Relieving Starvation and a Big Step for Medicine - Charlotte Martin

Definition: 

Genetically Modified Foods (GMFs) come from Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which are crop plants that have had specific changes made to their DNA (insertion or deletion of genes) in order to do things such as increase their nutritional content and resistance to herbicides.

Pros:

• Eliminate the need for use of chemical pesticides to prevent pest invasions of crops
• Less crops go to waste from pest invasion; farmers can then sell more crop and make more profit
• More food production could help solve hunger issues worldwide
• Increased nutrient content
• Disease (viruses, fungi, etc), cold weather, herbicide (weed-killers), drought, and salinity tolerance. Crops will be able to live in conditions that were previously unsuitable for them to grow in.
• Crops may have medicinal benefits and can act as edible vaccines
• Can produce inexpensive crops

Cons:

• Potential intolerances to GMFs and antibiotic resistance
• Herbicide tolerant weeds
• Pesticide resistant insects
• May negatively effect biodiversity
• Cross-contamination
• Monopolization of the world food market by GMF companies
• Ethical, philosophical, and religious problems may arise from using animal genes in crop foods
• If GMO’s are patented, ‘life’ could then become commercial property
• Not enough information on how all of these GMFs effect human health
• The needed research and technology for GMFs to become a big part of the US market can be costly

Conclusion: 
Although one can come up with an extensive list of the cons of introducing GMFs into the food market, I believe the benefits outweigh the risks. There is not yet enough reliable evidence to suggest that GMFs are likely to be harmful to health. If GMFs were to become a large part of our food market, those living in starvation may have access to inexpensive yet nutritious food. Also, the possibility of producing ‘edible vaccines/medicines’ means that production, storage, and administration of vaccines could be made much easier and more affordable.

What happened to "natural" selection? - Natalie Stickel

Definition: Genetically Modified Organisms are crop plants designed in laboratories to have special traits meant to accelerate growth, kill or repel insects, produce a better yield, or exhibit other desired activities. This is done through the injection of desired genes into the DNA of natural plants, so that GM corn, for instance, already has a pesticide to kill the corn borer when attacked.

It differs from hybridization (cross-breeding) in that the process, in a sense, defies nature. GMOs are not necessarily injected with preferable genes from species that can cross-pollinate, sometimes they are injected with genes from a completely different plant. How this will affect our environment, our health, and the entire process of evolution is yet to be seen.

Proponents of GMOs' arguments:
more nutritious than non-GMO counterparts
increase yields, benefiting farmers' income and potentially solving food crises
no environmental risks, just extension of hybridization
reduces harmful spraying of crops since herbicides and pesticides are inherent in GMO DNA

Oppositions' arguments:
can cause allergenicity in humans
actually increases chemical inputs over time
shows negative or no increase in yield
potentially environmentally harmful product that can never be recalled

 Conclusion:
       At the very least, GMOs need to be scrutinized more intensively if they are to be used in any way. There are no GMO labelling regulations in the US, while the first raw GMO species, corn, is about to be introduced into our supermarkets. There are not nearly enough studies proving beyond a doubt their harmlessness, while there is an increasing body of evidence showing their risks. Although there could be some benefits, economically, the outcome can be disastrous.
       Humans are now patenting seeds for god sakes. (Does anyone else think this is slightly weird?) One of the main claims by big agri-business (like Monsanto, who holds the patent to many GMOs) is that farmers will benefit from higher yields. Many studies are already showing that this is largely untrue or that GMO yields are even lower than natural plants'. One study showed that GMO soy beans demonstrated a 50% drop in yields over a decade (GM Crops). Per acre, small farmers that invest in polycultural farms (growing many types of plants) are actually more productive than the prevailing huge monocultural farms of the American Midwest. Since most GMOs are sterile, farmers cannot store their own seeds and select for the best varieties; they are instead chained by a contract with agri-business to an endless cycle of debt, forced to buy the newest GMO varieties from corporations each and every year. That's our food we're talking about, something we all MUST rely on and respect; how long until corporations stamp rights on the water we drink and the air we breathe?
       Another claim (tying into the increased yields promise) that has become very popular is that GMOs will solve the world hunger crisis... well too bad these seeds can be outrageously expensive (even the discounts given to developing countries aren't enough). Even if it were absolutely proven that GMOs could produce more grains or bushels per acre than their natural counterparts, they will never find their way into hungry mouths to benefit humanity or struggling economies if they are safeguarded by large, overarching businesses with a mind only to maximize profit. Technology cannot solve world hunger, especially since the real root cause in this disparity-ridden world is not a lack of food, but a lack of access to it.

I could say more but I know it's already lengthy; I'm just really passionate about this issue!!!

The Benefits Outweigh the Risks - Madison Strickland

Definition: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content.

Pros:
-More cost effective with introducing crops and can reduce application of
chemical pesticides.
-Reduce starvation in developing countries by genetically altering the staple
crops they do have, to supply them with the vitamins and minerals they need
in that one crop.
-More cost effective vaccines and medicines by making edible vaccines

Cons:
-Reduced effectiveness with pesticides
-Could create new allergens
-Effects on long term human health is unknown

Conclusion:
I would have to say I am pro genetically modified foods. Though there are many risks, they give opportunity to really benefit developing countries. By using GMFs, those in developing countries may have way out of starvation and hunger. Even though it may not completely solve starvation, perhaps it could put a dent in the numbers of those who go to sleep hungry.

Proceed with Caution - Rebecca York

Definition - Genetically Modified Foods are crop plants that are enhanced with the latest technology to rapidly increase their growth and size.

Pros:
    it's time efficient
    cost effective
    helps to stifle starvation

Cons:
     pesticides can have negative effects on humans
     makes the technology less effective on the crops
     could possibly create new sicknesses and allergies


Conclusion:
      While GMFs can have serious negative long term effects, without GMFs farmers would not be able to keep up with the worlds population's massive demands for crops. We want instant gratification;  when we want something, we want it NOW. Without GMFs there would be no possibility for farmers to produce what the world is demanding of our crop plants.