Modern Agricultural Biotechnology And Its Potential Usefulness And Effectiveness

It is estimated that 740 million people are starving in the world today. (Prakash and Conko 357) There are about 7.2 billion people in the world, so the hungry population accounts for 12.7% of the population. The time has come to change these statistics. It is the 21st century and we, as humans, now have the technology and resources to reverse these terrible numbers. There are two arguments on what we should do with this new technology, however. One side, researched by a science policy analyst, stated that biotechnology still has kinks to be worked out and is not the best way to combat world hunger. Another side by a AgBioWorld Foundation vice president and a world-renowned scientific researcher, professor, scholar, and director of the

Genetic engineering is already providing a more stable solution for agricultural production in the economy to stand on. In nine years (i.e. 1996-2005), profits from genetically modified crops were twenty-seven billion dollars. Those twenty-seven billion dollars were not just in the United States or countries like it, but the profits almost split half and half between first and third world countries (O'Neill 19). In India, for example, cotton yields have jumped to one hundred-fifty percent from the use of genetically modified crops, vastly increasing the farmers’ profits (19). The planting of these crops can really help farmers know what they are going to make every year and plan accordingly. Also, helping the farmers’ expenses is the lack of chemical pesticides needed on the crops and reducing time spent using the pricey traditional breeding methods (Mannion and Morse 749-751). Even if genetically modified crops are not planted in every field, adjoining fields can benefit due to the “halo effect.” The “halo effect” is the ability of pest protection on the genetically modified crops to affect the non-genetically modified crops due to the lack of insects in the genetically modified field (754). Genetically modified crops affect the economy in a positive way and should be seen as a smart

The driving factor behind plant biotechnology is “social constructionism”, in which “social values and institutional domains and their culture shape technology” [Goyder chapter 10]. Bioengineering companies might declare social needs as the motive behind pursuing this technology. In reality, these capitalist institutions possess the much needed economic surplus to invest serve their own desires. The social needs they “intend” to solve are: world food shortage, increase agricultural productivity, help the environment by eliminating pesticides, improve nutrition of foods. Opponents of biotechnology, scientists, consumer advocates, environmental protection agencies, do not buy this claim. According to them, these reasons are just the pretence to fulfil “...capitalist’s profit-making via the deployment of technology, [3 Goyder chapter 5]. Most crop developments so far has been “profit-driven rather than need driven” [4, ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security]. In a capitalistic society, patent laws under constitution permits ownership of seeds, living organisms; genes. Patents permit company like Monsanto could monopolize seed’s

All over the world, people are dying from empty stomachs, empty pockets, and empty hearts. John Robbins from the Huffington Post, in his article, “Can GMO’s Help End World Hunger?” presents the pros and cons taken into account when this touchy topic hits the table. He sheds light on the ugly truth behind biotechnical companies and their real intention concerning GMO’s across the world. Genetically modified organisms could be the end of world hunger however, that is not the goal for the biotech industry. A resolution for this problem will not be reached due to companies like Monsanto’s vision of maximum profit over all else.

Yet the amount of farm land is shrinking. Biotechnology is the only way to feed that growing population, by increasing yields to get more food from less land. GMOs mean cheaper, more plentiful food to fight hunger in the Third World. It also cuts costs for consumers and raises livelihoods for farmers in developed countries.

Perhaps the most relevant and understandable factor behind opposition of the use of GMOs is the lack of desperate need. In developed countries, there is no issue in feeding the populace. However, in developing countries the story is much different. Farmers in developing countries still use outdated practices and don’t have access to the same technology as those in developed countries. This contributes to the difficulty of farmers in developing countries to feed the country’s entire population. GMOs reduce the maturation time of crops, allowing them to be harvested more often throughout the year. They can also decrease the vulnerability of crops to flood, drought, and frost, leading to increased crop yields (Goyal and Gurtoo 1). Thus, it is not surprising that those in developing countries are extremely welcoming to the use of GMOs. In

