In the United States approximately 70% of all processed food contain at least one genetically modified ingredient. Due to the widespread of genetically modified (GM) crops,, countries across the world are debating whether GM crops should be used for human consumption. Genetic modification is an alteration of genetic information to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions. A gene is a unit of hereditary material. In the United States over half of the corn grown is genetically modified, however, eight European Union have banned genetically modified crops. Many developing countries refuse to import genetically modified crops due to other nations objections. Debate is centered around whether GM crops are more harmful or beneficial. Genetically modified crops grant larger crop yields, less pesticide use, and increased farm profit. However, they pose a risk of hybridization with wild relatives, pests becoming resistant, affecting surrounding environment, and unknown long term health effects. Due to the many advantages and disadvantages of genetically modifying crops there is much debate on whether scientist should continue the genetic modification of crops. Some advocates of genetically modified crops argue that the benefits of GM crops are reason for the continuation of modification. The University of Utah Health Sciences has published an article that addresses the benefits of genetically modified crops. These benefits include modifying fruits to carry genes for vaccinations, crops that thrive in a wider range of environments, and plants that produce natural pesticides. The author explains that some fruits and vegetables can be modified to carry genes for different vaccines, providing an easier and less costly vaccination. It also provides easier and less restricting transport, therefore it can be quickly and inexpensively taken to other countries that may be in need of the vaccines. This can help inexpensively vaccinate a large amount of people to protect them prom preventable diseases. Genetic modification can be used to allow crops to grow in a variety of different environments and climates. An example of a crop that has been modified to grow in more environments is a rice plant that has been modified to thrive in saltwater. This is a benefit of GM crops because countries with harsher environments can grow more crops to support themselves. These crops can be used to support the growing populations or used as exports to help with economic income. Lastly, crops have been modified to contain natural pesticides. Natural pesticides reduce the farm expenses because farmers are not having to purchase and apply other pesticides. The natural pesticides also grant larger crop yields because less crops are lost to pests. The article provides many examples of both risks and benefits, this is a
…show more content…
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, scientists working to add more nutrients to these modified crops may accidentally cause antinutritional factors such as allergens to arise in the new crop. An example of this is in a generation of the golden rice there was an increase in the protein prolamin, which can be an allergen. This is a risk because although they may be adding more nutrients, more people may be having adverse reactions towards it. Another risk is that some farmers are worried that pollen from fields growing GM crops may be carried by the wind and pollinating their non-GM crops. This can cause the next generation to contain the modified gene. This can have a negative impact on the farmers reputation if their marketed non-GM crops were discovered to contain genetic modifications. The GM genes may also cause adverse reactions to the next generation of non-GM crops, such as producing more allergens. This arguments provides both positions of the argument and examples for each position. She also provides specific examples and statistics that show successes and failures. This is a strength because they provide specific evidence that can be confirmed. However, a weakness is Chen uses data from 2006 which is somewhat outdated for scientific data, due to science’s tentative and dynamic nature. Although Chen does not directly have the knowledge and ability to see regarding Gm crops, she refers to and uses information from prestigious organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the United States Department of Agriculture. Livestrong is generally known for accurate reviews, except there have been some concerns of
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, scientists working to add more nutrients to these modified crops may accidentally cause antinutritional factors such as allergens to arise in the new crop. An example of this is in a generation of the golden rice there was an increase in the protein prolamin, which can be an allergen. This is a risk because although they may be adding more nutrients, more people may be having adverse reactions towards it. Another risk is that some farmers are worried that pollen from fields growing GM crops may be carried by the wind and pollinating their non-GM crops. This can cause the next generation to contain the modified gene. This can have a negative impact on the farmers reputation if their marketed non-GM crops were discovered to contain genetic modifications. The GM genes may also cause adverse reactions to the next generation of non-GM crops, such as producing more allergens. This arguments provides both positions of the argument and examples for each position. She also provides specific examples and statistics that show successes and failures. This is a strength because they provide specific evidence that can be confirmed. However, a weakness is Chen uses data from 2006 which is somewhat outdated for scientific data, due to science’s tentative and dynamic nature. Although Chen does not directly have the knowledge and ability to see regarding Gm crops, she refers to and uses information from prestigious organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the United States Department of Agriculture. Livestrong is generally known for accurate reviews, except there have been some concerns of