planes don't poison your land and DEMAND THE LABELING OF GMOs in FOODS.
I think Monsanto and the other big companies messing with millions of years of evolution are just playing God, which has never worked well for anyone. Besides, the use of GMOs hasn't reduced the amount of fertilizer and pesticides we use at all. And even if these modified plants were better, isn't it just begging for a massive bioterrorist attack?
We need to think long term. Mass-produced soybeans might be good for feeding us now, but it is depleting the soil. And corn to feed livestock is great for cheap meat, but it is causing terrible health problems, in people and the animals.
As a closing thought, there is a GM type of salmon that can eat corn. How would a wild salmon ever get corn to eat? Can anything that different from what nature intended really be good for us?
On the other hand, GMOs have a lot more pros to them. For example, we can put more nutrition into GMO foods. For example, if a person eats only one kind of food, such as rice as his/her staple food, they will most likely get malnutrition since rice does not contain all the necessary nutrients needed for life. However, with GMOs we can pack the crop with all the necessary nutrients and lessen the percentage of malnutrition around the world.
Also, according to http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu..., It mentions about...
"The genetic engineering of plants has the potential to provide edible plant vaccines that could be used to immunize individuals against a wide variety of infectious diseases ranging from cholera to potentially AIDS."
By this, we can see that GMOs contribute to our health, also, it can protect the environment.
The GMO process is all about making money " creating a product that can appeal to the masses, preserve well, grow efficiently, and sell " no two ways about it.
Scientists, big food corporations (and farmers alike) are trying to create strains that can withstand what normal foods and plants can"t; these traits include, chemical tolerances, pesticide resistance, heightened nutritional content, and the tolerance of extreme environments. All of it sounds good (in a sense), but the processes involved with genetically altering food is far from being natural.
The GMO goal here is simple " to make a product that can endure the impossible and make the most money.
These procedures literally go against the natural code of food, and that"s never really a good thing.
MOTHER EARTH IS NOT HAPPY!
Now for my main arguments. We are in a world of mass production. In order to keep up, we need to produce more of everything. Well, like my fellow debater said, GMOs may be made for money as well, but, it helps keep up with the demand for more food. GMOs are needed to keep produce food as we eat now with a limited area of space and an ever increasing demand for food.
I would also like to give my views about world hunger. There is no such thing.There is enough food produced nowadays to reduce hunger to minimum. Moreover, there is enough food being wasted every year in developed countries to fulfill the needs of the poor. These are the widely available facts.
There are economical factors (and some environmental such as scarcity of water) that are behind this injustice: part of the world eating at fast-foods and not giving a damn about another ton of wasted burgers whereas somewhere else there is no access to safe drinking water, no environmental policies, no food and diarrhea taking lives of thousand of children. GM food was found in developed countries by multinational corporactions and was implemented in order to meet the needs of rich not in order to solve the problems of poor (how could they pay for such help?). If otherwise, give me an example of a country where GM is solving any hunger problems! Do you really believe that bussines wants to solve a problem of poor and hunger? Then where you gonna get your cheap coffee or chocolate from?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mir9 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: The Con did not acknowledge the fact that GMO's could solve the world's food problems. Although he/she did have a strong argument that GMO's aren't natural, it lacked evidence and has the flaw that GMO's are still partly natural. All in all, both debaters were good but Pro had more evidence and more convincing arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.