Problems with the world’s food are caused because of, global warming, growth in population and problematic weather conditions, but can be solved using GMO’s. For people to accept what GMO’s are, they must first understand what they are and the reasons why they could possibly save their lives in the future. Many people are under the impression that genetically modified foods are artificial food and are loaded with chemicals. But if this were true, the government would not permit the commerce of genetically modified food. It is crucial that people conquer their fear of genetically modified food and realise its benefits Also, GMO’s are still at the beginning stages of development and continue to improve because of scientific advancements.
I see the good, and the bad. However, the good outways the bad for me. If modifying the DNA of seeds and animals create larger amounts of food to be produced, then we should continue to do so, simply for the soul reason that the world’s population today is rapidly growing. However, I do feel like the use of them should be contained in one area so other organisms don’t become exposed to the chemicals that could potentially be harmful to them. GMOs are serious, and therefore need to be used correctly and carefully, but should in fact be used.
(Splice, 2009) They are producing a greater good by choosing this ethical path. This is the core motive for the current use of GMOs. According to the Human Genome Project (U.S. Department of Energy Genome Programs, 2008), GMOs have a variety of applications; To increase the yield of crops and animal products, to make plants and animals more resistant to certain disease, and more efficiently processed are but a few. The end product of these applications is, in theory, to benefit humanity. If we are already genetically modifying plants and animals, is a... ... middle of paper ... ... endure the consequences of their actions.
military, and in recent years, seeds genetically engineered to contain and endure immense amounts of Monsanto herbicides and pesticides. Monsanto has been recognized as being synonymous with the corporatization and industrialization of global food supply. Their astonishing rise to dominate global food supply is fueled by its technology in order to achieve laudable aims such as providing adequate food production, responding to the adversity of global warming, and minimizing agriculture’s adverse effects on the environment. Yet, Monsanto’s expansion has been accountable for controversial cases, such as not allowing private research on their products and influencing policy makers. As Monsanto expands, some of its business practices are considered unethical and are paving a path full of consequences for the environment and
I also feel that this technology is important to humanity and should be made available at prices that will reduce inequality. With all arguments considered, genetically modified crops should be approached very carefully, but banning their use outright would be a mistake.
In the US, companies are under pressure to comply with demands of safeguarding the environment. The pressure is not only emanating from federal regulations, but also from the clients. A latest development in marketing strategies has even identified that packaging is becoming influential in attracting customers. Clients in the 21st century do not go to the market and buy an item just for the sake of satisfying their needs, but rather consider other features regarding the product they want to buy. One of the main features they look at is how the product, in its entirety, is conforming to the necessities of making the earth a better place to live.
On one side of the debate you have the corporations that argue they are protecting their investment of research and development and on the other side you have the farmers wanting to be self-sustaining. The debate is important and relevant as the technology has wide spread implications to agriculture, ecology and food production worldwide in both industrialized and third world countries. I will describe the key events in this debate and argue against the use of V-GURTs based on the grounds of corporate ethical, ecological and social responsibility. Background According to the action group Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) seed sales in 2007 by the world’s top 10 seed companies totaled nearly $15 billion. 82% of the global commercial seed market was proprietary meaning intellectual property (IP) rights governed the use of those seeds (ETC Group, 2008).
Genetically modified crops have many potential advantages regarding the raising of agricultural productivity and reducing the need for pesticides that are known to be bad for the environment. GM (genetically modified) foods are already a large part of the Americans life; however, does the benefit of biotech outweigh the risks? (Cost and Benefits, 2014, pp. 155-170) Clearly, there are pros and cons that can apply to the different countries as deciding factors in the decision of using genetically modified seed or growing genetically foods. In the United States, the issue of safety in such a new under-studied science.
The Board is responsible for enforcing biological patents on Bt Cotton and reassuring through investigations that farmers are not defying their legal jurisdictions. Defiance of laws would result in litigation carried out by the board. Their monopolization in the Indian agricultural market bears power, which can be utilized to unjustly influence the Indian government. Their enforcements of biological patents yields them with great legitimacy. They are entitled to urgency as the effect of their patents on Indian farmers should be called to immediate attention, as it results in catastrophic impacts on human lives.
“Monsanto Attempts to Balance Stakeholder Interests” When a company decides to embark on new ideas, there will most likely be both positive and adverse outcomes. The company is sure to face battles on all fronts. When good or bad things happen, the business has to think about the stakeholders. Monsanto a company dealing with GM seeds is no different. One could argue that due to the sensitivity of the business they are more prone to hurtles.