Pros And Cons Of Biotechnology

In “Biotechnology Isn’t the Key to Feeding the World” environmental activist and author Frances Moore Lappe talks about how the distribution of our food is where we need to start instead of the “shortage or the abundance of food”. Lappe argues that there is plenty of food to feed everyone but the problem is that there are government organizations that are not giving the people the resources. The government has a major impact on how the people live. Lappe looks at all of this from a social justice point of view arguing that it is not up to scientists to help save the human population from hunger. Moreover, Lappe says that biotech proponents of today have convinced us that we have reached Earth's limit for food when in act that is not the case.

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

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

Due to reading “Stuffed and Starved” by Raj Patel this semester, I learned about how foods are produced and impact the world. Ever since I visited the farmer’s market in October, I became more aware of whether or not I am consuming genetically modified crops. Raj Patel revealed some of the many truths about the Green Revolution regarding genetically modified crops that influenced my choice of eating. Prior to reading the section of the book that made me aware of what I am eating, I believed that genetically modified crops were more beneficial than harmful to everyone. Not only did the genetically modified crops produce a higher yield to feed people, but the negative impact of technology outweighed its benefit. For example, Patel states, “domestic

The biotechnology revolution will change the face of the planet, Introduction page 1, There are two thousand laboratories in america alone five hundred companies spending five billion dollars on the biotechnology. Among the scientist there are no surveillance to make sure they are doing the right thing with the technology they are creating. Page 2 of intro, International Genetic technologies, inc did secret research when an accident occured twelve people or fewer where there to witness the accident and only a handful survived. “Biotechnology will transform every part of human life from our food to our medical care our entertainment and our very bodies.” Biotechnology will be something that will either kill us or help us how we use it will depend.

John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution states that “if genetically engineered plants were designed to reverse world hunger, you would expect them to bring higher yields. But there is increasing evidence that they do just the opposite”. Numerous studies have shown that GM crops do not have a higher yield production, but in fact have at times shown a lower outcome. In 2000, “research done by the University of Nebraska found the yields of GE soybeans were six to eleven percent lower than conventional plants” (Robbins). Evidence that GM foods are not the answer to world hunger continues to pile up. Former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman acknowledges that GM crops are not beneficial to solving world hunger: “as of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one” (“10 Reasons Why we don’t Need GM Foods”). Genetically modified corn is a product that has been modified to the extreme in recent years. Here, you can clearly see the physical differences between organic and GM corn. In response to Monsanto’s statement, eighteen African delegates clearly objected, noting that it would undermine their capacity to feed

Controversy. Often heard on the news and found plastering the headlines of shady websites. However, there is none more associated with the word than the practice of genetically modifying organisms. Ever since the Industrial Revolution,the shift from manual labor to steam power, technology has developed at an accelerated pace, paving the way for greater innovation. Recently, the emergence of Biotechnology from the study of DNA has allowed for the creation of GMOs, organisms whose genes has been edited in order to express a certain trait. GMOs are most commonly used in agriculture, often designed for herbicide resistance or pesticide creation. Due to Media overreaction and false studies, the public has been whipped into a frenzy, demanding scientists

In an ever changing world, there are only a few things that are certain that all people need. It is said that a human can last three minutes without air, three hours without shelter, three days without water, and three weeks without food. The typical American farmer in 2017 feeds about 155 people compared to the 25.8 people in 1960. The thought of genetically modified organisms is nothing more than just a regulatory muddle. Agriculture is such a widely conversed topic however, through extensive research, international experiments, and general education, it is clear that genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are safe on all aspects as well as necessary to continue to feed the people.

This paper will be broken down into two main sections by the controversies and advancements in biotechnology. It will also end with a brief summary of my opinion on the use of biotechnology in modern day society and why I believe so. I will also add an additional works cited page that contains the URLs to all of the sources I received my information

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

Our world is full of complications, situations that need people’s attention. Scientists are attempting to find answers for most of the world’s difficulties. Nevertheless, a solution for one problem creates some other obstacle. It becomes impossible to create a solution that does not have side effects. One of the difficult situations in this world is hunger and poverty. Many people lack enough food to live a healthy life, especially in developing and underdeveloped countries. In order to provide sufficient food and maintain food security, scientists discovered genetically altered foods. Genetically engineered foods are grown from plants or animals whose genes are modified by inserting new genes that can increase the plant’s and animal’s resistance to diseases and worms. By doing so, researchers improve crop yield and animal products. In addition to increasing the amount of food produced, scientists enhance the nutritive content of crops by using biotechnology, which results in reducing malnutrition. Furthermore, some investigators claim the environmental importance of

Skeptics of animal biotechnology claim that no benefits have been found in regards to the animals from the new technologies emerging and that there is evidence of actual harm being cause. An early example of such harm which is often quoted was provided by the “Beltsville” pigs (named after the US Department of Agriculture research station where they were born). Growth genes were inserted into these animals to produce faster growth and leaner meat, but the animals also suffered from a number of serious and disabling disabilities (Houdebine, 2000). The unpredictable nature of such research clearly displays great potential to cause animal suffering, mainly in the early stages of a new technology. On the other hand it can be argued that animals

Welcome to the age of an agricultural revolution as everyday biotechnology continues to bring innovation to human’s most basic needs – food. Food is essential to any living organism, providing energy for our production and nutrients for our protection. Without this fundamental element, life cannot exist. Our lack to produce our own energy, like plants, causes us to become dependent on others for survival. Humans existence is attributed only to the million years of evolution our food source underwent to sustain our survival. Changing the primary nature of our food source, whether it is plant or animal, directs mankind in a dangerous future if our food dependency is permanently hampered. Welcome to the age of an agricultural devolution

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

Debates over modern agricultural biotechnology and its potential usefulness and effectiveness are often characterized by deeply polarized stances. Proponents, which include industry advocates as well as some scholars, tout the benefits of increased agricultural productivity leading to positive outcomes for poor and small-scale farmers, as well as hunger alleviation - while critics outline potential negative impacts of this technological package, highlighting the polarization of agrarian social structures, concerns over food security, and detrimental environmental effects.