Essay --

GMOs or GI Joes When I first began my research of GMOs, the name always reminded me of GI Joes. Well soon after learning what GMOs, were I quickly found out that the two have no relation. Now as I briefly enlighten you about GMOs, I would like for you to imaging a world where there is no longer starving people. Super powers and third world countries have the technology and the ability to feed its people. This may sound like a fairytale, but the technology is here at our fingertips for us to grasp onto and use. For centuries, man has found ways to manipulate nature and to select crops for more desirable traits. If society were to stumble across a technology that would further advance these selections, it could quite possibly and significantly reduce the number of starving and malnourished people in the world while at the same time benefit the producers. â€Å"The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimate that farmers will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to meet the needs of the world's expected 9-billion-strong population. That amounts to one billion tons more wheat, rice and other cereals.† Less than one per cent of the American population is responsible for growing and harvesting all of the food for this country alone. The demand overseas for American produce varies depending upon the product, but overall exceeds the supply. On the forefront of this worldwide embittering battle to end world hunger and provide cost-effective medicine, society has stumbled across the a nswer known as biotechnology and genetically engineered organisms. In the end, we shall see that the benefits outweigh the negatives. For a number of years now the United States has been the mainstay in the push for biotechnology research and testing... ...advancement has been disproved or legitimately refuted. Of the remaining positions, there are sensible alternatives. In order to protect innocent victims of allergies from blindly consuming potentially toxic elements, producers could label genetically altered products with the added contents. As for the scientific arguments, these have been in place for centuries from the dawn of time. If society has not found an answer to them yet, then certainly they pose no immediate risk and are overshadowed by the potential benefits. In the end, Dennis Avery best describes how the public should react to biotechnology. â€Å"The big truth is that there is no inherent danger from biotechnology, in either food or medicine. We should take the modest risks of researching these powerful technologies because they have the potential to save millions of human lives and our habitats.† Essay -- GMOs or GI Joes When I first began my research of GMOs, the name always reminded me of GI Joes. Well soon after learning what GMOs, were I quickly found out that the two have no relation. Now as I briefly enlighten you about GMOs, I would like for you to imaging a world where there is no longer starving people. Super powers and third world countries have the technology and the ability to feed its people. This may sound like a fairytale, but the technology is here at our fingertips for us to grasp onto and use. For centuries, man has found ways to manipulate nature and to select crops for more desirable traits. If society were to stumble across a technology that would further advance these selections, it could quite possibly and significantly reduce the number of starving and malnourished people in the world while at the same time benefit the producers. â€Å"The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimate that farmers will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to meet the needs of the world's expected 9-billion-strong population. That amounts to one billion tons more wheat, rice and other cereals.† Less than one per cent of the American population is responsible for growing and harvesting all of the food for this country alone. The demand overseas for American produce varies depending upon the product, but overall exceeds the supply. On the forefront of this worldwide embittering battle to end world hunger and provide cost-effective medicine, society has stumbled across the a nswer known as biotechnology and genetically engineered organisms. In the end, we shall see that the benefits outweigh the negatives. For a number of years now the United States has been the mainstay in the push for biotechnology research and testing... ...advancement has been disproved or legitimately refuted. Of the remaining positions, there are sensible alternatives. In order to protect innocent victims of allergies from blindly consuming potentially toxic elements, producers could label genetically altered products with the added contents. As for the scientific arguments, these have been in place for centuries from the dawn of time. If society has not found an answer to them yet, then certainly they pose no immediate risk and are overshadowed by the potential benefits. In the end, Dennis Avery best describes how the public should react to biotechnology. â€Å"The big truth is that there is no inherent danger from biotechnology, in either food or medicine. We should take the modest risks of researching these powerful technologies because they have the potential to save millions of human lives and our habitats.†