This weekend I read Miguel A. Altieri’s book called "Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The Myths, Environmental Risks, and Alternatives." He asserts that the government’s claim that genetically modified crops and conventional crops are essentially equivalent is incorrect and “profoundly flawed.” Altieri maintains that the government has prematurely allowed this food to go to market without sufficient testing. He backs up this point by giving the example of a genetically modified tomato that interferes with human antibiotics. Also, he furthers his opinion by showing the ever-increasing cycle of technology and explains that our production of insect resistant crops leads to insects evolving to be immune to our pesticides.
Although I agree with Altieri to some extent, I think that genetically modified crops are more useful than he lets on. For example, I believe that having all uniform crops is not a good system because it would make the world’s food supply more susceptible to destruction should something go after that specific genetic strain. However, some uniformity could greatly help production and efficiency so as to create the best or most ideal crop possible. As with all technology there are pros and cons, but genetically modified crops do not deserve to be completely written off. As generations that consumed genetically modified food develop we will gain a greater understanding as to the long term effects of this type of lifestyle.
Are the risks to society of genetically modified crops worth their economic appeal?
Does it make a difference to you to eat cloned meat? If so, why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment