GM Foods, also known as Genetically Modified Foods, is one of the largest controversies in our society today. GMOs, or Genetically Modified Organisms, have gotten a rather negative connotation attached to it due to negative press and media. Society tends to classify GMOs as "bad" and "harmful," while organic is seen was "good" and "healthy." Traditionally, cross-breeding between crops and plants have taken place in order to produce favorable genes in plants that do not originally have them. However, it is time consuming as well as costly. With genetic-engineering today, crops can have these specifically desired traits through alteration of its genes by highly accurate molecular biology techniques that produce effective results.
As with any other controversial topics, GMOs have both negative and positive aspects to them. Firstly, we will discuss the facts that argue genetically modified foods are not a good thing for the environment as a whole. Some of these facts include unintentional harm to other organisms. As pollen from GMOs are consumed by other organisms, other organisms can experience high mortality rates. The studies that proved these results, however, have not produced a wide-spread agreement and therefore are not very certain scientific facts. On the other hand, it does not mean this presented information should be easily dismissed. As scientists and students, we should maintain a skeptical attitude. Our aim then should be aware of as many factors and as much information as we can.
Of course, there are positive aspects that argue that GMOs should continue to be accepted within society and actually contribute towards the progress of society. The main selling point of GMO crops is that genetically engineered crops can help to reduce poverty levels. The idea is that we can produce crops that can withstand harsher, colder environments so that more food is produced overall. In addition, the molecular biological technology can increase the amount of nutrition in each crop, so that it improves situations of malnutrition. In terms of thinking about this in line with the scientific method, the benefits of the GMOs are still in the hypothesis and data collection/observation stage. It is an ongoing "project" that has yet to arrive at a scientific truth.
 |
| The concept of "bigger is better" is seen here with this genetically modified tomato. With GMO, more food can be produced. Source: http://www.marxist.com/gmo-human-need-corporate-greed.htm |
Of course, there are positive aspects that argue that GMOs should continue to be accepted within society and actually contribute towards the progress of society. The main selling point of GMO crops is that genetically engineered crops can help to reduce poverty levels. The idea is that we can produce crops that can withstand harsher, colder environments so that more food is produced overall. In addition, the molecular biological technology can increase the amount of nutrition in each crop, so that it improves situations of malnutrition. In terms of thinking about this in line with the scientific method, the benefits of the GMOs are still in the hypothesis and data collection/observation stage. It is an ongoing "project" that has yet to arrive at a scientific truth.
The Non-GMO Project is an organization that sees GMOs to be utterly harmful to society and the environment. Although their presentation of scientific facts are not outrightly wrong, the misrepresentation and manipulation of the wording can mislead the audience and consumers. For example, it states that "GMOs are in as much as 80% of conventional food" ("GMO Facts"). Though it is true that corn crops are 80% genetically modified, the Non-GMO Project's phrasing misleads us into thinking that most of our food is 80% genetically modified, which is not "truth." Though this negative opinion about GMOs seem to be scientific at first, we can see that the Non-GMO Project is carefully picking its evidence to support something that is now largely opinion.
So given this ongoing "experiment," if we are to view the use of genetic engineering as such, what would you regard as scientific truth when information is incomplete? Are these facts and statistics stated to be taken as "truth" or simply a data point that needs to be reevaluated once we have more information? Can these facts that argue both sides for GMOs be dismissed for the time being because there is no concrete conclusion?
Sources:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/topic/genetically-modified-foods
http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
As with every new technology, GM foods will utterly change society. They have the potential to enhance the nutritional values of food or create heartier plants to grow in areas affected by famine. Though, since this technology is new, the environmental implications are somewhat uncertain. Many people argue that changing nature in this way is unnatural, though, how is different that any other ways people have affected the environment?
ReplyDeleteGMO research should not be dismissed now as the possibilities are so great for society--ending world hunger, providing proper nutrition, and improving the general health. Just because something currently seems unnatural, or different, from the way the world was viewed before doesn't mean it will not hold scientific merit.