Genetically modifying foods is neither healthy nor necessary, and all genetically modified foods should be labeled. Natural selection has allowed the plants we eat today to survive for as long as humans have; there's a reason that they are the way that they are. Today, we pump hundreds of unnatural chemicals into our bodies every day, but for the most part, these chemicals are listed on the labels. Although it is said that these are tested for safety, none of the arguments specify in what amounts and for how long. It is also unclear whether or not they tested for adverse effects in pregnant mothers and new babies. Hormones in cows were said to be harmless, but in young girls particularly, drinking the milk has been proven to cause rapid growth and development, as well as early menstration.
The "Focusing Debate" argument on page 42 brings up the fact that there are many starving people in the world. Right now, we use up more of agricultural industry in maintaining the meat industry than we do in feeding ourselves. It takes more energy to produce half a pound of beef than it does to feed a family of five a full vegetarian meal. If feeding the starving people of the world were really a priority, reducing the meat industry would be far more effective than using biotechnology foods.
That biotechnology should be used to increase health values of foods is a sad statement for American society. If people ate healthy, blanced diets, there would be no need for increased vitamins or decreased saturated fat. Besides, biotechnology being used to decrease things like saturated fats is actually less healthy than eating the saturated fats. A saturated fat is a hydrocarbon chain with its maximum amount of hydrogen, which is what allows it to retain a solid form at room temperature. An unsaturated fat is also a hydrocarbon chain, but it is missing some hydrogens. To reduce saturated fat, hydrogen is added to unsaturated fat, indroducing trans fats.
The very fact that people are worried about people not wanting to buy products that have a biotechnoloy label on them indicates that there is a reason to be worried. This sounds like an argument used by big business to avoid a decrease in sales. As consumers, we have the right to know what we are buying and into whose pockets the profits are going into.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You make interesting points. However, it sounds like you are saying that genetically altering food is bad in general. I agree that in America, we need to be more aware about what we let enter our mouths, but this exact same debate is also raging in Africa. The Zambian Government has illegalized drought resistant grain, even though they are in the middle of a famine. Playing off of the comic on page one, is it fair to not offer food to those who are starving? Shouldn't we be more focused on the effects of AIDs and genocide than the effects of wheat with frog sperm in it? Check out this page, I think you'll find it interesting.
Abby, while i sympathize with your opinion, i think that your thoughts are quite incorrect. For someone who cares so much about the goings on in Africa, wouldn't genetically altered food make a positive impact on these circumstances? If genetically altered food has the proven capability of making food stronger and more nutritious, wouldn't that help to solving world hunger. If we could produce enough food supply to reduce world hunger with these while still allowing people to choose between them, would it be wrong it be wrong to risk some of them to disadvantages that have yet to be identified?
I think you are being a little to negative on genetic foods as most of your arguments are composed of fear, not science. In your arguments you listed hypothetical circumstances, claimed that it was tampering with nature, and was shocked at the thought of losing nutritional value. In my mind, none of these arguments hold water. These foods have been tested extensively, an so far, they have shown little to no signs of malignancy. Genetic foods could provide many benefits to the world, and I am personally surprised that you are so heavily against them. Being a vegetarian, you should appreciate the idea of cheaper vegetables. More plants available, and fewer costly labels will encourage people to quit devouring animal related foods and turn to what is cheaper. This would be further encouraged if foods were not extensively labeled. It appears that in this blog, you are ignoring reason. You have to pick a side. People have to eat, and many people simply eat what will cost them the least. if you are going to condemn new improvements, please make the attempt to first establish a complete understanding of what your opinion ensues. Bitterly hating all outcomes of an issue can only lead to your complaint and unhappiness.
You make it seem as if genetically modified foods are terrifying. Instead of focusing entirely on the negatives of GE foods, your argument would have been more formidable if you had at least entertained the positives of GE foods and then continued to acknowledge why the positives are actually bad. I think you chose to ignore the positives of GE foods because there are so many positives, and these positives cannot be put under a bad light. When people can't disprove something, they chose to ignore it entirely. That's what your essay seemed to be doing. To me, the positives of genetically engineered foods far out weigh the negatives.
Post a Comment