Last December a federal judge ordered that 258 acres of genetically modifyed sugar beets be destroyed , making it seem like genetically modifyed organisms (GMOs) were losing favor. However, a federal apeals courts has overturned the ruling and the sugar beets will not be destroyed. Some argue that genetically engineered (GE) crops will cause gene contamination. The USDA started relaxing some of it's regulations and let farmers plant GE crops "while it finishes work on a full environmental impact statement on the beets' effect on other crops and the environment." The recent court hearing stated the the plaintiff failed to show any likelyhood of irreparable injury. Organic farmers worry that the winnd could possibly carry genes from GMOs that could contaminate the organic food that was grown without additives.
Reaction: To be honest I take side with the GMO side and disagree with the article, which is written supporting the ban on GMOs. Sure the GE crops may present a problem by creating resistant pests (even though the article doesn't mention this). however, GMOs are very important to the economy. Not only do they create jobs and supply a lot of tax money, but they are 95% of the USA's crops. I understand that organic farmers don't want their crops contaminated by GE genes, but their crops protection should be in their responsibility, not the responsibility of the GE farms. If GE crops cover 165 million acres they obviously are very important and are the staple of our food supply. We can't stamp out such a great oppertunity just because it has doubters. While there is visible downsides to GMOs, they can be fixed overtime and the benefits are too great to ignore.
Questions:
1. How do plant genes get carried by wind?
2. What is the most effective way of stopping gene contamination?
3. Would America have enough food if we cut GE farms in half?
4. Is GMO food exported by the US to other countries?
5. Why do some people think that organic food is better than GMOs?
reaction- I agree with Matt in my mind GMOS do not seem to be harming anyone inparticuaarly. It is also the farmers job to make sure that their crops are not contaminated. It also seems strange that the article supporting the ban on GMOS didnt mention that they could create restatint bug strans which is incredibly bad.
ReplyDeleteAnswer to question 5- people think that chemical inhansed food is poor qualitly. The belive that animals with growth hormones can contamined the body however their are no true facts to prove this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I can’t decide which side I stand by. Both show compelling arguments. Genetically Modified Organisms provide so much to our nation’s economy and food source. If we were to get rid of the GMO plants we would not have enough food to sustain the amount of people we have in the United States. But there is the long term factor that we do not know. We will not see effects of the GMO’s for many years. If scientists are right about the GMO’s having harmful genes, we could all be in trouble. Also this takes away from the small organic farms that are losing money and resources because these big time cooperation’s are taking over.
ReplyDeleteAnswer to number 3: At the rate Genetically Modified plants are being produced, I do not think America would have enough food to sustain all Americans. The organic farms are not big enough to feed the whole country. We would be able to reduce the amount of GMO farms if we increased the amount of organic farms. This could potentially balance out and we could have quality food that is priced efficiently for all.
I agree with Maria in that I can't chose who is right. Both sides have a very strong argument which display their own advantages. GE crops are so much more profitable, but they hurt a lot of organic farms, so its a real "give and take", which makes it hard to chose a side. If i had to make a choice, it would have to depend on the type of GE and how productive is it for our nation.
ReplyDeleteI can relate this to the GMO packet we had in class, because this article could fit in as one of the categories. It has advocates and critics, and they both propose convincing arguments.
Questions:
1.In what way could the GE farms and the organic farms compromise?
2.What was the purpose to GM sugar beets?
3. Does this debate need more media attention, so that we can nationally declare the winner?
4. If we were to put more funds into preventing the gene contamination, will it necessarily help the two sides come to an agreement?
I do not agree with the article and agree with Matt. I do not think that the court should have the power to stop the planting of GMO seeds. It is the farmers choice. They supply what the customers demand. Ultimately, it is each consumer's choice if they want to eat GMO injected plants or organic food. Nobody tells the people what to eat but the consumers tell the supplier what to produce. I can relate to this because now, in New York City, there has to be a calorie count on every food to inform people about how healthy or unhealthy it is.
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
Why should the government have the power to tell farmers that they cannot grow GMO's?
How many farmers and their families would suffer if they were not allowed to grow their crop?
What would the effect be on the lower and middle class if they were told they had to pay more for certain foods?