For the last several decades, the world has been plagued by widespread starvation and poverty. Economies are failing in numerous countries, and developing nations struggle to feed their inhabitants. As a result of the world’s mounting overpopulation, food has become scarce and resources are rapidly dwindling. However, modern science has provided a solution: agricultural biotechnology. Genetically engineered crops represent the bright future of agriculture. Crops like cotton, corn, and soybeans can have genes inserted or deleted into their cell membranes; this modification facilitates pest and virus resistance, drought tolerance, and even provides nutritional enhancement. Genetically altered crops produce much higher

Another example of controversy is, some people feel that genetically modified crops are too new and untested for use in food. The people who make this argument are, in fact, poorly informed. Since crops have been genetically modified for thousands of years, scientists know that altering how a plant grows is perfectly safe. There are even nonprofit and for-profit companies dedicated to testing the safety, and running the risks of crops. If there were health risks of ingesting GMO crops, they would have been discovered years ago. These reasonings are all un-backed and out of date. Before making a decision, it is well known that you should do research, and unfortunately many of the people who are against GMO crops have not done enough

Since 2.3 billion people will be added to the world from 2009 to 2050, biotechnology- Genetically Modified Organism- is a must to combat the global food crisis(Weisser para. 2). When the United States developed Bt corn, “[they] have been genetically engineered to resist herbicides and pests and even withstand drought.”(para. 16). Unlike corn that have never been modified, the Bt corn were able to survive better because of their resistant to herbicides, pests, and drought; resulting, a corn that can survive in harsh environment. By creating a modified corn that can survive in harsh environment, a large supply of corn- food- can be produced. If biotechnology can genetically modified corn to survive in harsh condition, more food can be produced; resulting 2.3 billion people can be fed; therefore, addressing the global food crisis. To put it briefly, limiting biotechnology would prevent addressing the global food crisis. Not only can genetic engineering address the global food crisis, but it can also improve medicine

However, supporters of biotechnology who think that genetically engineered food may be the solution to global hunger do not only encounter support and agreement but also opposed opinions saying that biotechnology is not going to eliminate the cause of starvation in the world. When the World Health Association reported that more than 3.7 billion people around the world were currently malnourished, opponents of genetic modified food replied that the “real problems” causing hunger, especially in the developing

An article written by Miguel A. Altieri and Peter Rosset (1999) addresses certain potential issues and misconceptions about biotechnology. For instance, this article suggests that biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment, and will not reduce poverty in the developing world.

Farmers who are already poor from the lack of profitable crops would only put themselves in more debt by trying to purchase outrageously priced genetically modified seeds. Avery later argues, “The high cost of development and the monopoly on intellectual property also result in high prices, making seed costs prohibitive for most independent farmers… Thus, technology that originally was invented to prevent world hunger is not accessible to those who need it most” (Avery).

The practice is a greatly industrialized one, as most genetic engineering in agriculture is being done by large transnational corporations. They are said to only be developing products for farmers in rich countries who can afford to pay high prices for seed (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2002). The crops of interest to theses farmers are field crops like corn, soybeans, and cotton, and fruits like tomatoes and cantaloupes. As this is a growing industry that is what the agricultural biotechnology industry is providing. Only a selected few will be able to produce the crops on a wide basis.“These products are of virtually no value to hungry farmers in Africa, who cannot afford the

Fascinating times we are currently living in. A rapid, consistently growing population creating gross demands for food is pushing our resources to capacity. Fulfilling the needs of the world 's population is a monumental task. Limited arable land to cultivate and an ever changing climate has led to environmental degradation. At this rate of exponential human population growth, it is predicted to reach 9 billion people by 2050, however, “it is uncertain whether current agricultural practices will be able to feed the world” at that stage of growth. In the 1970s pioneering biotechnologies began paving the way to providing solutions to supply the world 's food demands,

In “Science and Technology in World Agriculture: Narratives and Discourses,” Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo persuades the experts in biotechnology that the World Bank can create a balance between conservative and radical parties. In order to reinforce his stance, Scandizzo uses various forms of evidence: the narratives of both parties, the description the ecological problems, and the World Development Report.